Blogs | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en The Trump "Dossier" Is Looking More Credible All the Time <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The BBC's Paul Wood writes today about the infamous "dossier" that claims a substantial connection <a href="" target="_blank">between Russian officials and the Trump campaign team:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The BBC has learned that <strong>US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Kremlin involvement in Donald Trump's election</strong>&nbsp;&mdash; that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy.</p> <p>....At one point [the dossier says]: "A leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation... would be exposed in the media there."...<strong>Sources I know and trust have told me the US government identified Kalugin as a spy while he was still at the embassy.</strong></p> <p>....I understand&nbsp;&mdash; from former officials&nbsp;&mdash; that from 2013-16, Steele gave the US government extensive information on Russia and Ukraine....One former senior official who saw these reports told me: "It was found to be of value by the people whose job it was to look at Russia every day"....Another who dealt with this material in government said: <strong>"Sometimes he would get spun by somebody. [But] it was always 80% there."</strong>...In light of his earlier work, the US intelligence community saw him as "credible" (their highest praise).</p> <p>....Members of the Obama administration believe, based on analysis they saw from the intelligence community, that the information exchange claimed by Steele continued into the election.</p> <p><strong>"This is a three-headed operation,"</strong> said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, <strong>posted by thousands of automated "bots",</strong> then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.</p> <p>The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of "microtargeting". Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters....This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hmmm. Thousands of bots? Apparently so:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Intel chairman says Russia hired more than 1000 hackers to create fake, anti-Clinton news in key states, won by Trump. <a href="">@jeffpeguescbs</a>, now <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) <a href="">March 29, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>On Wednesday the <em>Washington Post</em> published a story about <a href="" target="_blank">"Source D" in the dossier:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>In June, a Belarusan American businessman who goes by the name Sergei Millian shared some tantalizing claims about Donald Trump....The allegations by Millian &mdash; whose role was first reported by the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> and has been confirmed by <em>The Washington Post</em> &mdash; were central to the dossier compiled by the former spy, Christopher Steele. While the dossier has not been verified and its claims have been denied by Trump, <strong>Steele&rsquo;s document said that Millian&rsquo;s assertions had been corroborated by other sources, including in the Russian government and former intelligence sources.</strong></p> <p>The most explosive allegation that the dossier says originally came from Millian is the claim that <strong>Trump had hired prostitutes at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton and that the Kremlin has kept evidence of the encounter.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Nobody knows for sure if Millian is genuinely plugged in at high levels, or if he's just a fast-talking huckster. But put all this together and it's easy to see why the Trump-Russia story won't go away. The FBI believes Steele to be credible. In the cases where it's been possible to check out the allegations in the dossier, they've turned out to be true. Other intelligence corroborates much of the alleged Russian activity. And Millian's claims are genuinely explosive.</p> <p>This isn't going away anytime soon.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:37:07 +0000 Kevin Drum 329361 at In Face of Corn Boycott, Trump Decides NAFTA Not So Bad After All <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Mexico is threatening to use the power of corn to fight Donald Trump's <a href="" target="_blank">tough talk on trade:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>As President Trump threatens Mexico with drastic changes on trade, its leaders are wielding corn as a weapon. Mexico&rsquo;s Senate is considering legislation <strong>calling for a boycott of U.S. corn,</strong> and the government has begun <strong>negotiating with Argentina and Brazil to import corn from those nations tax-free.</strong> The threat of a boycott is Mexico&rsquo;s latest and perhaps cleverest attempt to fight back against Trump, whose threats to pull out of free trade agreements and slap a 20% import tax on Mexican products have shaken confidence in Mexico&rsquo;s economy.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="" target="_blank">And apparently it's working:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The Trump administration is signaling to Congress <strong>it would seek mostly modest changes</strong> to the North American Free Trade Agreement in upcoming negotiations with Mexico and Canada, a deal President Donald Trump called a &ldquo;disaster&rdquo; during the campaign.</p> <p>....The draft, reviewed by <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>, talks of <strong>seeking &ldquo;to improve procedures to resolve disputes,&rdquo;</strong> rather than eliminating the panels. The U.S. also wouldn&rsquo;t use the Nafta negotiations to deal with disputes over foreign currency policies or to hit numerical targets for bilateral trade deficits, as some trade hawks have been urging.</p> <p>....Jeffrey Schott, a trade scholar at the Peterson Institute for International Economics...noted that <strong>a number of the proposed negotiating objectives echo provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,</strong> a 12-nation trade pact among Pacific Rim countries. Mr. Trump campaigned heavily against the TPP.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do not underestimate the power of corn! Alternatively, maybe corn has nothing to do with it. Maybe Trump was just blathering all along and never really had any intention of getting tough with Mexico. In the end, he'll build a few more miles of fencing, make a few modest changes to NAFTA, and then call it the greatest boon to the working man since the Wagner Act. I've also read a few pieces recently about China, and apparently all those Goldman Sachs folks he hired have talked Trump into backing down on a trade war there too. I guess Goldman Sachs has to be good for something.