Predictions for a Trump Presidency

Less than three weeks into the post-election Trump transition and here’s what we have so far:

• We may keep parts of Obamacare
• We may not actually build a wall
• We’re not going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants
• We probably won’t prosecute Hillary Clinton
• Climate change may have a human component
• We will not revert to waterboarding

Trying to predict where a Trump presidency will go is like trying to predict where a sputtering balloon will land – it’s impossible because there’s no rudder, no tether, no clear direction. It’s to be expected from a man with no moral or philosophical center, made worse by a lack of curiosity that leaves him susceptible to the last thing he’s heard (more on that in a bit).

All that said, for future reference, here are a few predictions as of November 27, 2016:

Immigration

• The wall will not be built. Sections may be completed to pacify "Build the Wall" supporters, but it will almost certainly be a thousand or more miles shy of closing off the entire border.
• There will be fewer annual deportations than there were during the peak of the Obama administration (404,000 in 2012), which deported more than 2.5 million illegal immigrants.
• Touchback amnesty will become vetting in place once technology and agriculture leaders explain the cost and logistics of requiring undocumented workers to return to their homelands to reapply for legal entry.
• The end result will be a policy and amnesty very close to what was proposed by the Gang of Eight.

(See post of October 2 https://www.facebook.com/pszydlowski/posts/10209610520314105),

Deficit

Quite simply, spending will increase, taxes will be cut, revenue will decline and the deficit will increase. Expect debt to increase by $2 trillion or more from the $19 trillion Trump will inherit.

Sidenote: The Republicans have officially abandoned any claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. Their supply-side fervor has caused them to lose sight of the fact that even Arthur Laffer, whose Laffer Curve is the basis for supply-side tax cuts, argued that there is a point at which tax cuts do not deliver increased revenue through growth stimulus. It's like turning the furnace down from 90 degrees. for a while you experience increased productivity, but eventually you go too far and the foot-stomping and hand-rubbing to keep warm becomes as big an impediment to productivity as the 90 degree heat. So it is with taxes. [see this 2024 NY Times piece where GOP fiscal hawks makes the same lament.]

Economy/Jobs

We will learn those rural manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Neither are those high-paying auto jobs. Truth is, we make as many cars today as we did before NAFTA, but automation has cut the number of workers needed by more than a third. The economy will continue to be driven by technology, efficiency and services, and society will continue to be roiled by the upheaval those bring. How that will play out when it becomes clear to the blue-collar Trump supporter that their factory is not reopening and low-wage jobs at chain stores, call centers and the like remain the mainstay of local employment opportunities remains to be seen.

Healthcare

One of Steven Covey's 7 Habits is to begin with the end in mind. We, as a nation, have not done that regarding health care, which is why it remains a mess. Do we want to ensure universal coverage? That requires a government-heavy approach. Do we want to minimize the cost for the greatest number of people? That requires a transparent free-market approach. But we will not achieve universal coverage with a free market system. Therefore, if Trump pursues a free-market answer, as his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill will likely call for, we may see premiums for certain groups and healthy individuals moderate or even decline - but it will be at the cost of coverage for many and affordable coverage for even more as unhealthy groups and individuals find they are no longer sharing the cost of their illnesses with the broader insurance pool.

If Trump chooses to pursue a middle way, as suggested by his call to retain the pre-existing condition and adult child coverage provisions of Obamacare without retaining the individual mandate, we will see the worst of all worlds, as premiums adjust upwards because people wait until they need insurance to buy it (I see no way this will be the approach, but it points out that the idea of a free-lunch is no more workable with health insurance than it is in any other walk of life).

Social Issues

I predict gay marriage will remain legal (Trump has said it's been decided, though that is currently the Supreme Court's call, not his). Abortion will most likely remain so, despite the talk of appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Watch for a President Trump to backtrack on unfettered gun access after the first mass shooting on his watch. Black Lives matter and identity politics will require visionary leadership, something I believe is woefully lacking in our President-elect. I pray I'm wrong, I fear I'm not.

Governing Style

Every administration deals with the battle for the president's ear.  That battle will be magnified exponentially in the Trump White House, as aides battle for supremacy with a president who lacks both the moral or philosophical center that guides most leaders and the curiosity to seek the wisdom that provides such a center. Therefore, the last voice will be the most powerful voice. If his campaign is any indication, where there were three managers in eight months, we can expect infighting and incoherence to rule. We have seen this at work already, as indicated by the policy changes outlined at the top of this piece.

Combine the lack of leadership at the top, the ongoing potential for conflicts of interest, the well-known disdain for detail management style of Donald Trump and the opportunity for mischief in a government spending $3.8 trillion each year and, well, infighting may be the least of our concerns.

The Big Picture

Despite regional turmoil, the world has been more stable since the end of WWII than it has in its entire history prior. That is due almost exclusively to the role the United States has played in maintaining order. If we join the global run for the exits regarding trade, military and social compacts, we risk a slow, inevitable devolution into disorder, with players like Russia and China seeking to fill the vacuum left by the loss of U.S. leadership. I make no predictions how that will play out in terms of trade, military conflict or societal upheavals, but I will predict that 1) we'll wish for the old order, and 2) continue to believe further withdrawal is the proper course - until we realize it isn't, at which point it will be too late.

The Warning

We've been watching a slow progression of disdain for government over the past 30 years. I'll argue it began, innocently enough, with Ronald Reagan's claim that government wasn't the solution to our problems, but was the problem itself. Accurate as he may have been at the time, and though he refrained from calling government malevolent, others were not so forgiving.

