ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN AMERICA

What does economic inequality mean in our American democracy?  It has certainly been a central focus of our political and social policy over the past two election cycles, beginning with the great recession.  After the stock and real estate markets crashed in 2007, 16 trillion dollars in value was lost. Shortly thereafter an African American with a message of hope became President. Because of the danger of total economic collapse, Obama could not favor the “Occupy Wall Street” socialist crowd. Instead, he worked to save the great American Banks and the auto industry. 

Despite gloom and doom forecasts, individuals with means invested wisely (it was a no brainer buying stocks at all time lows) and the financial markets rose from the ashes, stronger than before. For the wealthy the aftermath of the great recession was a greater increase in net worth.

Throughout the Obama years the economy got stronger.  But putting meat back on the bones of American commerce and industry did nothing for the middle class.  Jobs disappeared and wages stagnated.  Unsophisticated and older investors were afraid of the financial markets and their savings  did not grow in minimal interest savings accounts.

 For much of rural America the post recession economic boom was nonexistent.  Economic inequality reached an all time high in the West, with vast amounts of wealth accumulated in very few families.

In 2016, along came two very different candidates to run for the Presidency, a new kind of Republican who thrived on conspiracy theories and a Socialist from Vermont. Both seemed to favor many of the same policies designed to help the middle class.  They campaigned on keeping jobs in America and replacing free trade agreements; making health care and education less expensive and letting middle class white males move to the front of the economic line in place of immigrants and minorities.

The populist republican got elected and here we are. But will we actually see more income equality in America?  The tea leaves are not encouraging. First, the new President’s conservative allies believe in trickle-down economics that would continue to favor the wealthy who are viewed as the most talented and hard working of Americans, best able to create jobs for the struggling masses. 

Second, Trump’s white middle class base that got him elected does not have the political power of either the tea party or the traditional conservatives that now control both houses of Congress.  Trump will be forced to choose between keeping his promises to white populists who have little power and wealthy conservatives who run the government. It will be much easier to move the conservative agenda forward (witness Trump’s signing on to the Ryan health care plan) than to favor a populist movement that lacks an institutional base in Washington.

The realities of daily politics aside, recent research into the social and historical causes of economic equality are not encouraging and do not lead to simple policy remedies.  On the social side, pure luck, or the rolling of the economic dice, may be one of the most important factors in determining economic success. Consider the comments made by former Federal Reserve chairperson Ben Bernake at a Princeton University Baccalaureate speech in 2013:

“A meritocracy (often praised by conservatives as an ideal) is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement and, probably income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities and luckiest in so many other ways too difficult to enumerate – these are the folks that reap the largest rewards.”

The renowned economist, Robert H. Frank, published a short but instructive book in 2016, “Success and Luck, Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy” which concludes that inequality is driven by sheer luck.  The book demonstrates how in  our complex world, often dominated by winner take all scenarios, chance opportunities and trivial initial advantages often translate into much larger opportunities with enormous economic payoffs.  Those of us who have had success in our lives can easily point to examples of pure circumstance that have little to do with our intellect or drive to succeed.  Conversely, we all know of talented well educated people who continue to roll snake eyes and never achieved economic prosperity.

As if the influence of luck were not enough to depress us in addressing inequality, along comes a new masterful historical study of the history of inequality, “The Great Leveller” by Walter Schendel. This work concludes that governmental policy decisions do little to move the needle to make societies more equitable.  Schendel finds that only four historical events lead to economic leveling: epidemics like the Black Death; complete collapse of whole states (think the decline of the Roman Empire); revolutions and wars of mass mobilization, such as those experienced in the 20^th century. When society is leveled by one of these events, the rich lose the most and inequality is defeated until civilization recovers.

Of the book’s many examples, one that stands out is the comparison of classical Athenian culture and America during the Second World War.  In both cases the elites were forced to give up vast resources to support mass mobilization of the population for war.  How soon we forget that our top income tax rate reached 94% in 1944 and that the income leveling from trade unions and middle class expansion lasted well into the 1980s.