</p> <p>Anyway, having given up on Mexico and China, now Trump is going after the ultra-conservatives of the House Freedom Caucus:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, &amp; fast. We must fight them, &amp; Dems, in 2018!</p> &mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="">March 30, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>I'll bet they're scared shitless. Trump is demonstrating that his talk may be big, but he can't make it stick. In his first two months, he's failed on his immigration order and his health care plan, has no chance of building his wall, and has backed down on Mexico and China. His bark is unquestionably worse than his bite.</p> <p>The health care bill would have flamed out in the Senate anyway. The HFC did everyone a favor by getting it off the agenda quickly so Congress could move on to important matters like cutting taxes for the rich.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:22:12 +0000 Kevin Drum 329356 at BREAKING: Donald Trump Doesn't Care About Science <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Donald Trump appears not to care about science. <a href="" target="_blank">CAN THIS REALLY BE TRUE???</a></p> <blockquote> <p>On the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the staff of the White House chief technology officer has been virtually deleted, down from 24 members before the election to, by Friday, only one.</p> <p>....Mr. Trump has not yet named his top advisers on technology or science, and so far, has made just one hire: Michael Kratsios, the former chief of staff for Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley investor and one of the president&rsquo;s wealthiest supporters, as the deputy chief technology officer.</p> <p>Neither Mr. Kratsios, who has a bachelor&rsquo;s degree in political science from Princeton, nor anyone else still working in the science and technology office regularly participates in Mr. Trump&rsquo;s daily briefings, as they did for President Barack Obama. &ldquo;The impression this leaves is that Trump isn&rsquo;t interested in science and that scientific matters are a low priority at the White House,&rdquo; said Vinton G. Cerf, a computer scientist, vice president of Google and one of the chief architects of the internet.</p> </blockquote> <p>The problem with science is (a) it's bo-o-o-o-o-ring, (b) it's depressing, and (c) it often clashes with stuff you want to do. Really, it's just a bummer all around. Why on earth would anyone <em>want</em> to staff the egghead department, anyway?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:05:07 +0000 Kevin Drum 329331 at Yes, Of Course People on Obamacare Are Getting Lots of Medical Care <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Jordan Weissmann <a href="" target="_blank">writes this today:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>One of Tom Price&rsquo;s go-to criticisms of the Affordable Care Act is that it does not, in fact, provide people much in the way of care. The law has helped many Americans obtain insurance, sure. <strong>But because the policies have such high deductibles, he argues, patients still can&rsquo;t afford medical help.</strong> "People have coverage, but they don&rsquo;t have care," the Health and Human Services secretary likes to say.</p> </blockquote> <p>We can all agree that high deductibles are a problem. Weissman, however, describes a new study which shows that actual medical care, not just insurance coverage, has increased under Obamacare. This is true of both people covered by the Medicaid expansion and people covered by the exchanges.</p> <p>But did we really need a lot of fancy statistics to figure this out? Focusing only on the exchanges (since Medicaid has no deductibles):</p> <ul><li><a href="" target="_blank">CBO estimates</a> that total federal subsidies this year will amount to $31 billion.</li> <li>Add another third or so paid out of pocket, and we get to $40 billion in total premiums paid to insurance companies.</li> <li>Insurance companies are required to spend 80 percent of premiums on actual medical care, which comes to $32 billion.</li> <li>Finally, the exchanges cover about 10 million people, which means the average Obamacare recipient will receive about $3,200 in medical care this year.</li> </ul><p>My arithmetic might be off a bit here and there, but not by a lot. One way or another, the average person insured through the Obamacare exchanges receives $3-4,000 in medical care. There's no way around that.</p> <p>High deductibles may be a problem, but they aren't preventing people from getting a pretty considerable amount of medical care that they weren't getting before. Where do Republicans get this stuff, anyway?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:28:33 +0000 Kevin Drum 329326 at Quote of the Day: What Bush Thought Of Trump's Inauguration <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>On January 20th,&nbsp; Donald Trump was inaugurated president in a nightmare I somehow am still unable to wake&nbsp; from. You may remember it! It was poorly attended and he was very upset and spent like a week crying and made his press secretary go out and lie about the attendance and then was mad at that same press secretary not for lying but for wearing ill-fitting suits. These are all things that happened only months ago and yet the trauma, tragedy, and sheer ridiculousness of the last few months make them feel like a lifetime ago.</p> <p>Another thing that is real and happened once in life is that the US in the olden days&mdash;the Before Time&mdash;had this president named George W. Bush who was the son of another president named George Bush. (What's that saying? 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on Humpty-Dumpty. Fool me three time, the baby is going out with the bath water'?) Neither of them were very good presidents. Indeed, the Younger was quite unGood. Started an unnecessary war against the wrong country, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. Liked clearing brush in Texas. <a href="" target="_blank">He's a painter now. </a></p> <p>These two surreal characters, each of which would be considered an unrealistic element in an even moderately good screenplay, shared screen-time during the inauguration. Obama and Clinton, and the other presidents former, were there too. Some others as well. <a href="" target="_blank">Not many</a> but some.</p> <p>So what did the last Republican president think of the current Republican president's inauguration?</p> <p>According to occasional <em>Mother Jones </em>contributor Yashar Ali's report in <em>New York Mag</em>, <a href="" target="_blank">not much</a>!