Economists' Fears of a 2020 Recession Surge

Trump brags about the state of the US economy but economists increasingly fear his economic policies are about to drive the economy into the ditch.  The main cause of concern?  Trump's insane tariff and trade policies that are already slamming many manufacturers and farmers and, if continued will also begin to hit consumers with steeply higher prices.  If these fears prove correct, I hope they hit early enough in 2020 so as to help purge Trump from the White House and lead to the defeat of numerous Republicans.  CNN looks at the economic forecast:

America's business leaders are growing more worried that the United States will enter a recession by the end of 2020. Their primary fear: protectionist trade policy.

That is the topline finding of a report released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics. The survey, based on responses by 53 economists, is a leading barometer of where the US business community thinks the economy is headed.

"Increased trade protectionism is considered the primary downwide risk to growth by a majority of the respondents," Gregory Daco, chief US economist for Oxford Economics, said in a statement. The report found what it called a "surge" in recession fears among the economists.

The report comes as the United States ratchets up its trade war with China and has gone after other major trading partners, including Mexico and India. The risk of recession happening soon remains low but will "rise rapidly" next year. The survey's respondents said the risk of recession starting in 2019 is only 15% but 60% by the end of 2020. About a third of respondents forecast a recession will begin halfway through next year.

The United States is probably somewhere in the last stages of an epic run of economic growth that began in 2009. Dramatic and coordinated responses by the Federal Reserve, Congress and the Obama administration helped pull the country up from the Great Recession.

Donald Trump, who took the reins of the US economy from Barack Obama in 2017, has aggressively tried to reorder the US position on global trade. He has picked prominent fights with China and Europe and has threatened tariffs on Mexico over illegal immigration and India over access to its markets.

Other notable findings from the National Association for Business Economics: 

-- 56% of respondents cited increasingly protectionist trade policy as the greatest risk to the US economy in 2019. Separately, 88% pointed to US trade policy, and retaliation by other nations, for why they lowered their GDP growth forecasts.

-- 14% believe a "substantial" decline in the stock market, and 10% feel a slowdown in global growth, are the biggest risks to the US economy.

-- Business spending will moderate this year and next after growing a strong 6.9% in 2018.

Trump's Alarming Ignorance About Foreign Aid

With threats to close the U.S./Mexican border - something that will cause possible severe economic damage to the USA and cause severe adverse impacts on U.S. border cities - and his cutting off of all foreign aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, Donald Trump has shown his near total ignorance on the issue of foreign aid which more often than not is driven not by U.S. generosity  but instead by the benefits the USA derives. No doubt his ignorance embracing, knuckle dragging base loves that Trump is "punishing" "those people" and is too ignorant to grasp that Trump's actions will only make matters worse and harm U.S. interests.  A piece by former Republican Michael Gerson looks at the stupidity and self-inflicted harm that Trump's petulant ignorance will bring to American interests.  Here are excerpts:

There are times when President Trump manages to be so wrong — so empirically groundless, so logically fallacious, so stridently uninformed — that it seems like a form of parody. But more often than not, this reflects an authentic and alarming ignorance. The mask of a barroom political crank turns out to be the face of the president of the United States.

Such appears to be the case in Trump’s recent threat to cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — countries known as the Northern Triangle of Central America — as punishment for their failure to stem migrant flows to the United States.

To make this action a rational one, Trump must imagine that foreign aid is nothing more than cash loaded onto cargo planes and dropped on the presidential compounds of corrupt rulers as reward for subservience to U.S. interests. So he wants to cancel the deliveries until they do what we wish.

The reality of foreign assistance is very different. It is seldom given directly to foreign governments. The work is often contracted to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that work in partnership with locals. And it is generally designed to improve conditions within foreign countries that can give rise to global threats.

This role is obvious, say, in fighting infectious diseases. It is better to deal with an Ebola outbreak as close as possible to the source, rather than waiting for the threat to arrive in Georgia or Kansas. But this is equally true when it comes to a flow of refugees.

Consider an example in Guatemala. More than a decade ago, a remarkable institution called International Justice Mission (IJM) — an NGO dedicated to the fight against modern forms of slavery — began working with local authorities to improve the prosecution of child sexual assault. This partnership improved the capacities of police, prosecutors and courts, while making the whole system less traumatizing for survivors. As a result of the initiative — supported by a grant from the State Department — successful prosecutions in Guatemala have increased by 300 percent, imposing real consequences on predators.

Imagine you had a child and lived in a country where children were raped with impunity. Wouldn’t a dangerous trek north to the United States make more sense? But this program and others like it are threatened by [Trump’s] the president’s aid cutoff. In the real world of U.S. interests, we need more of these efforts to reduce the supply side of illegal migration. And the supply side of sexual trafficking. And of criminal gangs. And of the drug trade. And of illegal arms dealing. And of radicalism and terrorism.

One of the main drivers of illegal migration has been the collapse of criminal-justice systems in Central America. And it reflects a global problem. . . . . Roughly a third of people in the world live in relatively just and stable criminal-justice systems. Another third live under the protection of private security forces — a system that turns security into a luxury good. (In Guatemala, for example, there are seven times more people involved in providing private security than public security.) And a third of people live without the effective protection of the law, experiencing what Haugen calls “everyday violence” from corrupt and exploitative officials.

If U.S. policy does not address the functional collapse of criminal-justice systems in places such as the Northern Triangle, it is not seriously addressing the problem of illegal migration. Yet the IJM program in Guatemala and similar efforts are the kind of spending now being threatened by the president’s announcement. This means that U.S. policy has become self-destructive to U.S. interests.