So where does this leave us in 2017?  Luck will certainly remain a factor and no one wants to encourage mass violence or a worldwide pandemic to achieve equality.  While some would argue that it is the goal of alt right members of the Trump inner circle to bring the established government down in flames to create a new utopia for the white middle class, it is hard to see this theory coming to fruition.

What is undisputed is that whatever was holding large scale inequality in check in America is now spent.  But this does not mean we must adopt Mr. Schendel’s conclusion that the future is more likely than not to remain stable and to have very high inequality.  Why should a sense of social cohesion and sacrifice by the wealthiest among us, for the greater good of us all, only be inspired by war or extreme social disruption?

It is my view that little will change to address income inequality during the Trump Presidency.  When his experiment fails, as it surely must, the political pendulum will swing back toward progressive values. A universal basic wage to help curb poverty will become possible.  Sharply higher income taxes for the rich and a wealth tax on inheritance will be implemented.  Thoughtful regulations will reign in abuses by corporate elites and protect the most vulnerable among us. 

  At a minimum these policies will prevent economic inequality from becoming more pronounced.  In the words of the great Social Democrat, Tony Judt: “Incremental improvements upon unsatisfactory circumstances are the best we can hope for, and probably all we should seek.”

IS THERE A CASE AGAINST DEMOCRACY?

While each day brings a new shock to the American political system, Trump is basically implementing policies he called for during the campaign.  The fact that he is doing so with little tact or political skill should come as no surprise.  It is simply Trump being Trump.  At some point his misguided experiment will either implode or become more conventional. For now, approximately one half of the electorate unequivocally believes Trump is on their side and taking appropriate measures to protect their interests.

The country will survive Trump. A more fundamental issue deserves our consideration. Does the recent election make a case against democracy? Was Plato correct that political power should be entrusted only to carefully trained educated guardians? Should we adopt a form of government that is less democratic but makes good decisions more often because it is run by what has been termed a “epistocracy” (Greek for knowledge and rule).  Is it justifiable to remove or limit the power to vote from those who are arguably irrational, ignorant or incompetent?

The political illiteracy of the voting public is well known and often the subject of late night television comedy sketches. A well dressed millennial is interviewed and cannot name the Vice President or their elected Senator and Congressman. Everyone laughs and forgets this person is a voter.

Comedy aside, how bad is America’s political literacy? A 2007 National Constitution Center Poll provides some answers.  Two thirds of Americans could not name all three branches of government, nor a single Supreme Court Justice.  More than a third could not name any first amendment rights.  42% believed that English was the first language of the Constitution and 25% believed Christianity was established as the official government religion. Only 40% knew there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Congress.

Henry Giroux, author of Zombie Politics has written: “It {emotionalism and political illiteracy} is perfectly suited for emptying the language of public life of all substantive content, reducing it in the end to a playground for hawking commodities, promoting celebrity culture and enacting the spectacle of right wing fantasies fueled by the fear that the public sphere is an exclusive club for white male Christians in danger of collapsing.” 

“Americans for Prosperity” has a nice ring to it if a disinterested voter does not realize it is the slogan of the Koch brothers designed to support their economic empire. “Make America Great Again” propelled Trump to the White House with few of his supporters bothering to research that the slogan originated in the propaganda of white supremacists calling for exclusion, intolerance and vitriol.

A recent book, Against Democracy, authored by Jason Brennan, a political philosopher from Georgetown, is instructive in this debate.  He divides the electorate into three groups.  First, are the hobbits that do not bother to learn about politics.  Second are the hooligans who follow political news with the partisan zealotry of sports fans.  Hooligans support their candidate or party under any and all circumstances. Lastly are the cream of the voter crop, Vulcans, who investigate politics with rational objectivity, respect all views and adjust opinions as the facts warrant.