</p> <blockquote> <p>But, according to three people who were present, Bush gave a brief assessment of Trump&rsquo;s inaugural after leaving the dais: &ldquo;That was some weird shit.&rdquo; All three heard him say it.</p> <p>A spokesman for Bush declined to comment.</p> </blockquote> <p>He's not wrong!</p> <p>Have a super evening but don't forget to, before you go to sleep tonight, fold your hands and pray that in the morning we all wake up and it's 1999 and none of this ever happened.</p></body></html> Contributor Ben's Thoughts Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:56:48 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 329321 at Is It Really Illegal to Make Undercover Recordings in California? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I Am Still Not A Lawyer, and I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but I've gotten a fair amount of pushback to my post <a href="" target="_blank">last night</a> suggesting that the folks who did the undercover Planned Parenthood videos shouldn't be prosecuted. The pushback takes two forms. First, they're horrible people who did horrible things. Second, California law requires consent from both parties for any kind of recording, and they broke that law. They should pay for this.</p> <p>As to the first, I agree that they did horrible things and endangered people. But that's not what they're charged with. As to the second, California law (<a href=";sectionNum=1708.8" target="_blank">link here</a>) is not as clear-cut as you might think:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">2) There is an exception for entities "either public or private", investigating "suspected illegal activity or other misconduct." <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) <a href="">March 29, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>If a real live California attorney with specific experience in this area wants to chime in, I'm all ears. For now, though, no matter how much I loathe what they did, I don't like the idea of prosecuting people for political activities unless their violation of the law is very serious and very clear. This is neither.</p> <p>Criminal prosecution of secret recordings is rare in California, and I'd just as soon keep it that way. There's a huge amount of prosecutorial discretion involved in this case, and that's a recipe for political retaliation against ideas we don't like. That's where I get off the train.</p> <p><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Then again, we have this:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="">@kdrum</a> Jeryl Bier cited the civil code, not the penal code. The penal code does not provide exceptions for recording suspected illegal acts.</p> &mdash; Ed Herzog (@edherzogcoach) <a href="">March 30, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>The penal code is stricter than the civil code, "but excludes a communication made in a public gathering." I don't know if this refers only to public meetings (town halls, protests, etc.) or to any public place, like a restaurant. Probably the former.</p> <p>This is all kind of strange. Why would there be an "investigatory" exception for lawsuits but not for criminal prosecutions?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:18:56 +0000 Kevin Drum 329316 at Obamacare Doesn't Save Many Lives. But Why Do We Focus So Much on That? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Ross Douthat raised a common conservative talking point <a href="" target="_blank">in his column this weekend:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>It&rsquo;s worth raising once again the most counterintuitive and frequently scoffed-at point that conservatives have made about Obamacare:</p> <p><em>It probably isn&rsquo;t saving many lives.</em></p> <p>One of the most powerful arguments in the litany that turned moderate Republican lawmakers to jelly was that they were voting to &ldquo;make America sick again,&rdquo; to effectively kill people who relied on the Affordable Care Act for drugs and surgery and treatment....So far the evidence is conspicuously missing.</p> </blockquote> <p>The words <em>probably</em> and <em>many</em> are doing a heavy lift here, but let's set that aside. Douthat is almost certainly right. Here's why:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_death_rate_by_age_2015_large_1.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;" width="628"></p> <p>People in the US don't die much before age 65, so health insurance for working-age folks has never been likely to have much effect on death rates.<sup>1</sup> Below age 55, it's even less likely: the death rate is so minuscule that it would take a miracle to invent <em>any</em> kind of health-related practice that had a measurable effect on life expectancy. If the crude death rate is already below 0.5 percent, there's just no way to reduce it much more.</p> <p>And yet, people like health care anyway. They like it so much that we're collectively willing to spend vast amounts of money on it. As you've probably heard many dozens of times, health care is one-sixth of the economy. On average, that means we all pay about one-sixth of our income to provide health care for ourselves.</p> <p>Why? At the risk of repeating the obvious, <em>most medical care isn't about lifespan.</em> Before age 65, almost none of it is about lifespan. It's about feeling better. I'm taking a very expensive chemotherapy drug that probably won't delay my eventual death by much, but it <em>will</em> improve my life considerably in the meantime. Ditto for the antidepressant I take. And for the arthroscopic knee surgery I had a couple of decades ago.</p> <p>The same is true for putting a leg in a cast; prescribing an asthma inhaler; replacing a hip; treating an infection; inserting an IUD; treating a hernia; removing a cataract; prescribing a statin; or a hundred other medical procedures. Only a small percentage of what doctors do is lifesaving.</p> <p>It's a measure of our impoverished sense of empathy that we spend so much time focused on whether health care saves lives. Liberals do it because it's the only thing guaranteed to get a positive reaction. Even stone conservatives don't want people dying in the streets. If progressives focused instead on the fact that health coverage saves money and makes you feel better, there's a good chance that support for wider health coverage would suffer substantially. To an awful lot of people, just making others "feel better" doesn't seem worth paying taxes for.</p> <p>So instead we end up in a proxy war about people dying. It's not the sign of a mature society, but then again, who ever said we were a mature society?</p> <p><sup>1</sup>The big exception is dying at birth or during the first year of life. The United States has an appallingly poor record on that score, especially among the poor and non-white.