[T]he lack of justice leading to everyday violence has become a global problem, with consequences that spill up on many shores, including our own. It is a matter deserving policy creativity rather than Trump’s public threats.

It would make far more sense to double assistance for these programs — designed to support local reformers, not to impose American solutions — than to end them. But an absence of vision is one cost of ignorance.

Why Ralph Northam Should Not Resign

Add caption

This will be the last post on this topic hopefully for a while.  A great column in the New York Times lays out why the Democrats' insane, "no forgiveness ever" policy needs to be put on the trash heap.  Yes, the subject of the column is Ralph Northam, who the husband and I truly count as a personal friend - not just someone I name drop as some have alleged in nasty comments on Facebook - but the overall premise is, to me, 100% on point and needs to be heeded by both Democrats and Republicans if we are not to find ourselves in a dark place where one's entire life is ruined by foolish mistakes in the past.  And let's be honest as the column reminds us, most of us are guilty of some act or statement that under the Democrats' insane standard would damn us for life.  We've merely been lucky and not publicly exposed since we are not in the public eye.  It also reminds us that he/she who is totally without any sin is the only one fit to cast the first stone.  (Sadly, these concepts were lost on Equality Virginia which joined the rush to judgment and has perhaps permanently lost my support as a result, if I apply the no forgiveness ever standard EV embraced)  Here are column excerpts:

It’s probably for the best that Ralph Northam seems determined not to resign as governor of Virginia. He may have done something ugly and dumb many years ago, when he was a young man and prevailing notions of socially permissible behavior were uglier and dumber than they are today.

In the 35 years between those two points he has, by all appearances, lived an upstanding life without a hint of racial bias. If we are going to embrace a politics where that’s not enough to save a sitting governor accused of no crime, we’re headed toward a dark place.

I write this as someone who isn’t a Democrat and doesn’t share many of Northam’s views. Nor do I think he covered himself in glory when he accused his Republican opponent, Ed Gillespie, of “racist rhetoric” during the 2017 gubernatorial race, while an advocacy group allied to his campaign ran an ad that made out Gillespie supporters to be homicidal bigots intent on harming minority kids. What goes around comes around, and the temptation for schadenfreude is great.

Then again, each of us might want to perform an internal audit before we join the cast-the-first-stone coalition.

Ever told — or laughed at — a bigoted joke? I have, and I cringe today at what I once found funny. Ever used one of the more common ethnic or sexist slurs — “gypped,” for instance, or “bitch” — or dropped the f-word as it commonly refers to gay people? I’ve been guilty of this too, to my shame. Have ugly generalizations or snap judgments based on ethnic stereotypes perambulated through your mind, even if they didn’t fall out of your mouth? Guilty again.

I admit to all of this not as a form of moral — or immoral — exhibitionism, but because I think it’s true of the overwhelming majority of people irrespective of their race or gender. (If you don’t agree, audit yourself twice.) Few of us are proud of these lapses. Many of us are trying to be considerably more mindful about them. But most of us don’t rip ourselves to pieces over them, either.

That’s because we believe that our worst moments and dumbest utterances shouldn’t define us. That our youthful behavior is more of a reflection of what is around us than a representation of what’s inside. That we deserve to be judged by the decency of our intentions and the totality of our deeds. That we are entitled to a presumption of innocence, a measure of forgiveness, a sense for our times, and multiple opportunities for redemption.

Should Jesse Jackson’s entire life come down to the anti-Semitic words “Hymietown,” uttered by him in 1984 (and comically immortalized by Eddie Murphy)? Should Prince Harry forever be remembered as the royal who dressed as a Nazi? What about Joy Reid’s virulently homophobic blog posts, or Joe Biden’s racially condescending description of Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”?

As I said, this is taking us to a dark place. It is hard enough for ordinary, decent people, aware of their shortcomings and capable of shame, to contemplate a career in politics; why would they ever do so if the statute of limitations on past indiscretions never expires? And if they won’t run, aren’t they just ceding the field to those with no shame?

Ralph Northam needs to clear up just who’s in that photo, so Virginians won’t think he’s lying. And he has an opportunity to speak powerfully about the legacy of a casual racism that tainted his generation of Virginians, and about the need for repentance and redemption. The best way for him to do so is as governor.

Democrats Grapple with Fairfax Assault Accusation

UPDATED: A reader spells out what the GOP is up to in all of this:

Understand and see their end game. Third in line is the Republican President pro tempore of the Senate - Steve Newman.

Mark Herring had best hope they find no skeletons on him.

As noted in the prior post, Virginia Democrats have set the stage where any accusation no matter how old or questionable now has the potential to derail elected officials' political careers.  The tempest over Ralph Northam started by a right wing GOP outfit now has spread to Justin Fairfax. A piece in Big League Politics looks at the accusation here:

Last night after Big League Politics released the bombshell report that Stanford University Fellow and Professor Vanessa Tyson allegedly accused Democrat Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax sexually assaulted her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. She did not use his name in the initial release, and Big League Politics did not receive confirmation from Tyson that she wrote the post.

However, this changed late last night when Tyson confirmed to independent Virginia media outlet RVA Dirt that she made the allegations, and enlisted a friend to help spread the story.

