September 22nd update: Unfortunately, NARAL did not respond to my comment.  However, to be fair, I've reviewed their statement and realize that I might have over-reacted.  They may have been saying that the pro-life movement has a racist impact, but not have meant to suggest that the people who espouse pro-life thoughts are racist.  If that is the case, I would urge them to be more clear about that.

I sent this message to NARAL tonight, in response to their eblast.  

I am strongly pro-choice, but am aghast at your terrible character assassination of people who disagree with you.

As you well know, pro-life people consider abortion to be murder and are opposed to it under most circumstances (some are opposed to it under all circumstances).  Your quote from Henry Hyde demonstrates this position, but that he felt he was able to ban abortion only where federal funds were involved.

We need to respect each other in this country and discuss issues intelligently.  I’m sure those of you working for NARAL consider yourself to be tolerant, inclusive people, but that does not appear to be the case when you demonstrate and encourage hate, as you have done here, by labeling those who disagree “racist”.

Claude Thau
claude.thau@gmail.com

Phone direct: 913-707-8863; Schedule time with me by clicking here

Click here to connect with Claude on LinkedIn

From: Kate Ryan, NARAL Pro-Choice America <can@prochoiceamerica.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 2:39 PM
To: Claude Thau <claude.thau@gmail.com>
Subject: [Q&A for Claude] The Hyde Amendment

Rep. Ayanna Pressley is fighting to end Hyde in the upcoming funding bill. Will you join the chorus of voices demanding Congress end Hyde now?

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Claude— Our budgets are a reflection of our priorities. As Congress votes on the federal budget for the next year, we must challenge our representatives to actively oppose the inclusion of a racist and discriminatory insurance coverage ban, known as the Hyde Amendment, that effectively bars access to abortion care for millions of Americans, disproportionately harming low income women and women of color. Here’s the good news: We have a leader in Congress who is ready to fight for a budget that prioritizes equality, justice, the health and wellbeing of our communities, and the freedom to choose whether, when, and with whom to have a child. Representative Ayanna Pressley, with Reps. Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is leading the charge to make abortion care accessible for every body by introducing an amendment to strike this abortion coverage ban from our federal budget for 2021. NARAL Pro-Choice America is proud to join with Rep. Pressley and partners across the reproductive health, rights, and justice movements to call for an end to abortion coverage bans. We can build the future we deserve — with enough determination, with enough belief in ourselves and our cause. Will you join the chorus of voices demanding Congress end Hyde now? If you’re looking for more background on what exactly Rep. Pressley is trying to end, you’re in luck! Read on to hear my answers to 5 of the most common questions I get asked about the Hyde Amendment. Thank you for being in this fight with us, Kate Ryan Government Relations Director, NARAL Pro-Choice America What is the Hyde Amendment? The Hyde Amendment (and related restrictions) is a discriminatory federal policy that bans abortion services and insurance coverage in government-administered health-care programs except in very limited cases. This far-reaching policy affects many programs, such as Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, Federal Employees Health Benefits, Tricare, and more, resulting in millions of people being denied insurance coverage for the abortion care they need. Who does this affect most? These bans on coverage for abortion care affect Medicaid recipients, U.S. service members and veterans, Native Americans, Peace Corps volunteers, federal employees, and others. These anti-choice restrictions disproportionately harm people of color and people who are struggling to make ends meet. Is the Hyde Amendment discriminatory? Yes! Representative Henry Hyde, the original sponsor of the amendment in 1976, wanted to block all access to abortion, but at the time could only restrict access for Medicaid recipients. “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman,” he said. “Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is... the Medicaid bill.”1 Because people of color make up 59% of Medicaid recipients, his dream has now become a racist reality.2 Can you tell me more about what Rep. Pressley is doing? Rep. Pressley has filed an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) appropriations bill removing the abortion coverage ban from the bill, stating: Let me be clear, discriminatory abortion bans like the Hyde Amendment are blatantly racist and perpetuate systems of oppression and white supremacy that target people of color — especially Black people — and their bodily autonomy. This first ever pro-choice majority in the House of Representatives has a mandate and a responsibility to stand up for reproductive rights and justice for all, not just those who can afford it.3 So what can we do? The LLHS funding bill could go to the floor for a vote as soon as Monday — meaning we need to get loud now. Add your name to call on Congress to end the Hyde Amendment and other racist abortion coverage bans. And if you haven't already donated to support NARAL in the fight to ensure reproductive freedom is for every body, everywhere — no matter where you live or how much money you make — you can pitch in here! DONATE NOW Sources: The Hyde Amendment Denies Women Health Care. Yes, Abortion Is Health Care, TIME, Aug. 23, 2019. Distribution of the Nonelderly with Medicaid by Race/Ethnicity, KFF, 2018. Rep. Pressley Statement on Inclusion of Hyde Amendment in Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill, House.gov, Jul. 6, 2020. This message was sent to: claude.thau@gmail.com | If you'd like to sign up for emails in a different account, click here. We believe that emails are a crucial way for NARAL to stay in touch with supporters. However, if you'd like to unsubscribe, click here Our campaign to protect and expand reproductive freedom is powered by supporters like you. If you'd like to make an online donation, click here. Thanks for your support of NARAL! © Copyright 2020 NARAL Pro-Choice America 1725 Eye St. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006 All rights reserved.