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:48:17 +0000 Kevin Drum 329306 at Lunchtime Photo <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>It's wildflower season in the desert, and nearby Anza-Borrego was said to have a "superbloom" this year. I didn't feel like making the trek out there, especially since I'd have to wake up around 4 am to get there for sunrise, but a reader suggested that I check out Upper Newport Bay instead. That's a more civilized 6:30 am wakeup call. So that's where I was last Saturday.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_lunchtime_newport_bay_sunrise_large.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 0px 0px;" width="630"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:34:29 +0000 Kevin Drum 329246 at Globalization Isn't Dead, But It's Taking a Nap <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The <em>Wall Street Journal</em> says that <a href="" target="_blank">globalization is dead,</a> killed on a rising tide of financial crisis, populism, and nationalist politics. Some threads of their evidence are more convincing than others, but a quick look at global trade shows that they have a point:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_world_trade_large.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;" width="628"></p> <p>Since 2011, world trade (in both merchandise and services) has grown at a rate of about 0.8 percent per year. By 2014 it had barely recovered to its pre-recession high. That compares to a growth rate of over 17 percent per year in the first eight years of the century. Globalization may not be dead, but it's definitely taking a nap.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:18:46 +0000 Kevin Drum 329241 at Why Does Apple Object to News About Drone Strikes? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Over at the <em>Intercept</em>, Josh Begley has a story that's disturbing&mdash;<a href="" target="_blank">but not in the usual <em>Intercept</em> way:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Five years ago, I made a simple iPhone app. It would send you a push notification every time a U.S. drone strike was reported in the news. Apple rejected the app three times, calling it &ldquo;excessively objectionable or crude content.&rdquo;</p> <p>....In 2014, after five rejections, Apple accepted the app....But the following September, Apple decided to delete the app entirely. They claimed that the content, once again, was &ldquo;excessively objectionable or crude.&rdquo;...Well, Apple&rsquo;s position has evolved. Today, after 12 attempts, the Metadata app is back in the App Store.</p> <p>....<strong>Update: 2:32pm.</strong> Apple has removed Metadata from the App Store.</p> </blockquote> <p>There is, needless to say, nothing objectionable or crude about this app. It merely aggregates news on a particular subject. Drone strikes themselves may be objectionable and crude&mdash;opinions differ, obviously&mdash;but reporting on them isn't.</p> <p>This matters. Upwards of half of all Americans get some or most of their news from their mobile devices, and for all practical purposes there are only two options in the mobile device world: iOS and Android. If you can't get an app accepted on either platform, then no one will ever see your app. Apple and Google are the sole gateways to what we can and can't see.</p> <p>Now, there are obviously other ways of getting the news. There may even be a website that aggregates drone news the same way Begley's app does. Still, there's no question that an app can do things a news site can't. It can make the news more immediate. It can make sure you don't miss anything. It can allow you to share more easily with fellow activists.</p> <p>When Google and Apple are just keeping out porn sites, no one really cares. Even when they're nixing apps that happen to compete with Apple or Google, people mostly shrug. But when they start censoring apps based on their news content, we're in trouble. If there were dozens of mobile platforms, and none of them had a big market share, it might not matter too much. Competition would probably sort things out. But when there are only two, it matters a lot. There may still be plenty of news outlets, but in a real-world sense we're increasingly outsourcing our news to a tiny number of players&mdash;mostly Apple, Google, and Facebook. We may wake up some morning and be sorry we did that.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:16:20 +0000 Kevin Drum 329186 at EU-Britain Divorce Will Get Started... Someday <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Prime Minister Theresa May submitted an official notice today the Great Britain will be <a href="" target="_blank">exiting the European Union:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Now that Prime Minister May has officially given notice to Tusk, the next step is to begin negotiations <em>about</em> the negotiations. <strong>In about a month,</strong> the UK and EU will formally sit down to come to terms on how the negotiations will work.</p> <p>&ldquo;Most of the formal stuff that will be agreed upon in the big meetings has already been penciled in,&rdquo; Tim Oliver, an expert on the EU at the London School of Economics, tells me....Ultimately, Oliver believes, &ldquo;nothing substantive&rdquo; will be agreed upon until <strong>after the French presidential election in April and the German parliamentary election in late September.</strong> That&rsquo;s because the French and Germans are, by far, the two most important EU member states. Without a firm sense of who their leaders will be in the coming years, it will be impossible to know what terms the EU might agree to.</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, nothing really happens for the next six months. And that's totally OK because, hey, that still leaves 18 months to negotiate the biggest, messiest divorce in treaty history. Plenty of time. No need for any sense of urgency here.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:35:13 +0000 Kevin Drum 329171 at California Should Leave Undercover Video Activists Alone <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Remember the undercover Planned Parenthood videos that caused such a fuss last year? Their creators, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, <a href="" target="_blank">are back in the news:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Two antiabortion activists whose controversial undercover videos accused Planned Parenthood doctors of selling fetal tissue were charged Tuesday with more than a dozen felonies by California prosecutors.