Do I believe the story?  Not really given that the Washington Post supposedly looked into it and found it untrue and because I view this all asa coordinated effort to severely harm Democrats in the lead up to the 2019 Virginia elections.  Is it a coincidence that the same outlet , Big League Politics, that first attacked Northam is behind the Fairfax story?  I doubt it.  It's all part of an agenda to set the stage for the Virginia Democrat Party to implode, something it seemingly is working very hard to do.  Right wing Republicans must be ecstatic at the Democrats willingness to tear themselves apart. The problem for Virginia Democrats simply put is that now they have set the stage where no one is safe from such accusations and there is no limit on how far back in time one will be judged. A piece in the Washington Post looks at this second nightmare for Virginia Democrats:

The day after Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) denied allegations of sexual misconduct, Democrats grappled with how to respond without betraying a rising star in their party or abandoning victims in the #MeToo era.

Nearly all Democrats at the state and federal level swiftly called for Gov. Ralph Northam (D) to resign over a racist photo from his 1984 yearbook that became public Friday.

But lawmakers and party officials interviewed took a more circumspect approach to the allegation against Fairfax, which surfaced Monday, just three days later.

Although Democrats at the state and national level have been quick to say women should be believed and that all allegations should be investigated, they say they are resisting a rush to judgment. . . . . Virginia Democrats privately note the accuser in the Fairfax case has not yet offered evidence she says corroborates her claim.

The dilemma shows the trouble they have enforcing a policy of zero tolerance.

“I have so many different things going through my head right now,” said Monique Alcala, chair of the state Democratic Party’s Latino caucus and a Fairfax supporter since he first made a splash in state politics by nearly winning the 2013 Democratic primary for attorney general.

Quentin Kidd, the director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, said Democrats are in a bind. “The silence is deafening from Democrats,” he said. “They may be thinking, ‘We don’t want to throw our lieutenant governor under the bus while we’re also trying to throw our governor out of office.’ Republicans are probably eating all the popcorn they can find right now. It’s quite a show.”

Democrats almost uniformly took their cues from the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus {which lead the attacks on Northam], which Monday evening released a statement saying lawmakers take all allegations of sexual assault or misconduct “with the utmost seriousness.”

“Given the recent allegations regarding Lieutenant Governor Justice Fairfax, the VLBC will continue to assess this developing situation as more details become available,” the statement continued. The state party released a nearly identical statement.

Most Republicans have been content to let Democrats’ problems unfold uninterrupted. “What’s going on with the lieutenant governor?” Del. Steve Landes (R-Augusta) said coyly before adding: “I don’t have any comment, thanks.”

This insane zero tolerance policy - despite its good intentions - will be the death of the Virginia Democrats in the near term.  I predict the GOP will retain control of the General Assembly after November and if the Democrats want someone to blame, they best look in the mirror.

GOP Operatives Succeeding in Causing Virginia Democrat Party to Implode

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported today as follows:

The website [Big League Politics] that broke the story of the racist yearbook photo that is imperiling the governorship of Virginia Democrat Ralph Northam is a scrappy, pro-Trump outfit backed by Republican operatives, part of a growing wave of low-cost, ideologically driven news publishers.

The same site reportedly leak a story about Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax alleging he was involved in a sexual assault some years back.  

The goal of both stories?  To send the Virginia GOP into chaos and weaken the party before the crucial elections in November, 2019, which will determine which party controls the the Virginia General Assembly.  So far the gambit has worked amazingly well.  Rather than taking a deep breath and taken the time to know all of the facts, the political correctness obsessed Democrats from Mark Warner and Tim Kaine on down have by played like trained circus dogs and have done exactly what the far right elements of the GOP wanted. They have rushed to judgment and demanded Northam resign and some have wondered out loud if Fairfax has a problem as well.  

Sadly, the knee jerk rush to judgment has not been confined to elected officials.  A number of self-styled leaders of the Virginia LGBT community - e.g., Equality Virginia and locally the LGBT Life Center - have joined the stampede of lemmings and signed an anti-Northam statement notwithstanding that Northam has been one of the strongest allies they have ever had.  And never mind that many in the LGBT community still strongly support Northam and do not want him to resign. 

Long term, this apparent from conception forward "zero tolerance"standard is going to make it very difficult for the Democrats to recruit candidates in the future.  Anyone who has anything in their history that might offend someone in one of the Democrats' special preferred classes is on notice that they can be drummed out of the party should that information ever surface.  

As the Washington Post reported, some seem to be realizing that the rush to judgment has been ill-advised and may have consequences those rushing to jettison Northam failed to take into consideration.  Here are key quotes:

But there is also a quieter concern that the party has come to react too quickly. Some of Franken’s supporters are still bitter over how the end of his career played out, and several senators have said they regretted pushing him to leave office.

The new atmosphere can catch even the most seasoned politician off guard. The accused feel denied any sense of due process. Supposed allies quickly turn into enemies. And, they argue, Republicans are refusing to play by the same rules.

I think there’s a rush to judgment that is unfair to him,” Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Monday on CNN about Northam. “One, he says he wasn’t in that picture. Two, I think we ought to fairly ask him, did he know the picture was on his page of that yearbook. And then three, really, he ought to be judged on the context of his whole life.”

“I think he deserves a chance to prove what really is his essence,” he added. “Not to rush him out of office, unfortunately for political reasons.”

But Lieberman is in the distinct minority in a party newly animated by women and nonwhite candidates and voters, who have provided the ballast for swift decisions.

Yet a party that is moving swiftly to oust anyone with suggestions of racism or sexism could soon confront more questions: Virginia’s Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, who would take over if Northam resigns, held a news conference on Monday to deny allegations that he sexually harassed a woman in 2004.