Business Roundtable Statement of Purpose of a Corporation (serving stakeholders)

The Business Roundtable made major news recently with its adoption of a statement regarding the Purpose of a Corporation.  It was seen by supporters and opponents alike as a major restatement of corporate purpose and philosophy.

I have espoused these principles since at least the 1980s, as demonstrated by an article from a 1993 Transamerica publication. (I can send it upon request.  I'll admit that I am proud of it.)

Unfortunately, my philosophy was not as well-received as the article might suggest.   At times, superiors criticized me for being “too concerned” about the company’s employers on my staff. 

When I started reporting to a particular very highly-regarded (by everyone, generally with good reason) President of one of our subsidiaries, I told him “When we are a meeting with our distributors, I can imagine someone coming up to us and commenting to me ‘I see you now work for [name]’.  You’ll hear me slightly demur by responding ‘Yes, I report to {name].’  I report to you, but I work for our shareholders, our policyholders, our policyholders’ beneficiaries, our empoyees, our distributors, our suppliers, and regulators.  We share those stakeholders, so my efforts support yours.  In addition to reporting to you, I also work for you because you are part of many of those constituencies.”  Several years later, I learned that, in relating my comment to someone, he told that person I would rise no further in the company.

During the 1980s, “participatory management” training was common.  It meant being receptive to staff input and assuring that they have opportunities to contribute (😊).  Class attendees often said they were participatory managers but their “boss” was not a participatory manager (perception bias).  I would challenge them, stating that your “boss” can’t stop you from participating.  If you have a contribution to make, you can make it!  (Of course, a boss could retaliate but it is important to live with integrity.  I don’t like the term “boss” but use it here for simplicity.)

Over a longer period of time, a frequent management training discussion topic was: “Who is our client?”  In the insurance industry, the question boils down to a choice between the financial advisors who sell our product to consumers and the consumers who buy the insurance policy.  Those discussions frustrated me tremendously because I felt we should consider each of them and our other stakeholders.  A particular issue might force us to choose between conflicting interests of various stakeholders, in which case an issue-specific decision would be made to maximize the long-term mission of the company.  But in principle, there was no reason to give either distributors or consumers a subordinate position.

The President mentioned above joined us at the end of such a training program to summarize and answer questions.  Someone asked "who is our customer?".  I threw him what I thought was a nice softball, commenting that despite all this discussion, too many employees act as though the customer is the person to whom they report.  His comment was something like “Claude’s comment is interesting, but when ‘the man’ tells me what he wants, I do it.”  My initiative prompted him to undermine the supposed purpose of the two-day class.

A big problem in many companies is short-term focus.  I remember how excited I was the first time I was invited to a “long-term strategic” meeting.  I prepared by thinking about what the world might be like in 15 years, what we could contribute, how we might do so and steps we could take to be prepared.  When the meeting started, I learned it was about the balance of the current year and the next full year.  I criticized myself greatly for not having read the memo carefully and being unprepared as a result.  Sadly, the next time I got invited to such a meeting, the same thing happened, at which point I got a cold, clammy feeling realizing that the insurance company management considered this short horizon to be “long-term” planning.  We were issuing insurance policies which might be paying benefits in 60 years or later, and our “long-term” horizon was so short!

An interesting sidelight is that the Business Roundtable statement seems to draw more closely together the principles of managing a for-profit and a non-profit.  As a member of non-profit Boards, I was frequently told that non-profits have to be managed differently than for-profits because for-profits manage on behalf of the shareholder and non-profits manage on behalf of the people receiving their services.  I would counter that good for-profit and non-profit management are similar.  You fill a need for your clients.  If, at the end of the year, your financial results are not adequate, you need to take corrective action.  In each case, you project your results in advance, in order to steer properly.