</p> <p>....Prosecutors contend Daleiden and Merritt used fake identities and a fabricated medical research company, BioMax Procurement Services, to secure the meetings with healthcare providers, according to court papers filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Prosecutors also contend they made secret recordings of attendees and speakers at the National Abortion Federation&rsquo;s 2014 conference in San Francisco.</p> </blockquote> <p>I continue to have zero sympathy for these two. They edited their videos deceptively and basically lied about everything they did. Nevertheless, I don't like the idea of prosecuting them. This was a legitimate investigation, and no level of government should be in the business of chilling it. The First Amendment doesn't say anything one way or the other about how honest one's speech has to be.</p> <p>This also strikes me as political grandstanding. I imagine that if this were a couple of liberal activists secretly recording meetings with anti-immigration groups, Attorney General Xavier Becerra wouldn't so eager to go after them.</p> <p>Needless to say, I Am Not A Lawyer, and there might be a good case that they broke California law. If they did, though, so much the worse for California law.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:44:12 +0000 Kevin Drum 329166 at Trump Keeps Asking For More Military Spending. He's Not Going to Get It. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Not satisfied with proposing $54 billion in domestic spending cuts for next year, today President Trump asked Congress to <a href="" target="_blank">cut $18 billion in what's left of the current fiscal year:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The White House is asking Congress to cut $18 billion from discretionary spending bills for the current fiscal year that have been long settled &mdash; a move that could threaten a major showdown just a month ahead of the deadline to keep the government funded....<strong>The $17.94 billion cut would help pay for Trump&rsquo;s military supplemental request, which was sent to Congress earlier this month.</strong> About $2 billion would also go towards Trump&rsquo;s proposed wall along the Mexican border.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is yet another half-baked Trump idea, and it's the last thing Congress needs on its plate right now. Health care failed because they tried to rush it through, and now they have a grand total of 65 legislative days to work on tax reform and finish up the budget for next year. They really can't afford to waste their time on dumb stuff like this.</p> <p>Aside from that, I continue to be perplexed about this whole thing. These cuts are supposed to pay for Trump's $30 billion supplemental military request, $25 billion of which is targeted for the Pentagon's base budget. But Congress can't do that. The sequester caps prevent it, and there's no way to increase the caps without Democratic cooperation. John Boehner struck a bipartisan deal to do that in 2015, but there's no way Republicans are going to get a similar deal while also proposing whopping big domestic cuts.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_discretionary_spending_2006_2020_0.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>The same is true of Trump's proposal to increase military spending $54 billion next year. So what's the point of all this? I can think of three basic scenarios that Trump might be hoping for:</p> <ol><li>Ask for the extra $54 billion in military spending, and then settle for less by agreeing to smaller cuts in domestic spending.</li> <li>Do a deal with Democrats that increases both military and domestic spending, but increases military spending more.</li> <li>Same as #2, but also kills sequester caps permanently.</li> </ol><p>None of these seem especially likely, and only #2 seems even remotely within the realm of the plausible. The Democratic position right now is that they'll increase military spending caps only if domestic caps are raised by the same amount. They <em>might</em> agree to a smaller increase for domestic spending, but there's no chance they'll go any further. Why should they? Trump really doesn't have any leverage here.</p> <p>One possibility, of course, is that Congress will put all $54 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which isn't affected by the sequester caps. But if that's the plan, why not propose the same thing for this year's request? Am I missing something?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:41:33 +0000 Kevin Drum 329161 at Lunchtime Photo <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This is our new Hello Kitty Cafe at the Spectrum shopping center. You're jealous, aren't you? You wish <em>you</em> had a Hello Kitty Cafe.</p> <p>This picture was taken shortly before I was kicked off the property.<sup>1</sup> Snapping pictures with cell phones is fine, it turns out, but the security guards are told to watch out for anyone with a "high end" camera. No management pass, no picture taking.</p> <p><sup>1</sup>Not really <em>kicked off</em>, actually. Just told to stop taking pictures by the security guard, who was very nice. But there was no point in staying if I couldn't take any pictures.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_lunchtime_hello_kitty_0.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 0px 0px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:30:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 329121 at In Private, It Turns Out That Trump Is Pretty Much the Same <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Roger Cohen writes about the Trump-Merkel meeting <a href="" target="_blank">a couple of weeks ago:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>When Donald Trump met Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany earlier this month, <strong>he put on one of his most truculent and ignorant performances.</strong> He wanted money&mdash;piles of it&mdash;for Germany's defense, raged about the financial killing China was making from last year's Paris climate accord and kept "frequently and brutally changing the subject when not interested, which was the case with the European Union."</p> <p><strong>&hellip;Trump's preparedness was roughly that of a fourth grader</strong>&hellip;Trump knew nothing of the proposed European-American deal known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, little about Russian aggression in Ukraine or the Minsk agreements, <strong>and was so scatterbrained that German officials concluded that the president's daughter Ivanka, who had no formal reason to be there, was the more prepared and helpful.</strong></p> <p>Merkel is not one to fuss. <strong>But Trump's behavior appalled her entourage</strong> and reinforced a conclusion already reached about this presidency in several European capitals: It is possible to do business with Trump's national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, with Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, <strong>but these officials are flying blind because above them at the White House rages a whirlwind of incompetence and ignorance.