I believe the Democrats have opened a Pandora's Box for themselves and that in their eagerness to pander to one group of voters, they are alienating many others.

I left the GOP years ago because of what I saw is the unfairness and ruthlessness of the Christian Right and those who pandered to them.  Now the Democrats are acting just as bad but on the opposite end of the spectrum.  The husband and I are definitely rethinking who we support and what candidates and organizations deserve our financial support.   By their rush to judgment on Northam, a number of would be Democrat presidential candidates have shown they do not have the calm and steady analysis for the White House.

The Republican Self-Inflicted Dilemma

While I feel despair at times over the damage being done to the country by the Trump/Pence regime and Vichy Republicans, I also take some cynical glee in watching many Republicans twisting on a rope of their own creation as they pander to Trump voters in the party base in order to avoid primary challenges while at the same time alienating moderate and many swing voters.  The entire process started when Christofascists and thinly veiled white supremacists were voted on to local city and county committees with the foolish idea that moderates could control these toxic individuals and the agendas they pushed.   Instead, the deplorable hijacked the party grass roots and sane and rational people fled the GOP in droves, I and my entire extended family included.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the Republican self-created dilemma.  Here are excerpts:

CARTERSVILLE, Ga.—Several miles off Route 41 in Bartow County, Georgia, is the downtown area of Cartersville. It's a throwback place with brick-face storefronts, independently owned businesses, and railroad tracks that bring freight trains straight through the center of the town every 30 minutes.

Here, the firing of James Comey arouses not support or opposition, but rather, indifference. Nobody I spoke with cared either way; it doesn't affect them or their families. People shrugged when asked about Trump's tweetstorms. Most agreed that press treatment of Trump is too harsh. Overall, the focus for Trump voters here is the big picture: the economy, jobs, and border security.

Bartow County is 885 miles from Manhattan, but this is Donald Trump country. He took 46 percent of the vote here during the primary, trailed by Ted Cruz at 25 percent and Marco Rubio at 18 percent. In the general election, Trump trounced Hillary Clinton, winning 75 percent of the vote to Clinton's 21 percent.

Currently, however, President Trump’s job approval is clinging to the 40 percent threshold. And while Republican members of Congress, save for a select few, are backing the president, his legislative agenda appears stalled, with the prospects of health-care reform tenuous at best. Tax reform, at this point, looks like a pipe dream.

Trump's struggles have left Republicans, who had once hoped to gain seats in 2018, worrying they might lose control of both the House and Senate. "Obviously no one knows what is going to happen in next year's midterm elections, but analysts who have watched congressional elections for a long time are seeing signs that 2018 could be a wave election that flips control of the House to Democrats,” Charlie Cook wrote recently in National Journal.

Trump keeps adding gasoline to fires, yet House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell behave as if it’s business-as-usual in Washington, D.C. If there is anything to explain their reticence in publicly rebuking Trump, it likely comes from GOP fears of alienating Trump voters across the country.

This is the predicament now facing conservatives and Republicans in Congress. Trump’s supporters—their own primary voters—are standing by him. But while Trump supporters want him to focus on the big picture issues such as health care and tax reform, the president spends most of his time consumed with the kind of trivialities other presidents leave for spokespeople to handle.

At this point, it does not appear that anybody in the White House can communicate to Trump the urgency to dial down the tweetstorms and outbursts. (Kellyanne Conway defended Trump’s tweeting as going “directly to the people.”)

That leaves leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell in a bind. They worry about Trump alienating the swing voters some of their members will need to win reelection but if they make their concerns public, Trump supporters may see it as an attempt to undermine the president. In March, Trump threatened lawmakers who didn't back the AHCA with a primary opponent. Many Republicans represent districts that went strongly for Donald Trump in 2016, and while they hold safe seats for the general election, none of them want to waste time and resources beating back primary opponents.

Much as Trump voters may detest insiders, the president’s ability to enact his agenda now rests on Ryan and McConnell. They’re left to perform a high-wire act of politics and personal persuasion, trying to rein in their president’s excesses without alienating their own voters. If they can’t pull it off, voters in places like Cartersville are likely to be unforgiving. Couple that with a resurgent Democratic electorate, and the wave election Charlie Cook warned about comes closer every day.

 We can only hope that the Republicans' worst nightmares are realized in 2018.

Germany: In light of Trump, Europe Must Be Self-Reliant

Two opposing trends are taking place in Europe.  On the one hand, as reported by the Washington Post, in recognition of the reality that under Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, the United States can no longer be deemed a dependable ally, Europe must move toward being self-reliant, both economically and militarily.  Meanwhile, through Brexit, Britain (which is more inclined to follow GOP style trickle down economics) is withdrawing from the European Union and will be isolating itself and in the view of many harming its economy by exacerbating problems that have made it increasingly less prosperous than France and Germany.   The Brits, like far too many Americans, seemingly embraced racism, bigotry and xenophobia and closed their eyes to the fact that they were voting against their own economic interest.  It may feel satisfying to look down on and denigrate "Those People," but as a piece in the New York Times lays out, the cost for that fleeting sense of self-satisfaction will be painful.   Let's hope the push by German and France for more unity and strength are successful.  Many of the British will likely find themselves twisting on the rope they placed around their own necks.  First highlights from the Post piece:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday declared a new chapter in U.S.-European relations after contentious meetings with President Trump last week, saying that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands.”

It was the toughest review yet of Trump’s trip to Europe, which inflamed tensions rather than healed them after the U.S. president sparred with the leaders of Washington’s closest and oldest allies on trade, defense and climate change.