 The problem is that there is no strong evidence that Vulcans exist in great numbers or that they would actually do a better job in choosing elected officials.  There are also the well founded objections of elitism and racism.  Most poor women, a group in desperate need of representation, would fail even an elementary voter qualification exam.

Clearly we need to look in other areas to improve the national political IQ.  A 2010 Pew Research Center survey of public affairs knowledge found that political literacy since the 1950s is in steady decline. The civic and social studies classes that baby boomers remember from their elementary school curriculum are a distant memory.  These classes need to be revived and quickly.

Making hobbits politically literate is important. Turning hobbits into Vulcans and not into liberal or conservative hooligans may be a more difficult task.  For too long many of us who value our political literacy have turned our  positions into a zero sum game.  The view that it is better to be right than to understand has turned us into warring camps with a great deal of bluster and little discourse.  Today, in the United States Senate there is no longer meaningful advise and consent only talk of the nuclear option.

For my part, as a lifelong democrat and progressive, I have found it necessary to reevaluate my views on the direction of the country and dig deeply into the mindset of the new American populism that brought Trump to power.

I have learned that the populist distrust toward existing political elites imbedded in both established parties is not irrational.  Trump supporters seem to care deeply about political power and are insisting that it protect them rather than oppress them.  While their views on gun control and immigration are not my own, I can now see how liberal positions on these issues foster suspicions of elite control and forced diversity.  Two recent books, one a memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, and the second a sociological study, Strangers in Their Own Land, have helped me understand the recent surge in nationalist populism. The post election Democratic Party must be receptive to this movement if it is to remain relevant moving forward.

Many of my progressive friends find solace in protesting every move made by the new administration and vowing to be as uncooperative as their political opposites during the Obama years.  Certainly immoral policy calls for stout resistance.  In the long run however, coalition building and political literacy is the answer to achieve liberal goals.

 I will end with the appropriate thoughts of James Madison, writing in Federalist #63, on the power of the executive:  "There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn."

This is one of those particular moments. Democracy will survive and be the stronger for it.  In the breach, find a Trump voter and make a friend.  When his or her support for Trump turns to condemnation, capture a vote.

WHAT DO TAXPAYERS WANT?

Three hot button issues in Washington County: tax reassessment, the County Health Center and Citizens Library have something important in common.  All three are part of an ongoing tug of war between providing public funds to correct inequalities and/or pay for public services on the one hand and to provide relief to the elusive “taxpayer” on the other.  It is important for taxpayers to understand and weigh in on this debate. We must collectively consider what is an acceptable quality of life and how much we are willing to pay in the form of taxes to achieve it. We must stop electing our officials with the singular goal of “saving taxes” to the detriment of other projects and public institutions.

Many view the classic property tax revolt of the modern era to be the adoption of Proposition 13 in California.  The framers of this drastic cut in public funds argued that because bureaucrats squander collected revenues and because property taxes are unfair to older residents on fixed incomes, property taxes should be minimal. 

The right to have and preserve a home was seen as paramount to funding schools, nursing homes, parks, street repair, libraries and garbage collection.  Wealthy California citizens in their palatial estates came out on top by saving enough in property taxes to send their children to private schools.  While slowly, other types of taxing authority were created to take up the slack, many average citizens in California watched their communities deteriorate beyond repair.

What Californians and others who have adopted similar plans have learned is that you get what you pay for.  Roads and streetlights are unimportant until the former are riddled with pot holes and the latter go dark and invite crime.  Inferior schools result in lower property values and hinder business growth in the community.  Closing libraries and fewer green spaces lower the quality of life.

So what does this have to do with Washington County?   It is time for citizens, tax payers all, to take stock of what they expect from their elected officials.  Not raising taxes cannot be the only measure of success.  While we must certainly take a stand to insure that tax revenues are spent wisely, we must also insist that there be adequate revenue to maintain a public space worth living in.