Obviously, I agree with the Business Roundtable statement.  However, I would prefer the statement to tie stakeholder principles more closely to long-term profitability for the following reasons:

1. Long-term profitability of the business justifies/requires a stakeholder perspective for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the value of a good reputation and retention of staff, distributors and clients.  The statement is consistent with Milton Friedman’s position that corporations should maximize shareholder value and was unnecessarily controversial.  (My approach would not have muted all controversy, but it would have avoided some and resolved some discussion.)
2. The statement appeared, to many, to be a weak-kneed concession to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s demands that corporations allow employees to pick 40% of the Board membership.  Seeing the world in infinite shades of gray, I generally don’t favor strict proscriptions of that type.  But it seems to have worked well in Germany.  However, Germany has little employee ownership.  If we pass it in the USA, I would suggest an exemption or reduced requirements based on employee ownership and a sunset clause (would make it more acceptable to many).  See separate write-up.  
3. Rather than deterring regulation, it might inspire what I might consider to be over-regulation.
4. By not tying it to long-term profitability, the statement risks proliferating lawsuits.
5. As noted above, I’d like to consider a long-term view in all respects, including profitability.

I believe we should achieve such goals through cultural change, by education and purchasing decisions (consumers and shareholder investment decisions).  That might be a Pollyanna approach, but we need some bully pulpit leaders to encourage ethical behavior and proper education in general.

Further thoughts about the impeachment (on 2020-02-01) after the Senate voted not to call witnesses and before it voted on whether to find President Trump guilty.

The Republicans have disgraced themselves in their overwhelming support for Trump over the past 3+ years.  However, even though I believe I would vote for Article 1 and although I believe I would have voted to call witnesses, if someone truly believes that President Trump’s actions relative to Ukraine are not sufficient grounds for impeachment, more witnesses testifying about what he did are not necessary.  

I'd want to talk with the people who think he did the actions in Article 1 but don't think it is sufficient grounds for impeachment.  I'd want to discuss with them what makes those actions impeachable or unimpeachable.  t'd ask whether it would be helpful to have witnesses testify regarding whether these actions justify impeachment.  about the constitutional law would be helpful.  

By the way, had I voted for witnesses, I would not have limited my support to the witnesses the Democrats wanted to call; I would also have agreed to call the Bidens, for example.  I don’t believe that Joe Biden misbehaved relative to Ukraine, although his son obviously exercised terrible judgement.  However, if the President feels that interrogating the Bidens about their actions is important to his defense, I would support their testimony.  If Joe Biden did nothing wrong, he should be willing to testify, perhaps happy to be able to clear up this issue.  (His initial reaction about testifying was off-base.)

I would have liked to have seen the Democrats focus on why Trump’s actions justify impeachment and challenging the Republicans to explain why not, rather than the Democrats’ “sound-bite” posturing about the importance of witnesses

There were some good arguments on both sides, but both sides undermine their credibility with terrible arguments.  The President’s attorneys argued that he did not do it, but he clearly did so.  I suspect they made that argument at his insistence.  Dershowitz argued that it can’t be a quid pro quo if President Trump thought it was in the interest of the USA that he be re-elected; I’d like to hear him defend that!  That sounds scary to me!

The Democrats continually argued that if there is a disagreement between the Executive Branch and Congress, Congress should make the final decision.  That’s scary, too!  The courts should decide; that’s why we have 3 branches of government.  The Democrats never really answered why they encouraged Judge Leon to dismiss the executive privilege case submitted by Charles Kupperman, whose attorney sought to keep the case alive even after the Democrats decided not to subpoena Kupperman.  They claim they dropped the case because they did not want to delay their impeachment action, but that does not make sense.  They knew (or should have known) that executive privilege could be critical in the Senate, so terminating the Kupperman case prolonged their likely effort, rather than shortening it.  I believe they could have kept the case open, at least for some time, without hindering their impeachment timeline.  (Saying the Senate could anoint Chief Justice Roberts to decide is still saying that Congress has the ability to decide, by making whatever determination they want.)  When I wrote my original piece, I did not know how I would vote on Article 2; now I believe I would vote “no”.

It seems as though some Democrats may prefer that Senate Republicans vote “no” on removing President Trump from office because:

1. They want to run against Trump. 
1. He has a lot of baggage.  If he is removed, the Republicans would nominate Pence or someone else who has less baggage.
2. They have planned their campaigns against Trump. A substitution would be disruptive.
3. Some Democratic candidates argue they are most likely to beat Trump; their argument suffers if Trump is not a candidate.

2. They want to gain control of the Senate by campaigning against the Republicans saying “Look at the Republicans; they all "sold out" to Trump”.

3. If President Trump were to be removed from office, Democrats likely would have less support in November
1. Democratic voters might feel less need to vote in November, because Trump would already be removed and momentum would “clearly” be on their side.
2. Some Republican voters would be incensed and more likely to contribute and to mobilize to get out the vote to punish the Democrats.
3. Moderates who lean against removing President Trump from office might shift votes to Republican candidates.