Merkel, Europe’s de facto leader, told a packed beer hall rally in Munich that the days when her continent could rely on others was “over to a certain extent. This is what I have experienced in the last few days.”

The comments came as Europe watches Britain preparing to leave the European Union and faces antagonism from Washington.

Merkel said that Europe’s move toward self-reliance should be carried out “of course in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain and as good neighbors wherever that works.”

Although relations between Washington and Europe have been strained at times since 1945, before Trump there has rarely been such a strong feeling from European leaders that they must turn away from Washington and prepare to face the world alone.  . . . . Although her message was partly aimed at her electorate, it was a measure of how badly relations have deteriorated with Trump’s United States that hitting Washington might win votes, while working with it could be perilous.

The remarks were a clear repudiation of Trump’s troubled few days with European leaders, even as Merkel held back from mentioning the U.S. president by name. 

“The belief in shared values has been shattered by the Trump administration,” said Stephan Bierling, an expert on transatlantic relations at Germany’s University of Regensburg. “After the inauguration, everyone in Europe was hopeful that Trump would become more moderate and take into account the positions of the G-7 and of NATO. But the opposite has happened.

[M]any European leaders emerged from their meetings with Trump filled with fresh worry. Trump was far more solicitous toward the autocratic king of Saudi Arabia earlier in the week, telling him and other leaders of Muslim-majority countries — many of them not democratically elected — that he was not “here to lecture.” Days later in Brussels he offered a scathing assessment of Washington’s closest allies, saying they were being “unfair” to American taxpayers.

[A]s Merkel positions herself ahead of the election, the message could be the signal of a shift away from the United States, perhaps even one that could outlast Trump’s time in office, and that would weaken U.S. global power over the long term. European leaders are developing plans to deepen military cooperation independently of the United States. They are also reaching out to economic partners in Asia that Trump has spurned. All of those shifts will have consequences that extend years, analysts say.

As noted, meanwhile, Britain continues its path to self-inflicted harm.  Here are excerpts from the piece in the New York Times:

An observer of Britain’s “Brexit” debate would be forgiven for thinking that the country’s economy is one of the European Union’s star performers. Brexit’s advocates rarely pass up an opportunity to claim that the European Union economy is the world’s weak link, and that Britain’s reformed, dynamic and flexible economy has little to risk, and much to gain, from leaving it. The reality is rather different. And Brexit threatens to make matters worse.

Britain’s economic performance relative to the other big economies in Western Europe — including France, Germany, Italy and Spain — does not stand out as impressive, at least once the different prices of goods and services across these countries are factored in. . . . . British economic growth between 2000 and 2015 lagged behind Spain and Germany.

Sustainable increases in living standards require economies to combine land, labor, capital and technology in more efficient ways; Britain has made a poor job of this, helping to explain why Britons’ wages have risen by much less than their French and German counterparts over the last 15 years.

If the country’s overall performance looks mediocre, note that it is also highly skewed by London and the southeast of England. . . . . since 2000, poorer regions of Britain have not been catching up with the richer regions of the European Union. Instead, they’ve been falling further behind.

So, why has the country’s performance been so poor? . . . . Britain is generally perceived as a liberalized economy, and by some measures of labor market performance this is no doubt true: Non-wage labor costs, such as employer contributions, are low and it is easy to lay off workers, which reduces the costs of taking them on in the first place. But a successful labor market requires more than easy hiring and firing; it needs skilled workers, access to housing and good quality infrastructure. By these measures Britain has some real weaknesses.

A significantly higher proportion of British 18- to 24-year-olds suffer from weak literacy and numeracy than those in France, Germany, Italy or Spain. . . . . the country has invested less in roads, railways and air travel than other large European Union economies over the last 20 years.

A Britain outside of the European Union will inevitably be less open to trade with member states, which will curb competition and productivity growth. Tax revenues will fall, further squeezing infrastructure investment and education spending. That’s why, far from liberating Britain to conquer world markets as a buccaneering trading nation, Brexit threatens to make its mediocre economic performance even worse.

In many ways British voters who supported Brexit are like Trump voters: an unfounded belief in exceptionalism, opposition to spending on projects for the common good such as infrastructure and education.  Add in the rank racism and bigotry and the parallels are complete. 

What Trumpcare Could Mean for Rural America - Is Southwest Virginia Listening?

Having been involved in Virginia politics for decades one thing that has always been striking is how rural areas of the state - especially Southwest Virginia - regularly votes against their own economic interests.  Appeals to Christian extremism and racism time and time again cause the rural areas to support Republicans who are great at promoting dog whistle racism and swearing fealty to the Christofascists at The Family Foundation but who do nothing to help the failing economy in these areas.  Making matters worse, the downward spiral in reactionary social norms make the areas less and less attractive for modern, progressive businesses to consider locating to the regions.  Now, with Republicans set to either repeal the Affordable Health Care Act or sabotage it further, rural America is on the verge of reaping what it has sown.  A piece at Vox looks at Tennessee as a case study of what may be coming to these Trump/GOP supporting areas of the country.  It isn't pretty and it is self-inflicted.  Here are excerpts:

Tennessee is a preview of what an Obamacare collapse could look under President Trump, where the law technically remains standing but people don’t have access to the programs.

The areas most at risk for this type of collapse are those that voted for Trump: places that are lower-income and rural, which aren’t attractive markets to health insurance companies.