The County reassessment process was expensive and is causing short term uncertainty for local officials until the appeal process is completed.  To those who claim the process was a waste of public funds I would point out two simple facts.  First, many poorer and older County homeowners now have their property taxes lowered to reflect actual values in their neighborhoods. (Ironically, in aiding the over assessed and making the process equitable, reassessment accomplished one of the major goals of Proposition 13) Second, those who have an increased tax burden should be overjoyed at their savings after many years of paying too little and if these homeowners are reflective, even proud to step up and pay their fair share.

County taxpayer dollars and the future of the County Health Center are closely linked.  It is clear that the more taxpayer dollars committed to the Home (with less privatization) the higher the level of care for residents and the more jobs preserved at the facility. 

The taxpayer dollars of municipalities who come under the jurisdiction of Citizens Library and the future of Citizens Library are closely linked.  If these municipalities continue to cut long standing library commitments, hours will be cut, employees will be laid off and as surpluses are depleted the building will be shuttered.

I understand that attacking a complicated tax reform process is an easier target for elected officials than reducing tax incentives given to large Southpointe Corporations.  I get it that the County Home is a more expedient way to save tax dollars than taking on the too rich salaries, medical benefits and pensions of County employees.  I know it is easier to get elected to Council in East Washington with one campaign promise of “no new taxes”, then to develop a contingency plan for emergency road work or to merge with another municipality.  But as a taxpayer, I do not have to agree with the easier and softer way.

For those of us interested in encouraging what is just and worth saving in Washington County it is time to throw down the gauntlet.  On my part, I urge the Commissioners to dedicate public funds to maintain and update the assessment process on a regular basis.  Second, I am in favor of maintaining the County Health Center in its present form, with no or limited privatization.  Third, my message to the East Washington Council is to reinstate the commitment of $15,000.00 in funding to support Citizens Library. 

Other responsible options to save tax dollars should be explored. In the event taxes must be increased to cover any or all of these expenditures, I welcome the increase.

Hopefully, other taxpayers will let our elected officials know that “saving and/or lower taxes” is not the sole reason for supporting their election or tenure in office.  Equitable assessments, public health centers and funded libraries matter.  Concerned citizens should be willing to speak up, suggest alternatives to save on expenditures and ultimately to pay for the projects and institutions worth preserving.

THE HUMAN COST OF NURSING HOME PRIVATIZATION

We recently learned that the Washington County owned and operated Health Center is destined to become the latest victim to privatization.  The overriding issue appears to be red ink on the balance sheet.  Federally mandated reimbursement rates are well below what it takes for Washington County to run the facility.  It has been reported that if no changes are made, the County Health Center will lose close to 3 million dollars in 2017. 

But before elected officials pull the plug on this venerable institution, one that has provided Washington County with various public services since 1830, all solutions should be explored.  Sometimes, a public enterprise operating at a loss is an acceptable result when weighed against the alternatives, including the human cost of privatization.

Privatization is defined as a public service taken over by a for profit business, with the primary goal of profit-not service.  When a “for profit” business begins operating a Health Center (or hospital, prison, fire department or toll road, as the case may be) the business cuts costs to increase profits and satisfy its investors. In return the public entity receives either a lump sum payment or a long term cost saving, relieving its taxpayers of an ongoing financial burden and management headache.

The most common actions undertaken by private concerns to increase profits following privatization include: eliminating unions, raising prices to consumers, cutting worker benefits, expanding working hours, and terminating long term employees who earn the most.  More troubling, in a nursing home setting, cutting services to residents might be a prime cost cutting feature.

As luck would have it our Washington County decision makers do not have to dive into privatization of the Health Center with a blind eye. The Keystone Research Center, a well established nonprofit organization out of Harrisburg, with the mission to: “broaden public discussion on strategies to achieve a more prosperous and equitable Pennsylvania economy” has already done much of the heavy lifting.

