Month: October 2016

This particular Op-ed from the NY Times following the 1st presidential debate I had been saving to post because who doesn’t click on an article that says “The Dog Ate My Planet.” In my opinion the article leaves a lot to be missed, which could just be due to the factor that I’ve been engrossed in this topic for over a month. The columnist does however call to a more robust Huffington Post article which show a range of Republican surrogates tweets from Donald Trump saying that climate change is a “hoax” followed by him saying on the debate platform that he {Donald Trump} never said those words. The Huffington post then follows up and  ask these Republican surrogates what their personal views on climate change is now that they’ve been exposed to the factor that their candidate has said two opposing things on the issue. Fun Stuff!!

This is an interesting Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post by Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Biden, and senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In this piece, Mr. Bernstein asks the question “Do presidents really influence the economy, how? And by how much?” He cautions voters to be wary of bogus claims like Donald trump’s claim of creating 2.5 million jobs over the next decade by cutting taxes and widespread deregulation.

According to this article, there are two major ways a president can help improve the economy, “First, enact policies that steer more opportunities to those who’ve been left behind by structural economic changes that tilt against them or embedded problems such as racism and poverty? Second, enact policies to help offset the next recession with robust counter-cyclical policies, an area where a president can make a real difference”

And let’s not forget the role the Congress plays influencing the final results of policies proposed by presidents.

The article concludes “outside of some public investment (including human capital, such as early childhood interventions), it has never been clear what presidents can do to boost productivity growth, especially in the near term.”

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Bernstein’s analysis, I understand that a lot of the economic changes are due to non-immediate and aggregate factors that over time lead to results we see as with what happened in the 2008 recession or what is happening now with trade and manufacturing jobs but I would still like to believe that the economic decisions made by the presidents go a long way in determining the economic climate and economic future of a country

This article from the Washington Post does a great job I believe at grabbing the attention of Democrats and Republicans alike. The bulk of the Op-ed is not directly about Donald Trump but rather about the New Hampshire senate race between R-Kelly Ayotee and D-Maggie Hassan. In short, Republican senate candidate was asked would she consider Donald Trump as a role model for her kids, to which she initially replied “…absolutely”. The following day her campaign released a statement saying she “misspoke.” During our class with Thomas Edsall I mentioned a comment she made a few months ago which was that she would “support” Trump, but she would not “endorse” him. Though we clarified in class that this meant that Trump would get her vote but she would not be seen at any of his events, it’s still a tad confusing.  The article goes on to express the writer’s belief on the effect the GOP candidate has on the Republican party and the benefit that this “flip-floppiness” for lack of a better term lends to a Democratic campaign.

Roughly a month ago, NY Times columnist Frank Bruni touched on a troubling aspect of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump– that is, his absolute penchant for adulation and praise, regardless of whether it is warranted or not.  He discusses the Donald’s apparent admiration for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his “82 percent approval rating,” something he gleefully highlighted during the “commander in chief” forum in September.

As Bruni reminds us, Putin’s “82 percent approval rating” exist in a climate of fear and intimidation fostered by an authoritarian government ran by a ruthless strongman.  It would be hard, after all, to dissent against the government when you know you can get in serious legal trouble for doing so.  And that’s saying the least about that situation.

Trump’s apparent praise for Putin, and his own general need for praise, is troubling in terms of what to expect from a possible Trump Presidency.  What happens to those who dare challenge him, who dare to speak out against him and say even a peep criticizing him?  Only God knows at this point, but the signs don’t look good.

Judith Browne Dianis gives us a little reminder of the damage towards voting rights moving along on the state level, bringing up a proposed constitutional amendment to the Virginian Constitution that would deal a significant blow to certain groups of people at the voting booth.  This proposal, by State Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., would impose new restrictions and obstacles in regards to the restoration of voting rights for the incarcerated, and would even put in place a irreversible lifetime ban for certain others.

In the view of Dianis, this appears to be partisan strike-back for the recent efforts of Governor Terry McAuliffe to restore voting rights for those who paid their debt to society.  This partisan tirade, however, has real consequences, denying the rights of American individuals in society and making them second-class citizens.

This piece by Colbert I. King gives us a warning about what a Trump presidency would mean for African Americans and the civil rights advancements they have made over the years.  First bringing up the irony of the opening of the new African American Smithsonian museum during this particular presidential race, King then gives us a spooky history lesson, discussing the 1876 presidential race and the “compromise” that allowed Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to take office.  This was a compromise, along with actions on the judicial and executive level, and some “white rage” overall against reconstruction, that would set back African Americans for years in the battle for civil rights and gaining respect and dignity in society.