4. The way they speak about the first article and the way it is written, voting for the first article seemed to me to imply that President Trump conspired with the Russians in the last election.  The Democrats keep talking about his doing that “again”, this time in Ukraine for 2020.  How can a Republican vote that Trump conspired with Russia?  When the Mueller report’s findings were discussed in the media, I thought that maybe there was a conspiracy which Mueller couldn’t prove.  However, upon reading the Mueller report, I now think that is unlikely and the passage of time without evidence popping up reduces the likelihood further.  (Some Democrats have told me that the wording is strictly intended to relate to asking for help, not conspiring, citing Trump's request that the Russians release Hillary Clinton's missing tapes, if they have them.  That request by Trump seems to pale compared to the Democrats having hired Steele to seek dirt on Trump from Russia and President Obama asking Medvedev for a "favor" in his open mic incident.)

5. The way they speak about the second article, it is mutually exclusive to the first article.  They say that President Trump is writing impeachment out of the constitution and that it is impossible to impeach him because of the obstruction.  If that is true, how did they come up with the first article?  I’m not saying that the first article is invalid; I’m saying that the way the Democrats discuss and worded the second article makes it harder to justify voting for the first article (not impossible, but harder).

6. I believe the strongest article of impeachment was obstruction with Mueller by instructing McGahn to lie and by tampering with witnesses, but the Democrats did not include that charge.  The explanation I’ve heard (“the Mueller report has been debunked”) doesn’t persuade me.  The Mueller report was superficially debunked; people who have seriously considered it do not consider it to be debunked.  Secondly, the Ukraine claims are being debunked in similar fashion.  If the Mueller obstruction issues are dropped because of being debunked, probably article 1 should be as well.  (I think it is obvious that I don’t think Article 1 should be dropped; my point being that the specified Mueller obstruction charges should not have been dropped.)

7. Some of their comments in the Senate trial seem to intentionally alienate Republicans who might side otherwise side with them.

Please understand, I am not defending President Trump.  He unquestionably has acted unconscionably repeatedly.  He certainly did what he is accused of doing in Ukraine.  I think he has acted in ways that justify being removed from office.

Position Re: The Impeachment of President Donald Trump

Background context to my thoughts regarding the impeachment (can skip past asterisks to get to the meat): At my 50^th college reunion, I attended two discussion sessions initiated to discuss social issues.  Attendees were disproportionately leftist.  I prefer to discuss issues with people who disagree with me, so I can learn more, teach more, find common ground and hopefully move us toward solutions.  So, naturally, I defended my rightist friends’ positions, to the degree I deemed appropriate, in this setting.  One attendee asked me if I was comfortable being described as a “raging moderate”, a new label for me.  I don’t like labels; the world is complex, and labels over-simplify people’s positions.  Nonetheless, I am comfortable with that label.

Because of such efforts to respect and demonstrate the rationale of each group’s thinking, some of my rightist friends seem to discount my comments as coming from an extreme leftist, while some leftist friends discount me as an extreme rightist.  Were either correct, they should still consider my arguments.  In fact, my voting history belies that:

• I voted for the second President Bush the first time he ran.  However, I decided I made a mistake when I saw how he handled the “chad” issue in Florida.  When he ran for re-election, I voted for Kerry.
• I voted for and campaigned for President Obama when he first ran.  However, he abandoned support for the wonderful Simpson-Bowles budget plan he had solicited (deserting his campaign budget plank) and fomented class warfare (an observation I made to my wife before I saw any such comments elsewhere).  So, I ceased supporting President Obama in general (although I supported some of his actions, of course) and voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.
• In 2016, I told people that, as I lived in a non-contested state (Trump was certain to win Kansas), I had both the luxury and the responsibility to vote for neither candidate.  So, I voted for Evan McMullin.  I noted that if I was in a contested state, I would reluctantly vote for Hillary Clinton.  (When that came up in a conversation with a Democratic friend recently, she shouted that “a vote for anyone other than Hillary was a vote for Trump”.  When I repeated that I was in a non-contested state, she was silent.  Maybe she understood, but couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge my position. 

I believe we all have a responsibility to give serious thought to the political issues dividing our country, to express ourselves and to stimulate and listen to other citizens’ thoughts.  If you’d like a copy of the Mueller report, Horowitz report or articles of impeachment, I would be happy to send you copies with some high-lighting and a few annotations.  We are all very busy and can’t study everything in detail, but I have read the full executives summaries of those reports, a bit of other Horowitz text and a lot of Mueller text (some twice).  I also regularly watch CNN, listen to NPR and read the Kansas City Star and Wall Street Journal.  When I refer to "mainstream media" below, I am judging CNN, NPR and the Kansas City Star.  I don't comment herein on Fox Media, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, etc., because I don't listen to them.