Several years ago this group researched and published an extensive report on the human cost of nursing home privatization in Western Pennsylvania. The subjects of the study were the Kane Regional Centers in Allegheny County, where privatization was proposed but never implemented; Comfort Home, which remained public but where the operation was taken over by a for-profit management company and Chelsea Manor, which was sold outright to an entity, created by the county for the purpose of buying the facility.  The report compares these homes with one another and with Green Gables, a private nursing home known for its low wages, high employee turnover and poorer quality of care, which at one point lead to suspension of admissions.

The widely circulated report is readily available in PDF format and provides some interesting findings, including the following:

·        Although (with increased funding pressure) staffing levels declined whether or not privatization was ultimately carried out, the most significant staffing cuts occurred where privatization was taken the furthest.

·        Workers’ wages and employee turnover, two factors affecting care continuity, were most negatively affected at the home where privatization proceeded furthest.

·        At both homes where some form of privatization was implemented, workers complained about shortages of medical and patient care supplies.

·        After privatization, Chelsea Manor began to develop a pattern of unexplained resident injuries, some of which were not properly investigated or reported.

·        All of the homes in the study, in varying degrees of urgency, needed more nurses’ aides. However, the Kane facilities in Allegheny County and public homes across Pennsylvania have much lower turnover among nurses’ aides than is typical for private homes.

While the report contains other findings and a great deal of background information not included above, the overall conclusion is clear.  The greater the level of privatization adopted by the county, the greater the problems attributable to staffing and level of care. 

Washington County has been better than most in preserving a public care facility.  It is one of only 16 Pennsylvania counties that continue to provide such a public service.  The rising costs of maintaining the Health Center are real.  But the human costs to long term employees and residents, following privatization, are also real.

One can only hope that the $260.00 an hour attorneys, hired to advise the county on privatization options, will consider these human costs along with the various financial models available.  There may well be an option that gives county taxpayers a break, without sacrificing our older and disabled citizens (and long term county employees) on the altar of privatization.  Simply saving the most money should clearly not be the goal.

Washington County residents with skin in this game need to get educated on privatization and make themselves heard at public meetings.  After all, these residents, their older and disabled loved ones and their family, friends and neighbors who work at the Health Center, all pay taxes as well.

THE MICRO VIEW

Enough of national politics.  The emotional damage that political tribalism has caused to the fabric of our society has been unprecedented.  One candidate has become President. Millions of well meaning Americans are not only unhappy, but angry. Until the next national election their solace will be to break out the “I TOLD YOU SO” bumper stickers and to enjoy the political cartoons lambasting the candidate they voted against.

The 24/7 news cycle leading up to the election was a feeding frenzy of overblown personalities, with sexual and criminal accusations wrapped in unattainable campaign promises.  Cable news and political pundits will certainly not let the battle end.  Congressional opponents are already planning for the next ugly national conflagration over funding the federal government.

For those that are sick of the negativism and feel they have little influence over the events that shape their lives, the post election period is an excellent time to look around the neighborhood.  The irony in being a force for positive change is that where we can accomplish the most, closer to home, we often choose to do nothing.

 Here in Washington County, zealous supporters for both presidential candidates must continue to live, work and play together. We can all agree there is much to like about our corner of Pennsylvania.  Conversely, what important community work is yet to be done and deserves our attention?  On what can all citizens agree, regardless of political affiliation?  Where can we get involved and make a difference? I will offer some possibilities.

Diversity  Diversity matters and must be taken seriously if Washington County is to reach its full potential. The appointment of Ms. Geraldine Jones as President of California University of Pennsylvania, a well qualified African American woman, was an important positive step. However, the paucity of minority employees in county government, the court system and law enforcement remains an unaddressed problem.  The fact that the City of Washington has no minority police officers is rightfully seen as an insult by the black community. Washington County should follow the lead of other Pennsylvania Counties undergoing social change and appoint a Diversity Commission to draw up recommendations for local leaders.  Such a Commission is long overdue and should be formed with concerned citizens and bi partisan support.