These are places that have struggled to attract robust insurance competition both before and after the health care law’s implementation. “In general, rural areas have always been the places where it’s hard to attract a competitive insurance market,” says Aditi Sen, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has studied the health law marketplaces. “The incentives to enter just aren’t that strong.”

The Obama administration worked hard to recruit health insurers to sell to those areas. The Trump administration, however, seems to want to stand aside and let Obamacare run on autopilot, so it can explode or survive on its own.

In eastern Tennessee, that could have the practical effect of leaving 40,000 current Obamacare enrollees without coverage.

The stretch of eastern Tennessee where no insurers want to sell coverage includes 6,700 square miles of rolling Appalachian hills and rural roadside towns. It has 16 counties and 1.1 million residents.

Rural areas have long struggled to attract robust health insurance markets. The scarcity of doctors and hospitals makes it hard to build a network. Smaller populations mean there are fewer customers for insurers to sell to than they might find in more urban places.

The whole theory of Obamacare relied on both healthy and sick people signing up for marketplace coverage. The healthy people are crucial to balance out the bills of the sicker enrollees.

The Tennessee marketplace ran into trouble because it gave healthy consumers lots of ways to avoid joining the marketplace — a perfect storm of state and federal policy decisions that undermined the business case for insurers to sell Obamacare policies in the region. . . . It’s a self-inflicted wound.”

Tennessee layered on other policies that made it easier for healthy people to opt out of Obamacare. It appears to be the only state in the country that still allows some insurers to reject or charger higher prices to sick customers. This practice, called underwriting, was generally banned by the Affordable Care Act. A loophole in Tennessee law allows membership-only Farm Bureau plans to continue offering these products.

Georgetown University’s Sabrina Corlette has researched the Farm Bureau plans and estimates about 55,000 Tennesseans are currently purchasing non-ACA-compliant plans through the insurer.

The Farm Bureau plans, the weak individual mandate, the “if you like your plan you can keep it” promise — none of these policies on their own could take down the Affordable Care Act marketplace. But taken together, over the course of three years, they made it significantly easier for healthy people to decide not to enroll in the marketplaces. More than anyone, that hurts sick people.

Congressional Republicans led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) dubbed it the “Obamacare slush fund,” and in 2014 they inserted a provision into the 2015 federal budget requiring this program to be revenue-neutral.

Because health insurers experienced significantly more losses than payments, the program was only able to pay out 12.6 percent of the bills it owed. Small insurers like Community Health Alliance, a nonprofit planned that launched with a loan from the federal government, couldn’t survive that hit.

“They sort of knocked the breath out of us by taking away the risk corridor,” says Jerry Burgess, who served as chief executive of that plan. Community Health Alliance quit the marketplaces and went out of business in 2015 after the federal government did not pay millions in risk corridor payments that the insurer had expected.

The future of Obamacare under the Trump administration is less certain. Some places, like Florida and California, will be fine. They have big populations and urban markets that are attractive to health insurers.

Other places like Tennessee, more rural and low-income, may struggle. President Trump has given little reassurance to health plans that might be on the fence about entering Tennessee or other markets. His administration has waffled on whether it will continue funding key Obamacare payments. He has said he expects the marketplaces to “explode” on their own.

 That's right.  Republicans have worked to sabotage the law and withheld needed funding only to then claim the program is failing.  For rural hospitals, large numbers of uninsured individuals is financially catastrophic.  Required to stabilize people, they must treat them without payment.  In turn, they charge more for those who do have coverage and drive costs up further and make insurers more likely to want to leave the local market.  The death spiral only accelerates until hospitals go bankrupt and close, taking with them some of the best jobs in the area and depriving residents of ready access to hospital facilities.  It's as if rural areas have opted for a slow form of suicide. 

Is Racism Partly Behind The GOP Push for Trumpcare?

As noted frequently, one of the big motivations behind the House Republican's vote to pass Trumpcare - or Ryancare, if you prefer - is to grant a truly huge tax cut in favor of the wealthy.  We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars given back to the wealthy.  In exchange, millions of the less fortunate will see their costs soar and health care insurance coverage slip out of reach.  Literally every health care and hospital association condemned the bill passed by the House Republicans.  Many rural hospitals are truly concerned that bankruptcy and closure will be in their future if the Senate doesn't kill this monstrous bill.  Yes, there would be an element of divine justice if rural Trump voters found themselves suddenly with no ready hospital access - and literally facing death in critical illness situations as a result.    But an op-ed in the Boston Globe argues that lurking beneath the bloviating of Republicans is racism that Obama unleashed by being black and in the White House.  Here are excerpts:

House Republicans are taking health services away from disabled children, women who give birth, and survivors of rape and sexual assault. They are consigning thousands of people with serious illnesses to death by making them uninsurable in an era of unaffordable treatment. Virtually every reputable medical organization in the country condemns the health care bill that passed the House Thursday, but the GOP clings to two reasons for passing it.

First, Republicans claim that the new legislation provides economic benefits. These benefits are unclear, though reports suggest that they entail a transfer of resources from vulnerable people to rich people.  . . . . Passing the bill without a score from the CBO is a signal that Republican legislators are not taking the economic dimensions of this issue seriously, so we can follow their lead and move on to the heart of the matter.

The other explanation given by House Republicans for passing the bill is political. These congressmen felt they had to repeal the Affordable Care Act because they promised to do so. Most Americans have no quibble with Obamacare itself, but for Republicans, repealing it is and always has always been a way to repudiate former president Barack Obama. Since taking office, President Trump has done several things that he previously chastised Obama for, but these contradictions have had little impact on his party or their supporters. This is largely because GOP voters’ disdain for Obama and support for Trump cannot be separated from findings about racism. Studies conducted after the election confirm that racial resentment directed toward people of color predicted both overall support for Trump and voters’ propensity to switch from Obama to Trump.