*******************************************

I would expect anyone paying attention to the impeachment of President Trump to be distraught by both political parties.  Most of our most vocal politicians seem to have:

1. Placed their personal political careers above the national interest.
2. Placed their parties’ political interests above the national interest.
3. Misrepresented the facts, in efforts to incite/mislead/dupe the public.
4. Served interests of our nation’s enemies by intentionally dividing our country.  Russia wants us to bicker, doubt ourselves and be distracted.  Both parties have contributed greatly (and unnecessarily) to Russian goals.  (I am not saying that it was their goal to help the Russians.  Helping the Russians was simply a result of their pursuit of personal political tactics at the expense of our country.) 

My greatest fear regarding impeachment of President Trump has been that we will descend into a series of ever-flimsier impeachments when the House is dominated by a party other than the President’s party.  As our politicians are quick to leverage prior precedent for ever-increasing mischief, I perceive this to be a huge risk.

Our politicians have foisted on us a choice between rewarding a partisan impeachment or condoning unacceptable behavior.  Either option creates a toxic precedent.  As is too frequently our political dilemma, we must find the less destructive of bad choices.  (I will disclose my inclination below.)  Such choices will continue to be common unless voters stop rewarding their politicians’ misbehavior.

I am among many who objected to Mitch McConnell’s statement that his number one goal, after President Obama’s initial election, was to assure that President Obama would be a one-term president.  However, many people who objected to McConnell’s statement adopted a much more aggressive stance when Trump was elected, not simply opposing his potential re-election, but seeking grounds to impeach him.

For 3 years, I have advised friends supporting “the Resistance” that the exaggerations and deceptions of the Resistance would make it hard to convince independents and conservatives that a potential impeachment would be other than a partisan exercise.  However, the vast majority of such friends “blew me off”, applauding the misdeeds of the Resistance or at least excusing them.  Polls indicate that I was right.

The Left properly castigates Republicans for lining up so uniformly behind Trump during his Presidency.  They properly point out that Republicans would be singing a different tune if President Obama were the target of these efforts rather than President Trump.

However, the Democrats are also monolithic and inconsistent.  Sadly, the mainstream media focuses on the Republicans, intentionally ignoring the equally strong point that the Democrats and the media would be singing a different tune if President Obama were the target of these efforts.  Mainstream media does not report the dramatically contrary comments Democrats make about impeachment today compared to their comments when President Clinton was impeached.  The mainstream media routinely brushed off serious lies and misjudgments from President Obama.  (President Obama did not lie anywhere nearly as often as President Trump, but he was a much more skillful liar, appearing to be telling the truth when he was lying.  It is more important for the media to do its job uncovering lies when those lies seem truthful.)

The impeachment accusations are stated in a way that makes it very hard for a Republican to support the charges.  While the Left likes to characterize Republicans as being fearful that President Trump will undermine their re-election, it is worth noting that none of the 21 retiring Republicans in the House voted for either impeachment article.  Why weren’t the Democrats able to secure any of those votes for either article?

The presentation of the charges causes me to wonder if the Democrats prefer that the Republicans vote 100% against impeachment because they (the Democrats) want to use that as a campaign issue in the 2020 election.

Consider the (potential) charges against President Trump:

1)      I think the most effective charge against President Trump is that he obstructed the Mueller probe.  Mueller produced evidence of the President trying to undermine the probe in several ways: public criticisms, trying to replace Mueller or re-direct his mission, withholding information, lying, ordering McGahn to lie, and intimidating witnesses.  (You’ll note that I have not referenced Trump’s firing of Comey or the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya.  The Mueller report seems to confirm that Trump fired Comey because Comey assured him 3 times that Trump was not under investigation but insubordinately failed to honor Trump’s requests to state so publicly, without having the courage to tell Trump that he would not do so and explain his (Comey’s) reason.  It is also confirms that the Trump Tower meeting was grossly misrepresented by the Resistance.)

I don’t understand why obstruction of the Mueller probe was not included by the House.  If such an article were included and I was a Senator, I would expect to vote for it (pending evidence and hearing the thoughts of my fellow Senators and the prosecutors plus defense attorneys).

2)      It also seems clear that President Trump illegally risked our foreign policy toward Ukraine in order to pursue his personal interests.  However, the Democrats have not been satisfied to level a reasonable charge. 

a.       They claim impeachment is necessary to keep President Trump from interfering in a Presidential election again.  I object:

                                                              i.      Mueller did not find conspiracy/collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, despite taking a broad definition of conspiracy, including “tacit” as well as “express” agreement.  When the Mueller report was published, I thought there might have been conspiracy that simply had not been found (particularly because of the sharing of polling data*), but no other evidence has since emerged, reducing the possibility that conspiracy occurred.  (*Mueller highlighted that the Trump campaign inappropriately shared campaign data with the Russians, which was particularly damning because it occurred on multiple occasions.  However, Mueller explained that Manafort might have shared the data to demonstrate his potential value as a consultant to foreign clients during a presumed-to-be Trump presidency.  Clearly, this would be entirely unacceptable behavior, but it would not represent collusion/conspiracy.)