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>I'm sure glad that Republicans are restoring the respect for America that we lost after eight years of that empty suit Barack Obama.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:22:53 +0000 Kevin Drum 329141 at Your Morning in Tweets <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>It's been one of those mornings. My best source to capture the flavor of the news today is my Twitter feed. In no particular order:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Spicer says there is a double standard. when leaks to press, focus on substance. with nunes info, people focused on what nunes up to <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Laura Rozen (@lrozen) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Um, sure, except that Nunes <em>won't show us the substance of the leak</em> and <em>misled everyone about where it came from</em>. Other than that, spot on. And as long as we're on the subject of Nunes:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Monday: Nunes' spox: Comey "couldn't come in tomorrow as we hoped."<br> Today: FBI: No official request for Comey's testimony was ever received.</p> &mdash; Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Back to the White House now. Here is April Ryan, Washington Bureau Chief for American Urban Radio Networks:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="cy">Lawd!!!!</p> &mdash; AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Huh? What's that about? Oh:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Sean Spicer tells reporter April Ryan not to shake her head. <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Axios (@axios) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Got anything else for us today, Sean?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">.<a href="">@EamonJavers</a> asks Press Sec. Spicer if there&rsquo;s an estimate of coal jobs that will be created w/ today's exec. order<br><br> "I'm not aware of one" <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Roger that. Let's move on to someone else in the White House:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">This exchange between a senior White House official and a reporter on climate change is.... not great. <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Emily Atkin (@emorwee) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>So they've moved on from denying climate change, and are now denying that they're even aware of what scientists say about climate change. Where are they going to be by 2020?</p> <p>Finally, on a completely different subject:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">"Antitrust is dead, isn't it? That was my impression." - Posner, 7th Cir judge and antitrust giant <a href="">#StiglerConcentration</a></p> &mdash; Lina Khan (@linamkhan) <a href="">March 28, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Unfortunately, yes, I think it is.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:31:40 +0000 Kevin Drum 329116 at Who Was Devin Nunes' Secret White House Source? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking minority member on the House Intelligence Committee, has called for Devin Nunes to recuse himself from further involvement in the Russia probe. This comes after Nunes' bizarre unveiling of supposed evidence that the Obama White House really did surveil Trump aides during the transition. Nunes still hasn't shown his evidence to anyone, and it appears increasingly likely that it doesn't really show anything at all. Nor will he tell us who he met with on the White House grounds to procure his evidence. <a href="" target="_blank">Here is Michael Isikoff:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The Schiff statement came as panel staffers speculated on the possible identity of Nunes&rsquo; White House source, <strong>focusing on Michael Ellis, a lawyer who worked for Nunes on the intelligence panel and who was recently hired to work on national security matters at the White House counsel&rsquo;s office.</strong> A White House official and spokesman for Nunes declined to comment on whether Ellis was involved in providing information to Nunes, as did a spokesman for Schiff. White <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_michael_ellis_0.jpg" style="margin: 20px 20px 15px 30px;">House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted that White House officials were not aware of Nunes&rsquo; secret trip to meet his source and referred all questions to Nunes&rsquo; office.</p> <p>Democrats have been furious that Nunes has yet to describe precisely the classified intelligence he has seen. Nor has he shared any documents with others on the House intelligence panel. Nunes, for his part, defended his previously undisclosed trip to the White House grounds, telling CNN&rsquo;s Wolf Blitzer that he had to view the classified documents in an executive branch location because the intelligence community had not yet provided them to Congress.</p> </blockquote> <p>Michael Ellis is a former editor-in-chief of the <em>Dartmouth Review</em> and a longtime "promising young conservative." Sadly, <a href="" target="_blank">he's not related to the Ellis side of the Bush family,</a> which would have been great.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:51:26 +0000 Kevin Drum 329081 at Trump Team Continues to Act Guilty Over Russia Ties <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>One of my complaints about Hillary Clinton during the email affair was the fact that she sometimes acted guilty even when she wasn't. Now it's Donald Trump's turn. <a href="" target="_blank">Here is the <em>Washington Post</em> today:</a></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress</strong> in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump&rsquo;s presidential campaign, <em>The Washington Post</em> has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry.</p> <p>....Yates and another witness at the planned hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, <strong>had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made,</strong> according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The following day, when Yates&rsquo;s lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yates, you'll recall, was the acting attorney general left over from the Obama administration who Trump fired for refusing to defend his first immigration order in court.</p> <p>This whole Russia thing is crazy. Whenever I start believing there's really something there, I feel like I'm turning into a nutball conspiracy theorist. But if there <em>isn't</em> anything there, it's plenty odd that the Trump team keeps acting as if there were.