Who Makes Policy Campaign 2016 Edition

Obamacare was a hot topic during the last presidential debate with the presidential candidates arguing for or against repealing the affordable care act (ACA). Each candidates’ comment on the ACA is stated below:

Clinton: “If we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That’s where the vast majority of people get their health care. And the Affordable Care Act was meant to try to fill the gap … 20 million people now have health insurance. So, if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald’s not telling you is, we just turn it back to the insurance companies, the way it used to be.”

Trump: “Obamacare is a disaster. You know it, we all know it. … Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more money. More and more money. … We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive, and something that works.”

Argument Against Repealing Obamacare 

As a result of passing the ACA, the uninsured rate has dropped in every congressional district in the country, and the uninsured rate is at the lowest it’s been since the Great Recession according to the US Census Bureau.

To be specific: “The uninsured rate for non-elderly Americans has fallen from about 16.6% in 2013 to 10% in the first quarter of 2016, and  8.6% taking into account seniors who have near-universal coverage.”

As Secretary Clinton noted during the debate, the law made it illegal for health insurance companies to exclude people based on their health status and allowed young adults to stay on their parents’ plans. It also expanded Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty line (though 19 states have chosen not to).

I would have to agree with Secretary Clinton, it is better to fix Obamacare than to repeal it. To repeal Obama Care will be to waste years of progress and to start over, what is the guarantee of a positive outcome.

 

The popular belief is that free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, are either economically evil or good. The truth is that there is no clear consensus on the effects that NAFTA has had on the American economy. Economist have had a hard time sorting out the true affects of the agreement. Unable to discern between the effects of technology, national economic trends, and China’s admission into the WTO, many economist have been unable to provide a ‘net effect’ or ‘net sum’ of FTAs impact on the American economy. Which begs the question, why pursue them so vigorously?

The Obama administration seems to view these FTAs as a way to solidify relationships with foreign nations. The administration seems to believe that once the relationships and economies become deeply intertwined, it becomes imperative for all nations involved to maintain good relations as we’ve seen with Mexico and their anxiety over Trump and the Presidential election. With the Philippines recent moves to establish closer ties to China and Russia at the expense of the long friendship with the U.S., the President seems more determined now than ever to make sure the U.S. ratifies the agreement before he leaves office.  Judging by the brash talk coming from Russian official lately, it maybe time for the public to think of the FTAs in different terms.

First off, Kudos to the artists who made the above image. It is the first caricature that I have seen that has successfully made Donald Trump look like tolerable.

In this article titled “How Will the Next U.S. President Tackle Climate Change?”, the author speaks on polls and past Republican candidates’ platforms. It is a well-known fact that Donald Trump is not in support of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), policies aimed at combatting climate change (Paris Treaty and Clean Power Plan), nor is he in support of the notion that man-made climate change exists. Ignoring the science, Trump has seemed to create a sort of bandwagon on the issue.

The 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney believes in climate change and in 2008 John McCain acknowledged that climate change was a problem, supported that human behavior contributed, and that we should take action. According to a Gallup survey in March, Republican support of the issue had increased.  However a more recent poll from Pew shows that Republican support is waning. What gives?!

Which brings me to the question: What influences the electorate to support platforms, Science and research or are they blindly following their representative?

…they know where you live!

With race relations – especially between law enforcement and minorities – occupying one of the top categories of election talk, I thought this article about a neighbor bypassing the courteous knock-on-the-door and jumping straight to threatening police involvement was one worth sharing. Having gotten to know you all rather well over these past couple of months, I am certain that most of you will enjoy the response Richard Brookshire (MPA!) penned to his rude neighbor (be sure to read the whole thing which is posted as an image within the article).

Maine Governor Paul LePage Stopped by a Conservative radio station for an interview on Tuesday, where he gave his thoughts about how Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump should run the country:

“Sometimes I wondered that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law…Because we’ve had eight years of a president, he’s an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we’re slipping into anarchy.”

One might be confused as to how it is that the good Governor is complaining on one hand about the apparent abuse of power by current President Barack Obama, referring to him as an “autocrat”, while at the same time saying that the Donald should essentially abuse power.  Also confusing is how he is calling for the restoration of the rule of law by saying that this particular potential president should act in a way that would disregard the rule of law.

What is ultimately confusing, though, is the fact that we have to take a clearly insane, racist, overly corrupt clown seriously in the first place, being that he has the title of “Governor” before his name.

By the way, in the interview, he talked about how a Hillary Clinton presidency would “destroy” the United States, stating that “I could not see how any red-blooded American citizen could vote for Hillary Clinton.”