                                                            ii.      The actual wording in the impeachment article (“These actions are consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.”) is weaker than their public pronouncements because it charges “invitations” rather than collusion.  However, I object as I am unaware of a basis for this charge in the House proceedings and it is inconsistent with the Mueller report.  It seems to relate back to Trump’s public statement asking the Russians to release more of Hillary Clinton’s emails if they have them.  It is dangerous to attach speculative interpretations to what might be an off-the-cuff comment. (That is particularly true relative to President Trump because so much of his commentary consists of spontaneous reactions, which are often inaccurate and inconsistent from one moment to another.  Clearly, his communication style is destructively non-Presidential, but the Resistance points to all of his untruths, then illogically decides that the most incriminating of his statements is unequivocally true.)  Why did the Democrats include such wording?  To enflame their base?  As a poison pill for Republicans who might otherwise be inclined to support this article?

b.      I wouldn’t typically consider a foreign government investigation of something that was done in that foreign country to be interference in a US election, particularly if the investigation is completed before our election.

c.       Arguing for the second article of impeachment, Democrats claim President Trump is “writing impeachment out of the constitution”.  They claim the House cannot impeach the President because the President is withholding necessary evidence.  If that is true, then how can Democrats justify article 1?  Either they were able to get sufficient evidence, despite the President’s action, or his actions preclude finding the evidence.  A likely response is that his actions precluded additional articles, but clearly that undermines a statement that he is “writing impeachment out of the constitution”.  Like many Resistance statements, this exaggeration is intended to miseducate and enflame.  (Sadly, Trump plays into their hands.)

d.      Such exaggeration is similar to the media continually replaying one sentence in roughly 9 hours of testimony, in which the witness ill-advisedly said “If this [President Trump’s Ukraine activity] isn’t impeachable, nothing is.”  Is anyone who reads my comments so crazed by our politics as to agree with that statement?  Why would a supposedly balanced media continually select this idiotic statement to replay?

3)      It is not clear to me that the second charge (that Trump obstructed the impeachment) is proper grounds for impeachment.  If I was in the Senate, I’d have to study this issue a great deal and listen to what other people say.  I would have preferred President Trump to encourage testimony, but that does not mean that failure to comply with the House demands justifies impeachment.

As noted in c above, Democrats undermine their case by overstating publicly. 

The actual wording in the article is weaker, stating “President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry”, still an unnecessary overstatement.  Why not be satisfied to claim obstruction?  Again, the Democrats seem to have inserted wording for the political purpose of enflaming their base and possibly with the intent of making it difficult for a Republican to support.

As you likely inferred from my comments above, I would expect to vote for at least one article of impeachment if I was in the Senate, pending my more thorough review of existing evidence, listening to new evidence and, in particular, listening to discussion.  I favor more testimony, but would entertain arguments that it is unnecessary because, even if true, the submitted articles do not justify impeachment.  (Let me restate that I do not take that position, but I would respectfully listen to such arguments with an open mind.)

I would probably not object to calling Senator Biden and his son to testify.  I believe Senator Biden did not misbehave relative to Ukraine, but Hunter used bad judgment at a minimum.  The Democrats say President Trump should defend himself, that if he is innocent, he should have no qualms about the evidence coming out.  His defense might include trying to justify his concerns that Biden had been involved in corruption.

If I was Senator Biden, I would want to testify to clear my name.  The arguments the Democrats make as to why President Trump should defend himself apply even more so to Senator Biden because there are no potentially negative executive privilege or security issues involved in his testimony.

Although I expect that I would vote for impeachment, I would do so with sadness and anger toward the Resistance which has gone out of its way to sow discord instead of rationality.

In a related observation, I note that throughout this effort, the Democrats (with the strong support of mainstream media) have distracted our citizens from (i.e., covered up) misdeeds which did not fit their slanted anti-Trump narrative.  For example, contrast the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya (about which the Kansas City Star wrote “If that’s not collusion, we don’t know what collusion is”*) to the Steele Dossier. 

• In Trump Tower, Don Jr. accepted a meeting proposed by an Englishman to hear dirt a Russian said she could provide. 
• The Democrats paid an Englishman to collect dirt about Trump from Russians.  