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:05:02 +0000 Kevin Drum 329076 at Leverage and Liquidity Are the Keys to a Strong Banking System <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I'm a big fan of higher capital ratios (i.e., lower leverage) as a way of making the banking system safer, so I was disturbed when Tyler Cowen pointed to a new paper suggesting that high capital ratios don't reduce the likelihood of financial crises. Instead, a team of researchers suggests that what's more important is the <em>type</em> of capital a bank has. Deposits are the most stable source of funding for any bank, and liquidity is king. Put these together, <a href="" target="_blank">and what's important is the loan-to-deposit ratio:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_bank_capital_ltd.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>As you can see, the LtD ratio rose steadily in the postwar era, doubling from 50 percent to over 100 percent by 2008. This indicates that credit was expanding, with banks making more loans for every dollar in deposits they took in. This, the authors say, is a better predictor of financial crises than raw leverage:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_bank_capital_different_indicators.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>In this triptych, capital ratios are in the middle, and they don't change much before and after a financial crisis (denoted by Year 0). However, right before a financial crisis there's a steady <em>decline</em> in deposits as a percentage of total assets (which indicates a decline in the quality an;d stability of a bank's capital base) and a steady <em>rise</em> in the loan-to-deposit ratio. These are the indicators that seem to be associated with financial crises.</p> <p>So is there any point to higher capital standards? Yes indeed: they may not <em>prevent</em> financial crises, but they make <em>recovery</em> from a financial crisis much quicker. Just compare the green line and the red line in the charts below:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_bank_capital_recoveries.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>Both of these charts show the same thing: in countries with higher capital ratios, recovery from a financial crisis was far faster. Five years out, the difference was a full 13 percentage points of GDP per capita.</p> <p>If these researchers are right&mdash;and I'll add the usual caveats about this being only one study etc.&mdash;then the key to a strong, resilient banking system is twofold: a low loan-to-deposit ratio produces a liquid capital base that helps avoid financial crises, while a low leverage ratio produces the necessary capital to recover quickly if a financial crisis hits anyway.</p> <p>Leverage and liquidity are key. In one sense, this is nothing new, since anyone could have told you that. But this paper suggests that they're important for slightly different reasons than we thought.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:24:27 +0000 Kevin Drum 329071 at Trump Set to Take an Axe to Climate Change Rules <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This is all completely expected, but it's still depressing as hell. The Trump administration has already approved two new pipelines and said it will reconsider tougher fuel economy standards that Barack Obama put in place, but that was just the start. The <em>LA Times</em> reports that Trump's willful destruction of the planet <a href="" target="_blank">will kick into high gear tomorrow:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>President Trump on Tuesday will order the Environmental Protection Agency to <strong>dismantle his predecessor&rsquo;s landmark climate effort,</strong> backing away from an aggressive plan to cut emissions at power plants that had been the foundation of America&rsquo;s leadership on confronting global warming....The directive that administration officials said Trump will issue takes aim at the <strong>Clean Power Plan,</strong> a far-reaching initiative former President Obama signed in 2015.</p> <p>....Trump&rsquo;s plans to curb climate action also reach well beyond power plants. A pioneering EPA rule that sets a <strong>&ldquo;social cost&rdquo; for carbon,</strong> placing a dollar value on the long-term damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, will be eliminated. An Obama-era requirement that all government agencies <strong>factor climate effects into their decision making,</strong> particularly as they launch new projects, is also targeted. Trump will also <strong>lift a moratorium on coal leasing</strong> on federal land.</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh, and apropos of Trump gutting climate change rules because climate change totally isn't a real thing, a paper published today suggests that climate change is <a href="" target="_blank">permanently altering the jet stream</a> in a way that produces conditions during the summer that are more favorable to long episodes of extreme weather. That means more extreme droughts, more extreme heat waves, more extreme rain, and so forth. No worries, though. Trump will be sure to take care of everyone affected by this stuff. You can count on it.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_qra_climate_change.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 0px 0px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:55:16 +0000 Kevin Drum 329061 at Kid Confuses Waterheater For Robot, Hugs "Robot," Shows World What Love Truly Is <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This is so intensely adorable.</p> <p>And&nbsp; I want you to know that I do not find most things adorable.</p> <p>People might tell you that I find things adorable or that I may have found things adorable in the past but people lie. People LIE. It's what they do.</p> <p>Liars, the lot of them.</p> <p>Never in my life have I found anything cute or adorable.</p> <p>Cynical! That's my bag, doll. I dance to the beat of a heartless drum. Sad, worn-out, on my own. When I was young I would go from town to town and witness all the things collected in the local papers that were said to be cute or adorable and I would be unmoved by them. The townsfolk, they would say, "here comes that unmovable machine who feels not for cute things. For he is the bane of our existence! Never admitting how adorable or cute our things are!" And I would try to explain to them that it wasn't personal. "It's a calling, not a job."</p> <p>But they wouldn't hear. Or at least couldn't forgive.