With a little more history and a detailed explanation of the danger of Donald Trump holding presidential power (pushing “stop and frisk” all throughout the country; nominating judges that pose a threat to civil liberties, voting rights, reproductive rights), King lays down an excellent case as to why everyone, but particularly African Americans, should insure that the Donald goes down in flames at the voting booth.

“…workers gather outside the gates of a sprawling Chrysler plant for a late shift assembling Dodge Journey S.U.V.s. It’s a sought-after job, with autoworkers in Mexico earning an average of about $5 an hour, compared with the nation’s minimum wage of less than $4 for the whole day. Yet it is a fifth of what autoworkers make in Detroit, and that has helped Mexico become a global powerhouse in car production…Holding a magnifying glass to NAFTA reveals other nuances. Mr. Trump likes to point out that Mexico sells more than it buys from the United States, by $58 billion last year. But many of the companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north…And while American corn does flow south, Mexico exported more farm goods to the United States than it imported last year. Small farmers here may be losing out as much to large Mexican ranches as they are to American agribusiness, especially those small farmers harvesting the millions of avocados that Americans scarf up in their game-day guacamole.”

An op-ed by Ioan Grillo titled Forget Trump’s Wall: For Mexico, the Election Is About Nafta appeared in the New York Times on September 23, 2016. The piece, while not extensive in its evaluation of NAFTA’s importance and impact on Mexico, did a much better job at addressing the nuanced effects of free trade than other pieces that simply tout the supply-side economic benefits. The article broaches the benefits free trade has had on Mexico’s manufacturing jobs and wages while simultaneously noting the detrimental effects it has had on agricultural jobs. It shows how free trade can concurrently create and destroy sectors of an economy.  It does, however, fall short when making the case for American benefits. It does so when it states that that “…companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north.” This statement goes to reinforce the American narrative that the blue-collar workers get left out while the corporations and the elites are the only ones who truly profit. The piece also tries to note that the NAFTA agreement is not perfect and could modestly be changed to improve it without having to take an anti trade attitude.

“Why does Donald Trump think that renegotiating NAFTA is not the height of economic nonsense? Why has Hillary Clinton changed from claiming that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the “gold standard” of trade agreements (which it never was) to now opposing it outright?..Of course it’s politics — pure politics, unadulterated with facts or nuance…As one of history’s great economists, Frédéric Bastiat, put it in 1848: ‘There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.’…Trump and Clinton are bad economists indeed. If an American worker loses a job due to a factory moving overseas, they see only the impact on that worker. They neglect the benefit to consumers of buying products for less money, leaving us all with the opportunity to save for retirement or buy a nicer home or safer car or take that island vacation we’ve been dreaming of. They also ignore the many new jobs which are created by the ability of businesses to purchase their inputs at lower cost.“

The above quote is at the heart of an op-ed piece defending free trade published in the Denver Post on August 13, 2016. While the piece takes the side on the issue that I agree with, it is a badly reasoned and over simplified piece. The argument recycles the all too familiar supply side economics case that too many use to justify free trade, lower taxes and eradication of environmental regulations. Popular modern economics is centered around to forces; the supply side and the demand side. So when I read this piece and see that it merely focuses on consumption it leads me to understand why the American blue-collar worker feels neglected. The piece at no point acknowledges validates the impact that globalization has had and will have on the American worker. While it notes that free trade makes it cheaper for Americans to buy good, at no point addresses where the jobless factory worker will get the money to buy the cheaper televisions it touts as a benefit.

 

Doyle McManus of the LA Times wrote on op-ed on Syria back in May. In it, he criticizes the president for not doing more to end the civil war and bring peace to Syria. He says that the president should arm the Syrian rebels and set up safe zones to protect refugees. Pretty standard stuff.

What I liked about President Carter’s op-ed was that he offered an insightful analysis of the conflict. He wrote about the underlying regional tensions and described each of the major player’s role. He also didn’t offer the same old solutions that you’ll see in the news everyday (safe zone, no fly zone, arm the rebels). He pleads with the warring parties and U.S. diplomats to just end the war.

On the other hand, McManus oversimplifies the war and does not offer any refreshing insights or provide us with any brilliant solution to end the conflict.

Unlike McManus’, President Carter’s piece was original and moved the conversation forward.

 

 

Michael Kinsley–a truly brilliant commentator–once defined a gaffe as when a politician tells the truth. Former President Bill Clinton committed just that on Monday when he said this about the ACA:

“So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.” 

He clarified his remarks on Tuesday, when he said Obamacare had done “a world of good,” despite its problems. And it has. But like all enormous programs–government or private–it needs testing and reform. And the GOP-controlled Congress has refused to consider anything except its demand for repeal.

We will be discussing the origin and possible future of the ACA in Thursday’s class. Before we meet, read this piece in this week’s Times on some of the changes the “ailing” ACA may need to make to survive.