• The Trump Tower meeting resulted in no dirt; clearly the most damning characterization would be that Don Jr. expressed interest in possibly colluding.
• The unsubstantiated and misleading “Steele Dossier” was planted in the media and was shamefully misrepresented to the FISA court.  Although the Horowitz report concluded the FBI was justified in beginning an investigation into possible collusion (I agree), it detailed and excoriated the repeated egregious FISA application misrepresentations, and the FISA judge concurred. 

(*not be an exact quote from the KC Star, but it accurately conveys their statement)

I think we spend too much time investigating each other seeking to find dirt, but the use of the Steele dossier in such fashion unquestionably required investigation.  Important reforms to the FISA process have resulted, which reforms would have been thwarted if the Democrats and mainstream media had succeeded in their efforts to bury the misbehavior.

We must hold both parties and our media to higher standards.  Your comments are welcome, of course.

Medicaid Expansion

Steve Rose (who I respect greatly!) wrote an editorial in favor of Medicaid expansion (Steve's article).   Here is a response I wrote to Steve:

Dear Steve,

Your attack on Jim Denning may be justified relative to his position, but I think you’ve missed the point about opposition to Medicaid expansion.  Normally, your articles are strongly educational, but this article appears to veer strongly to the other side, contributing to massive mis-education of the public.

You argue that “the bulk of expenses are paid for by the federal government”, the typical misleading short-term-focus argument of those espousing Medicaid expansion.  You then indicate repeatedly that opposition to Medicaid expansion is petty politics.

Personally, I am not inclined to expand Medicaid in this fashion, but I am not completely opposed to it, as explained below.  However, we should have honest, balanced discussion.

Here’s how I view the ACA Medicaid expansion.  Please advise if you think I am incorrect.

1. The Federal government is NOT paying for it.  It increases the Federal government debt which is already an incredible burden on future generations. (We practice severe systemic taxation without representation by foisting current costs on future generations and it is beyond their carrying load.)
2. All Federal money comes from the citizens in one way or another.
3. Approximately half of the cost of Medicaid is traditionally charged to the Federal budget.
4. The Democrats wanted to extend Medicaid but knew the states could not afford their half.  (Whether the Federal budget could afford its half was irrelevant because it would just be added to the debt.)
5. So the Democrats said that 100% would be charged against the Federal budget for 2014-2016, dropping to 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and supposedly levelling off at 90% for 2020 and beyond.
6. (The Democrats also wanted to punish states that did not expand Medicaid by withdrawing their traditional Medicaid funding.  However, the Supreme Court invalidated this, so it is no longer relevant, other than perhaps in understanding the intent.)
7. (CT Update: further research indicates that this never made it into the law.)  Correct me please if this has changed.  At one point, the ACA said that once a state expands Medicaid, it has no right to reverse thereafter.  I don’t think the Supreme Court decision over-turned this, but I don’t know if this is still the case.  Is such a restriction appropriate?  Why put such wording in the law?  I think the wording is intended to allow the federal government to increase the unfunded mandate it imposes on states, by reducing the percentage of Medicaid expansion cost charged to the federal government in the future.  
8. Are you aware of anything that would restrict the Federal government from increasing the states’ shares in the future?

The Medicaid expansion argument that “citizens in other states are paying for it, so we should grab as much as we can” (or “we’re paying the money to Washington, we should at least get our share back”) is related to the mentality that leads to “roads to nowhere” and keeping unnecessary federal facilities open.  To me, such a system and such a mindset are dangerous examples of the “tragedy of the commons”.

A more minor issue that you can perhaps help me with is the eligibility up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).  Is that because legislators feel that people above a proper poverty level need help with insurance costs (I think so) or is it because they feel the FPL is defined at too low an income level?  If the FPL is raised to an appropriate level (subjective of course), will thresholds above FPL be appropriate?

I’m concerned about people lacking access to health care and I understand that providing health care creates jobs, improves recipients’ productivity, lowers other costs and reduces net income disparity, all of which are positives.  However, the debate should be based on those issues and what decisions should be federal vs. state, recognizing the full cost rather than promoting this “other states will pay” argument.

I remain a big fan of yours despite disappointment with this particular article.

Claude

Is Trump Machivellian?

The David Gelernter article referenced here comes from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-reason-they-hate-trump-1540148467

I significantly disagree with Gelernter’s favorable view of Trump as Machiavellian.

A Machiavellian leader is intentional and unemotional in his/her decisions.

Machiavelli’s goal was stability.  The leader should appear noble, but be willing to selectively do evil things to protect power.  Part of Machiavelli’s guile was to shower others with praise so they wouldn’t envy your power.

Trump, in contrast, is overly sensitive and chaotic.  His self-praise is ridiculed and convinces people that he is incompetent.  Rather than being Machiavellian, he is easy pickings for someone who is Machiavellian because of his ego.