</p> <p>Yet, here I am. Captain Cynical, voted most cynical 3 years running in the Blaine County (Idaho) Cynics' Fare, which you shouldn't try to look up because though it is a real thing that existed when I lived in Blaine County in the early aughts the records were destroyed in a flood. Don't look up the flood either. The records of the flood were destroyed in a fire&mdash;HEY MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET OFF MY BACK, YEAH?</p> <p>I didn't come here for a Spanish inquisition. I came here on a mission from the Care Bears to warm your cold hearts.</p> <p>Anyway, here's the video. I don't know anything about it. Could be fake. Maybe the kid is an actor. Maybe the robot is an actor. Maybe I'm an actor. Maybe acting is a construct. Maybe we should talk about this at Burning Man.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">This little girl thought a broken water heater is a real life robot. It's just not fair how cute it is <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Ben Tolmachoff (@bentolmachoff) <a href="">March 27, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Have a great night.</p></body></html> Contributor Tue, 28 Mar 2017 04:16:30 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 329051 at Lead Update: White Folks and Alabama Prisoners <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>It's been...weeks, at least, since I've mentioned lead and crime, and today I got two nice little anecdotes at once. The first is from lead researcher extraordinaire Rick Nevin, <a href="" target="_blank">who directs our attention to this chart:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_nevin_albama_prison_population.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 30px;"></p> <p>As predicted by the lead-crime theory, the prison population of younger cohorts (15-25) has dropped the most. The 26-30 cohort is flat, and the older cohorts are making up a bigger proportion of the total prison population. Why? Because everyone under 30 grew up in a fairly lead-free environment, so they're less likely to commit serious crimes than similar cohorts in the past. 35-year-olds grew up at the tail end of the lead era, and are still moderately crime prone. Older cohorts were heavily lead poisoned as kids, and they've remained more crime prone even as they've grown older.</p> <p>If you have a good memory, you may also recall <a href="" target="_blank">a post I wrote four years ago</a> explaining that lead poisoning affected blacks and Hispanics more than whites because they were more likely to grow up in dense urban environments with a lot of auto exhaust. Because of this, during the great crime wave of the 60s and 70s, their crime rates went up faster than white crime rates. The flip side of this is that with lead mostly gone, their crime rates are <em>dropping</em> faster than they are for whites. We can see this in the declining share of the jail population made up by blacks and Hispanics. Keith Humphreys shows us the mirror image of this, <a href="" target="_blank">the rising share of the jail population made up by whites:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_humphreys_white_jail_population.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 30px;"></p> <p>The lead hypothesis predicts that young cohorts are less crime prone than older cohorts, so their share of the jail and prison population should decline. It predicts that black crime rates will drop faster than white crime rates. And it also predicts that small-city crime rates will drop faster than big-city crime rates. All of these things have turned out to be true.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:49:36 +0000 Kevin Drum 328976 at Lunchtime Photo <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>We have our first baby waterfowl of the season! These are baby Egyptian geese, which the <a href="" target="_blank">Nestor of the 21st Century</a> informs me are actually ducks. Shelducks, to be exact. Aren't these little shelducklings adorable?</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_lunchtime_baby_egyptian_geese_0.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:30:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 328926 at Trump Job Approval Continues Free Fall <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Here's your weekly look at <a href="" target="_blank">Donald Trump's job approval rating.</a> He's now in a net hole of 15 percentage points, and still falling.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_pollster_trump_job_approval_2017_03_27.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:40:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 328951 at Who Wins and Who Loses From TrumpamaCare? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">Earlier this morning</a> I sketched out a possible compromise between Obamacare and Trumpcare that might have a chance of getting through Congress if everyone agrees to a plan that would rely on both Republican <em>and</em> Democratic votes. I consider the odds of such a thing small, but nevertheless it's worth looking at why nearly everyone should find this idea attractive:</p> <ul><li><strong>Donald Trump</strong> gets a big win. Paul Ryan couldn't get his plan through Congress, but then Trump steps in and pulls off a huge deal. His presidency is back on track.</li> <li><strong>Republicans in Congress</strong> get an albatross off their backs. Right now, health care is a loser for them, and the Freedom Caucus is riding high. But if they pass a bipartisan plan, it sticks a finger in the eye of the FC ultras. And if they're worried about their base, they don't have to be. Trump will sell the hell out of the plan, and his fans will buy it.</li> <li><strong>Democrats</strong> have to make some concessions, but in return they get stability and permanence&mdash;and the possibility of future enhancements&mdash;for a social welfare program they've been trying to get enacted for decades.</li> <li><strong>The health care industry</strong> gets some certainty about the future, along with a system that promises to be a moneymaker for them.</li> </ul><p>Who are the losers in this deal? Hardly anyone. The ultras lose, but everyone wants them to lose. Rich people lose a bit because they continue paying a modest tax, but frankly, I haven't noticed that rich people are all that upset about it. They care more about capital gains taxes and top marginal rates. Talk radio shouters lose a reliable audience pot stirrer, but they'll support Trump in the end. And they have plenty of other ways of keeping their listeners at a fever pitch of outrage anyway.</p> <p>Oh, and I almost forgot: the American people would be big winners too. Already, Obamacare covers 20 million people. A new and improved TrumpamaCare would probably get to 30 million within a few years.</p> <p>Given all this, it's almost insane that this deal isn't likely to happen.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:38:11 +0000 Kevin Drum 328931 at