Citizen’s Library  While all of the County’s libraries are important, Citizens Library is undergoing a crisis and needs immediate attention.  Uniquely, the Board of Directors is composed of representatives of each municipality that is serviced by Citizens.  Some appointed Directors wrongly believe their loyalty is to their municipality and not to the library.  This has caused dissension on the Board and an inability to address funding issues or capital projects.  A consultant hired to make recommendations to the Board, recently “fired” Citizens Library as a client because of its inability to have the Board consider even the most rudimentary of structural changes.  Concerned citizens should make it a point to attend open Citizens Library Board meetings and municipal meetings in their own communities to insist on appointment of Board members who want to see Citizens Library move forward.  Users and friends of the Library should also call for enhanced municipal funding for the Library. The alternative will be loss of staff and shrinking hours of operation.

Property Assessment  Now that the property assessment process is completed, county officials should remove their political hats and replace them with their leadership hats by embracing the results.  Washington County now has an equitable property tax system for the first time in many years.  This should be a badge of pride and accomplishment.  We are a shining example for other counties where inequitable assessments result in poorer communities paying more than their fair share. 

Unfortunately, the assessment results have caused unnecessary fear, anger and confusion. County officials and the media, including the Observer Reporter, must do a better job of explaining the ultimate effect of the assessment to individual tax payers, particularly our older and less informed citizens.  Those who understand how the new assessments will play out over time should take the time to explain the system to their friends and neighbors.

Fostering a Sense of Community  The City of Washington is a bastion of community organizations designed to meet the needs of its citizens.  The City Mission, Lemoyne Center, Senior Citizens Center and Teen Outreach are examples of this rich tradition. Unfortunately, Washington County remains a jurisdiction divided into three distinct social groups. The rural hamlets on the one hand and Southpointe/Peters Township on the other, have little affinity for the City beyond court and county business.  While not an easy task, prudent leadership should take steps to decentralize services and activities throughout the County. For example, a creative arts center at Southpointe is a good project for this wealthy business community, to integrate Southpointe into the wider County population.

 Citizens need to do their part by leaving their safety zone and learning what the entire County has to offer.  One of my most enjoyable experiences this year was attending a County wide high school track meet at the California High School.  Free talks and cultural events at W&J College, California University and the County libraries are under attended.  We need to remove the blinders and take notice that such gems are happening every day.

Economics   Washington County is blessed with oil and gas resources that have provided valuable revenue and many spin off small businesses for its employment base.  However, since the oil recession of November 2014, we have learned that the cyclical nature of this industry does not insure economic prosperity.  As a hedge, non cyclical “new economy” industries must be encouraged to locate here. 

There will always be friction between oil and gas representatives seeking to meet their goals and environmentalists seeking regulation of those goals. Recently, the Pennsylvania’s Medical Association called for a halt to fracking activities until more is known about its adverse effects on our health.  County leaders must not favor one interest group over the other.  Citizens should not hesitate to get involved on either side of this debate which will continue for decades to come.

Social Services  This has been the year of the opioid epidemic and to a lesser extent bringing mental health out of the shadows.  The Observer Reporter has been in the local vanguard on both issues, highlighting them with human interest stories that offer hope and encouragement. Washington County should be proud to have a District Attorney and Court system that seek to treat those with either or both afflictions rather than to jail them. 

Unfortunately, the larger problem with opioid abuse and mental illness is not empathy or criminal justice.  Washington County needs additional funding to expand existing programs and to create new ones.  It is a sad experience to sit in on a County sponsored public meeting to address how block grant funds will be spent for human services, where no members of the public are in attendance.  County residents living with or around addiction or mental illness must get involved in insisting on better programs and services.  