Trump is a terrible liar; everyone knows he is lying.  President Obama was much more accomplished in being a Machiavellian liar to USA citizens.  He was selective and effective.  Unfortunately, the left, in general, is much more accomplished at this skill.  They, with the help of liberal domination of our educational system and mainstream media, secure power by appearing to be noble while deceiving a gullible public.

Trump unnecessarily continually creates opponents and unnecessarily arms them to defeat him.

As the old saying goes “Loose lips sink ships.”  Trump may have the loosest lips of any politician in our lifetime.  You consider this to be Machiavellian behavior?

As regards international affairs, Machiavelli identified 3 approaches and recommended the second:

“Three methods have been used by republics for extending their power. One… is to form a confederation of many States, wherein none has precedence over the rest in authority or rank, and each allows the others to share its acquisitions… The second method is to provide yourself with allies or companions, taking heed, however, to retain in your own hands the chief command, the seat of government, and the titular supremacy…
The third method is to hold other States in direct subjection to you, and not merely associated with you as companions.”

Consider Trump’s international strategy:

1. His support of Israel has been good and his support of Saudi Arabia could be seen as Machiavellian.
2. He took a good strong stance on North Korea initially (for more commentary, see my blog at the time) but backed off with no results.
3. Focusing on China’s theft of intellectual property, unfair trade practices and international aggression would be a smart thing to do, but you should align your allies behind you in that move.  Likewise, you should align them against Iran, if you want to put pressure on Iran.  Instead, he unnecessarily fractures alliances.  You think Machiavelli would approve of Trump’s behavior?  Machiavelli would take on other countries sequentially, not indiscriminately and simultaneously.

In Helsinki, he not only offended the USA public, he also armed his adversary, Putin, with words that Putin could use against the USA.  Some of Trump’s praise of Putin reflects Machiavellian principles (and Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly but carry a big stick”), but some of it should be done privately and the public portion can be done in a way that does not undermine his support at home so much.  If his approach to Putin is Machiavellian, it is incompetent (or at best, mediocre).

Machiavelli’s goal of stability would be to unite people in a particular belief, while making them aware that they would be punished if they did not align themselves.  Rather than uniting us with a big idea, Trump continually makes enemies unnecessarily, fracturing us.

I’ve often feared our likely lack of unity if we went to war.  Trump exacerbates that risk.  If he takes us to war, the population will not rally behind him.  Again, very different from Machiavelli.

The author argued that the Democrats have no issues other than hating Trump.  I disagree.  The Democrats should have had minimal issues, but Trump and the Republicans mismanaged the situation.  Trump could have forged a positive solution to immigration, but failed to do so.  The Republicans failed to forge a good solution to healthcare.  That might not be Trump’s fault, but Trump and the Republicans allowed the health issue to be defined in a way that hugely favored the Democrats.  They also allowed the Democrats to distort the new tax law, lumping all corporate tax break as helping the 1% despite the vast stock holdings of pension plans, the bonuses and raises that resulted from the tax break and the substantial reduction in unemployment rate which occurred despite pulling a huge number of people off the sidelines and into the population of those seeking employment.

To the degree that it is true that the Democrats successfully won many seats on a “hate Trump” basis, Trump’s incompetence is exposed.  If the other party has no issues, you shouldn’t lose elections.  You should be able to retain the desired power and stability.

Yes, many liberals are elitist.  Some are fundamentally racist, as exposed by their belief that educational expectations should be lowered for African-Americans.  But even the author admits that you don’t have to hate the common USA resident to hate Trump, thereby recognizing that his argument is not strong.

Gelernter argues that Trump reminds us of the average American.  I don’t agree.  His comment also reminds me that I have always recoiled at Senator Roman Hruska’s defense of Nixon’s failed effort to appoint G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court in 1970.  Hruska commented “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”  Am I elitist because I want to choose leaders who are outstanding rather than mediocre?

I think you view me as an ultra-liberal (ironically, a number of people view me as ultra- conservative; when I criticize people who someone supports, that person may gloss over the fact that I also criticize the people that they don’t support), but I also am concerned about the socialist left.

In my view, President Obama’s misdeeds led to a wave of Tea Party people being elected.  Now Trump has led to some socialists being elected.  Many in the media are saying that the socialist Democrats did not do well in the election, but I question whether the Democrats and their base will interpret the election in such fashion.

Nobody can do everything right and nobody does everything wrong.  Trump has done some good things (my willingness to acknowledge such offends some of my liberal friends).  By the same token, I think some of Machivelli’s advice is sound, even though I am repelled by the “ends justifies the means” philosophy of life and his corresponding approval of unethical behavior.  (Note: this is written on the presumption that “The Prince” reflected Machiavelli’s beliefs, rather than being a satire as some people think.)