GOP voters know they don’t like Obama, but they do not know Obama’s legislative record, whether it pertains to the economic recovery or health care legislation. A December 2016 poll showed that 67 percent of Trump voters believed that unemployment had risen during Obama’s tenure, even though it dramatically declined. A February 2017 poll found that one third of all Americans did not even know that Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were the same thing. Over half of the Republicans in that poll did not know whether Medicaid would be impacted by repealing Obamacare. Medicaid will be gutted by the new bill.

So the naked truth is that racial resentment directed toward Obama set off a chain of events that will likely cause 20 million people to lose their health insurance and ignite a public health crisis of unimaginable consequence. Some time ago, I wrote about one of the myths of white supremacy: the idea that its ill effects are limited to targeted groups. I explained, “What white supremacy does, eventually, is normalize and spread the abuse, trauma, and destruction initially prescribed for targeted groups.” The damage prescribed by hateful ideologies is most severe within targeted groups, but it is never contained. 

All because Trump supporters cannot see beyond the color of others' skin - or their sexual orientation, national origin and others triggers for bigotry.   I do worry about the impact on children, but for the adults who support this horrible agenda, I'd be lying if I said I did not hope they suffer greatly.

Trump’s Budget Would Brutally Hit Rural Towns

Durant, Oklahoma Boys and Girls Club

Working on my April column for VEER Magazine, I've been reviewing aspects of Der Trumpenführer's campaign against minorities of all types, and over all find the situation downright sickening and depressing.  In the process I remind myself that this is what Trump voters supported: marginalizing and harming others.  The one perverse consolation is that, if Trump's proposed budget cuts are adopted, many of those motivated by hate, rage over lost white privilege, religious extremism and outright racism may find themselves severely harmed by their very own Dear Leader. I will concede, wishing harm on others is not something admirable, yet when that harm is self-inflicted, I find it harder to resist the urge to say that these folks are getting what they sought to inflict on others. A piece in the Washington Post looks at the self-harm that befall one area of southern Oklahoma where Trump received 76% of the vote.  I feel sympathy for the children who may be harmed such as those pictured above.  As for the adults that voted based on ugly beliefs and emotions, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy. None. Here are article excerpts:

At the Boys and Girls Club in this rural city in southern Oklahoma, the director is unsure how he will stay open if President Trump’s proposed budget goes through, eliminating money for several staff positions. 

Similar conversations are happening at the Oklahoma Shakespearean Festival’s after-school arts program, which relies on National Endowment for the Arts grants that Trump wants to eliminate. And at the county senior center, which already lost its state funding and could lose all or most of its federal funding, too. And at the Farm Service Center, which supports 1,200 local producers and is staffed with employees whose positions were targeted in the budget.

In this town of 16,000 — located near the Texas border in Oklahoma’s Bryan County, where Trump won 76 percent of the vote — excitement about Trump’s presidency has been dulled by confusion over an agenda that seems aimed at hurting their community more than helping it.

The president’s proposed budget would disproportionately harm the rural areas and small towns that were key to his unexpected win. Many red states like Oklahoma — where every single county went for Trump — are more reliant on the federal funds that Trump wants to cut than states that voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Trump wants to eliminate the federal Corporation for National and Community Service, which provides the county volunteer program with about $35,000 each year. This money goes to pay for supplemental insurance and mileage for volunteers who serve in the area, deliver meals to the county’s homebound and drive the elderly to medical appointments, including taking veterans to the closest VA medical center, 100 miles away in Dallas. The center also indirectly receives federal funds to pay for meals, which also could be cut.

Trump’s budget promises “robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure,” but it also would eliminate a $498 million grant and loan program that helps rural communities that are smaller than Durant upgrade their water and wastewater systems.

Trump promised that within 100 days of taking office he would introduce legislation to “spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years.” He has yet to do so. And when his aides discuss infrastructure, they talk more about toll roads, pipelines and major airports than crumbling Main Streets.

The Durant-based Oklahoma Shakespearean Festival offers a summer theater camp and after-school theater, dance and music classes to local students, many of whom come from poor families. The festival used to receive $150,000 a year in state and federal funds, which have been slashed to $26,000 a year, including NEA grants that Trump wants to eliminate.

And the Boys and Girls Club of Durant watches over about 200 children and teenagers each day after school and during the summer in a former middle school that is being renovated. 

Trump has also proposed cutting all federal funding for AmeriCorps VISTA, which provides staff during the summer, and reducing funding for the federal work-study program, which pays some of the club’s college-aged workers.

One of the senior workers, Sharon Green, said she learned about the potential cuts while watching PBS, which could also lose federal funding.

 Many will likely suffer before the Trump/Pence nightmare is over.  Some, like those in Durant, Oklahoma, will be reaping the results of their own embrace of bigotry and ignorance.  Their pain could have been perhaps avoided, but they are the ones that have unleashed hate and ugliness. 