I hope that I have identified some issues on which die hard political opponents can agree are important for our community.  There are many other established organizations from the food banks and literacy council to the domestic violence shelters, hospital and Washington Symphony that need the attention of volunteers who want to make a difference.

 While the political climate may be stalemated and vicious at the national level, citizens and local elected officials, working together, can create positive change. If each of us were to tune out the national news cycle and tune in to a local cause that directly or indirectly affects our lives, the results would be “over the moon”.  Here at home, in Washington County, there is much more to unite us and make us proud, than to tear us apart.

WHAT A TRUMP PRESIDENCY MIGHT LOOK LIKE

Election Day is close at hand.  After November 8, the thousands of articles written by political pundits, the hundreds of cable news shows and the millions of dollars spent on political advertising will no longer matter.  Either the White House will be claimed by our first woman president or by a maverick firebrand who adopts Ronald Reagan as his (sometimes) domestic model and refuses to disclose his plans in foreign affairs.

Donald Trump has clearly struck a chord with segments of white America who want this election to be about them.  They see Mr. Trump as the change agent needed to give voice to their complaints and fears.  This may be their last chance as an interest group to control the national agenda and they intend to seize the moment.

 Despite Trump’s missteps and un-presidential demeanor, he has an even chance of becoming the next leader of the free world.  In these final days before America votes, it is time to stop arguing about Trump’s statements and his campaign management.  Instead undecided voters should stand back and consider what a Trump presidency might look like. 

 It is time to extrapolate Trump the candidate into Trump the President. After all, four years of a Trump Presidency is the real issue, not this mean spirited election which often feels like a war of attrition.

FIRST 100 DAYS:  It is safe to assume that if Trump wins, Republicans will keep control of the Senate and House.  One would think that his first acts would be to repeal large portions of Obama Care; cancel administrative orders on immigration and regulatory matters; take some action to build a wall on the Mexican border and introduce his tax cuts.  If he nominates a Supreme Court candidate unacceptable to Democrats, this could derail his other programs as the Supreme Court battle consumes the Senate.

Before Republicans start cheering, remember that Trump has zero governmental experience and has alienated the Republican Congressional   leadership, some think beyond repair. His major election advisers, Governor Chris Christie, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator Jeff Sessions are outliers with little influence on Capitol Hill.  Believing he would manage the first 100 days of his Presidency any better than he did the Republican convention is not a good bet.

HONEYMOON PERIOD WITH CONGRESS: This is a different issue from the first 100 days because Trump is not a typical Republican.  Tea Party members of Congress will find little to like because while Trump may talk like a gun toting bigot, his daughter will want her father to govern more like a social liberal.  President Trump will not be a no spend tea party conservative.  He will appear more like father and son Bush, seeking to spend revenue to advance his projects like immigration enforcement, law enforcement, child care proposals and making the military “big, powerful and strong.”  His plans to force other nations to pay for projects, from the Mexican Wall, NATO commitments and Chinese trade imbalances will prove difficult to implement.   Traditional Republicans will soon wish Clinton had won the election as Trump roils the financial markets.

PRESIDENTIAL STYLE:  Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan who delegated to competent advisors.  His style is more in the Jimmy Carter micro-management camp. Unfortunately, Trump is also no Carter. He will waste valuable political capital on counter punching the media, Democrats and fellow Republicans who challenge his statements and policies.  His inability to understand that words matter, which has not affected his electability, will cause a series of crises, particularly in foreign policy.  Trump’s Secretary of State and Press Secretary will have the most difficult jobs in government, explaining his words and cleaning up after him.

DOMESTIC POLICY:  Eight years of steady profits and cheap money did not compel corporate America to invest in new factories or infrastructure.  Instead, increased productivity through layoffs and automation and using profits to buy back stock shares was the order of the day.  There is nothing in Trump’s corporate tax cuts that would compel a different result.  He does nothing to tie tax breaks to increased corporate spending on job creation.  If Trump is serious about penalizing corporations who use cheap overseas labor and in attacking all trade deals, he will run afoul of free market Republicans.