After weeks of indiscriminate bombing, it looks like the besieged may fall in the coming weeks. Russia and Assad have relentlessly targeted civilians, including hospitals and bakeries, since the ceasefire agreement broke down a few weeks ago.

The humanitarian situation is what makes the Aleppo situation so dire. Hundreds of thousands of people are without electricity, food, water, and in need of medical assistance. Russia and Assad now seem to be using this humanitarian situation as a weapon, “The Syrian regime and its Russian backers have adopted a calculated approach of exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation in Aleppo as a weapon of war. Their apparent goal is to make living conditions in the city so intolerable that the opposition has no choice but to capitulate.”

We’ll have to wait and see what U.S. policy will be towards Aleppo in the final months of the Obama administration.

In September of 2015, Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez was sentenced to 13 years, 9 months, 7 days, and 12 hours in prison, being convicted on the grounds of “public incitement” and “association to commit crimes”.  His conviction, along with that of three Venezuelan students, stem from anti-government demonstrations that took place on the streets of Caracas in February of 2014, where violent incidents broke out.

Looking into this particular case, Human Rights Watch, among other organizations, saw troubling issues arise, including the use of flimsy evidence and a lack of due process.  An interesting note here, related to the “evidence”, comes from the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Lopez, which pinned culpability for his involvement with violent acts during the protests on a series of “subliminal messages” posted on social media.  On top of that, there was little to no evidence shown during trial, save for two witnesses brought forward by the prosecutor to rant against the opposition leader.

That’s not to mention the three Venezuelan students, who were arrested in allegedly brutal fashion soon after the protests took place.  Being held incommunicado for around two days, they suffered abuse at the hands of police and were denied access to lawyers and their families.  A fourth student accused of being involved in the violence fled the country.

Apparently, from what one can deduce logically from last Sunday night’s debate, it is scenarios like this that Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump would like to have happen in the United States.  Using the criminal justice system to go after political opponents.  Often ends well, doesn’t it?

The second presidential debate is in the books and the most shocking thing of all is not that emails were hacked, or that a political candidate has dual positions on issues, or discussions of sexual assault were normalized under a catchy and benign slogan which resonates with most people allowing them to save face in accepting the characterization; it is that a presidential candidate has taken the side of a foreign power whose officials have threatened  our country militarily and have backed those threats with military moves.

In hacked emails it was revealed that a moderate Democratic candidate has a moderate stance on trade and hemispheric relations with its neighbors. She reveals that she hopes that one day things will work so well that the movement of goods and people will be seamless between America and its neighbors. In a shocking revelation, it was also exposed that she is aware that in order to get policy passed and implemented, politicians sometimes need a ‘public and a private position’ in order to get things accomplished. While her answer during the debate might have come across as ridiculous, the statement in itself is no less true. For those that have read or are reading Team of Rivals, a book about President Lincoln, they will find a lot of truth in her comments.

All of this leads me to believe that I may not be entirely wrong in believing she will end up supporting the TPP; which in light of Russia’s and China’s recent aggressive moves, may be more important now than it was a 10 months ago when all the backlash against free trade seemed to cement itself. Let’s hope the election is over sooner than later so we can begin to piece together a new strategy to handle the growing ambitions of China and insecurities of a diminutive “strongman.”

Late last week the Obama administration went public, formally accusing Russia of hacking the US elections. So what happens now?   This news analysis in Sunday’s Times lays out some of President Obama’s options. Well worth a read, especially as you think about your final policy options memo. Aides are paid to give their bosses a range of choices–while honestly laying out the pros, cons and uncertainties of each.

If you want to know what is happening in Afghanistan, read Mark Perry’s article in Politico. I know it’s hard to believe but the war in Afghanistan began 15 years ago today. The Taliban was ousted within weeks of the invasion but was allowed to regroup after we “took our eyes off the ball” and invaded Iraq. Perry, along with retired CIA operatives and academics, argues that the war will not be won on the battlefield. Instead, we’re carrying out “diplomacy by drone strike” and targeting Taliban leaders who refuse to negotiate with Kabul. “We’re signaling the Taliban that they need to choose a leadership that is interested in a political solution,” the officer says, “because, obviously, this conflict isn’t going to be decided on the battlefield.”

I’ve noted this before but the war has received little to no attention on the campaign trail which is a disgrace because the next commander-in-chief will have some serious decisions to make. Ending this war “would require a commander in chief willing to pay attention to America’s longest war and a Congress willing to spend a bit of money on foreign aid, and so far I see no candidate for public office at any level of either party with the competence, leadership and knowledge required for such a minimally successful foreign policy.”