No Sympathy for Working Class Trump Voters

Some Democrats and liberals are whining and contemplating their navels as they seek ways to "understand" poor and working class whites who voted for Donald Trump so as to win them back over to supporting Democrat/liberal policies.  I am decidedly not a member of that group.  Perhaps it's because in many ways I remain a conservative and support the concepts of personal responsibility and that actions - or in this case votes - have consequences.  In my view, poor whites and working class whites fell prey to their racism, religious extremism and desire to blame others for their failed state in life while never facing the reality that their own bad choices, embrace of ignorance and bigotry were in fact the root cause of many of their current ills. To these folks, sexual orientation is a "choice" but somehow abusing drugs and alcohol and dropping out of school are not a choice. In short, I find it difficult to have zero sympathy for such folks (although I do worry about their children) and hope they suffer greatly for the consequences of their misguided votes.  A piece in New York Magazine makes the case that rather than trying to be "understanding" Democrats and liberals need to see these people for what they are: deplorables who cannot be reached. .  Here are  excerpts:

On the morning after, traumatized liberals set out hunting for answers as if Election Day were 9/11 all over again. The ubiquitous question of 15 years earlier — “Why do they hate us?” — was repurposed for Donald Trump’s demolition of the political order. Why did white working-class voters reject Hillary Clinton and the Democrats? Why did they fall for a billionaire con man? Why do they hate us?

There were, of course, many other culprits in the election’s outcome. Comey, the Kremlin, the cable-news networks that beamed Trump 24/7, Jill Stein, a Clinton campaign that (among other blunders) ignored frantic on-the-ground pleas for help in Wisconsin and Michigan, and the candidate herself have all come in for deserved public flogging. But the attitude among some liberals toward the actual voters who pulled the trigger on Election Day has been more indulgent, equivocal, and forgiving. Perhaps those white voters without a college degree who preferred Trump by 39 percentage points — the most lopsided margin in the sector pollsters define as “white working class” since the 1980 Ronald Reagan landslide — are not “deplorables” who “cling to guns and religion” after all.

While many, if not most, of those in #TheResistance of the Democratic base remain furious at these voters, the party’s political class and the liberal media Establishment are making a concerted effort to convert that rage into empathy. 

But for those of us who want to bring down the curtain on the Trump era as quickly as possible, this pandering to his voters raises a more immediate and practical concern: Is it a worthwhile political tactic that will actually help reverse Republican rule? Or is it another counterproductive detour into liberal guilt, self-flagellation, and political correctness of the sort that helped blind Democrats to the gravity of the Trump threat in the first place? 

After the debacle of 2016, might the time have at last come for Democrats to weaponize their anger instead of swallowing it? Instead of studying how to talk to “real people,” might they start talking like real people? No more reading from wimpy scripts concocted by consultants and focus groups. . . . . Say in public what you say in private, even at the risk of pissing people off, including those in your own party. Better late than never to learn the lessons of Trump’s triumphant primary campaign that the Clinton campaign foolishly ignored.

This is a separate matter from the substantive question of whether the party is overdue in addressing the needs of the 21st-century middle class, or what remains of it. The answer to that is yes, as a matter of morality, policy, and politics.  . . . . But it’s one thing for the Democratic Party to drain its own swamp of special interests and another for it to waste time and energy chasing unreachable voters in the base of Trump’s electorate. For all her failings, Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump and lost the Electoral College by the mere 77,744 votes that cost her the previously blue states of Michigan (which she lost by .2 of a percentage point), Wisconsin (.8 point), and Pennsylvania (.7 point).

[T]he Trump vote is overwhelmingly synonymous with the Republican Party as a whole. . . . That makes it all the more a fool’s errand for Democrats to fudge or abandon their own values to cater to the white-identity politics of the hard-core, often self-sabotaging Trump voters who helped drive the country into a ditch on Election Day. They will stick with him even though the numbers say that they will take a bigger financial hit than Clinton voters under the Republican health-care plan. 

While you can’t blame our new president for loving “the poorly educated” who gave him that blank check, the rest of us are entitled to abstain. If we are free to loathe Trump, we are free to loathe his most loyal voters, who have put the rest of us at risk.

 The toughest critics of white blue-collar Trump voters are conservatives. Witness Kevin D. Williamson, who skewered “the white working class’s descent into dysfunction” in National Review as Trump was piling up his victories in the GOP primaries last March. Raised in working-class West Texas, Williamson had no interest in emulating the efforts of coastal liberals to scale empathy walls. Instead, he condemns Trump voters for being “in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.” He chastises them for embracing victimhood by blaming their plight on “outside forces” like globalization, the Establishment, China, Washington, immigrants — and “the Man” who “closed the factories down.” He concludes: “Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.”

The conservative contempt for Trump voters — omnipresent among the party’s Establishment until the Election Day results persuaded all but the most adamant NeverTrumpers to fall into line — would seem to give the Democrats a big opening to win them over.

 There’s zero evidence that they will. The dug-in Trump base shows no signs of varying its exclusive diet of right-wing media telling it that anyone who contradicts Trump, Rush, or Breitbart is peddling “fake news.” 

There’s no way liberals can counter these voters’ blind faith in a huckster who’s sold them this snake oil. The notion that they can be won over by some sort of new New Deal — “domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance),” as Mark Lilla puts it — is wishful thinking. These voters are so adamantly opposed to government programs that in some cases they refuse to accept the fact that aid they already receive comes from Washington — witness the “Keep Government Out of My Medicare!” placards at the early tea-party protests.

Perhaps it’s a smarter idea to just let the GOP own these intractable voters. Liberals looking for a way to empathize with conservatives should endorse the core conservative belief in the importance of personal responsibility. Let Trump’s white working-class base take responsibility for its own votes — or in some cases failure to vote — and live with the election’s consequences.

So hold the empathy and hold on to the anger.