Since then, we've seen self-styled patriots bomb a federal office building, take on the federal government over grazing rights and publicly solicit funds to protect gun rights from "jack-booted government thugs." Along the way, the ideas of Tim McVeigh have become more mainstream, as those who fancy themselves patriots (sincerely, I might add) become more outspoken in their disdain for government, more brazen in their actions against it and more militant in defense of gun rights. It is a volatile combination. The rural outcast warning of black helicopters and secret surveillance 25 years ago is now the neighbor up the street with both an arsenal designed to take on an evil government and a strident lack of faith in our democratic institutions of a free press, an unbiased judiciary and fair elections. How that neighbor - and all those like him - will react when reality hits that bringing good jobs back isn't that easy, that withdrawing from the world makes us neither safer nor wealthier or that the demographic changes thought reversible turn out to be permanent and ongoing, will go a long way in determining the future of our republic. Whether misguided calls for a convention of states or militant calls for armed resistance result, such will mark a sad beginning to a sadder end.

And whether Trump's supporters decide to turn against their man or double down in support if things go south remains to be seen. Much will depend upon whether a President Trump seeks to turn their anger against the very institutions his oath swore to uphold. Let us remember that this great nation has survived 228 years with the setup we've got. We should not sacrifice it because of one bad choice.

[Addendum: December 3, 2022, need I say more?]

I'm Voting for Hillary. Here's Why

I doubt it surprises anyone that I am not voting for Donald Trump, but it may surprise some that I will actually cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. This has been a troubling, but not all that difficult decision because, quite franky, I firmly believe she is the better, safer choice. She is far less likely to damage our economy, our security, our culture and the very foundations of our democracy than is Donald Trump.

Clearly, I had three choices. Vote for Hillary Clinton, vote for a third party candidate or sit this one out.

To sit this one out abdicates responsibility to others and means I have not done all I could to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. Voting third party would give me the chance to cast a principled vote, but given that no third party candidate has even the remotest chance of winning Ohio, that vote would be largely symbolic. If I were to vote third party or independent, I would cast a write-in vote for Evan McMullen, a conservative former CIA operative out of Utah. He is knowledgable, with useful experience in global affairs and has respected conservative bona fides. He'd have made a very desirable major party candidate. But he can't win Ohio, so a vote for him does nothing to stop Donald Trump.

Therefore, I choose Hillary. It will be the first time in my life that I have not voted for the Republican candidate (I do plan to vote for down ballot Republicans). And while my support is almost exclusively to keep Trump out of office, there are a handful of issues where I can say I am affirmatively casting my vote in her favor. These include gun regulation, where I believe a nuanced approach is the responsible one - and one that need not violate the Constitution of the United States. Consider all the rules, regulations and training involving automobiles, yet none of them limit our ability to get in our car and drive where we want. We can surely find some reasonable middle ground that helps control the spread and misuse of guns.

I also prefer her on the environment. I do not think that whether one believes climate change is occuring or not, or whether man is at fault or not, is a partisan question. It is a scientific one. How we respond is ceratinly political, but the question of its existence is not. I worry when any politician dismisses it out of hand, especially one as ill-informed or lacking the curiosity to learn the facts like Donald Trump. The fact is that evidence points to man-made climate change that could be devatating. Again, we need an informed, nuanced approach. Hillary is far more likely to deliver that than Trump.

Finally, while Hillary is most certainly the poster child for all that is wrong with money in politics, she is the only one of the two candidates who has spoken against Citizens United, a Supreme Court ruling that even an ardent supporter of the First Amendment like me finds appalling - and one only the most active political partisans could love. It essentially took the lid off corporate donations, creating a dangerous feedback loop where money buys influence, which brings more money. It has the opportunity to destroy any semblance of government of, by and for the people. I support Hillary in her call to overturn this.

There is much I disagree with her on - free college tuition, a $15 minimum wage and more. I don't trust either side on health care because it is an incredibly complex, emotionally fraught, expensive subject that, quite frankly, we don't have the political guts or the informed electorate that would make workable reform possible.

As for her faults - and there are many - I have done my best to inform myself. I have read a long summary of the FBI investigations into her emails and much of the Gowdy report on Benghazi. I have looked at the tax filings and independent watchdog reports on the Clinton Foundation and reviewed her tax returns. I have concluded that there is far more smoke than fire. I certainly do not believe she has had anyone killed.

That said, the foundation has many questionable relationships, especially where donations bought access, but there appears to be little to no quid pro quo. As to claims they give only 5 or 6% to charity, that is misleading because their foundation is a "boots on the ground" organization that does much of the work itself, so salaries, travel and supplies are largely for care workers, experts and relief. Her email story reads like one almost any IT person dealing with a sixty-plus year-old senior executive would experience - a technophobe who just wants the darn thing to work and has no idea how it does. In this case, it was a server in the basement. And Benghazi is an unfortunate situation that could have happened anywhere. We are a strapped nation with resources spread too thin. Everyone is asking for more resources, more security, more personnel, but not everyone can get them. Unfortunately, Benghazi was the location where that lack of resources had a price. As for her "What difference does it make" comment, that has been taken way out of context. After being asked repeatedly why it took so long to report what actually happened, she finally says, "What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." She then goes on to describe a fluid situation in the aftermath of the attacks. I know this all sounds like a defense, but it is what I've found when I go to the source for information. As for Bill, bimbos, Travelgate and all that, we've fought that fight and it really went nowhere.

In conclusion, I will not be happy come November 9, but I will surely breathe a sigh of relief if Hillary is slated to become our next president. And I will reserve the right to fight her on what I disagree with, defend her when the facts support doing so and pray that our country can find a way to return to informed, civilized debate.

That's my take.