 Regarding individual taxes, his reduction plan will increase inequality by making the rich, richer and will increase the deficit.  There has been little evidence of trickle down spending by the wealthy.  Instead well healed Americans have plowed savings into the stock market which has had phenomenal growth since the recession.

 Domestic unrest will increase based on Trump’s off the cuff comments and his divisive election tactics.  The coal mines will not magically reopen and rust belt factories will not be unshuttered. Investment capital is not interested in reviving the old economy when the new economy holds so much profit potential .  There are no Trump plans to fix the student loan crisis or to recommit the nation to an equitable education policy.

FOREIGN POLICY:  This is the wild card in a Trump Presidency.  World leaders with the exception of the most embedded despots fear the worst.  Trump’s refusal to offer policies he would follow forces friend and foe to recalculate the options, many of which are destabilizing to the world order.  If a President Trump seeks to renegotiate alliances with Europe, South Asia and the Far East, pro American world leaders will be forced to rethink their own security concerns. 

Trump may be correct that compelling Germany, France, Japan, South Korea and India, among others, to increase militarization might save a small percentage of the defense budget. But the cost to American hegemony would be beyond repair.  Moreover, regimes in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran would expand quickly to fill the vacuum.

As a direct result of Trump’s election statements and positions, Islamic fundamentalists will have resurgence both in the Mid East ISIS Caliphate and in recruiting terrorists in the West.  A vicious cycle of Islamic repression and increased violence at home and abroad will result.  Trump will find common cause with right wing governments in Europe who will support his draconian immigration policies.

Trump has made clear that the United States would no longer participate in global warming initiatives and treaties.  Trade wars will irrupt as existing accommodations are no longer honored by the Trump administration.

When sober Republicans and Independents enter the voting booth they must be careful what they wish for.   Voters should remember that the Clinton 90s were a time of economic prosperity, balanced budgets and thoughtful foreign policy.  Hillary Clinton will continue this tradition now that Obama has guided the country through the recession.

 Our economy in 2016 is the largest and most stable in the world. American diplomacy and military strength are the envy of the world.   Changing horses when you are in the lead and in the home stretch on numerous positive policies does not make sense.   A vote for Trump will be betting on uncertainty and disruption, not change for the better.

HILLARY CLINTON NEEDS TO LISTEN TO HER HUSBAND 

Two contrasting approaches to the Presidential campaign were offered up by Hillary Clinton and her Husband, Bill Clinton last Friday. Here in Washington, Bill Clinton spoke for 20 minutes during his surprise afternoon visit to the local Clinton headquarters.  He used his folksy southern delivery to emphasis that Trump supporters are not bad people and deserve our respect as Americans, even as we vehemently disagree with their choice for President, a man living in a vacuum of principles.   In effect he was giving the assembled campaign workers a way to avoid political “road rage” and identity politics as they interact with prospective voters in the coming weeks leading up to the election.

While her husband was giving this inclusive message, Hillary was delivering the opposite pitch on Friday evening.  She blasted 20% of the electorate, Trump supporters all, by lumping them together into a big “basket of deplorables.” This unenviable basket labels a large percentage of those who have declared for Trump as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic.

This difference in campaign tactics, not to mention differing philosophies on voters and leadership was astounding to me. Though a Hillary supporter, I agree with Bill Clinton that it is not only possible, but necessary, to attack Trump, without demonizing those who have expressed an interest in voting for him.

The winner of this election will face the herculean task of pulling the country back together again.  The new President must find a way to break down the vertical silos among interest groups and find horizontal agreement among all Americans.  Expressing the view that a vote for Trump makes one a bad person is not a good start in achieving this goal. 

Now that Hillary has apologized for her statement, she needs to carefully listen to her Husband’s stump speech and adopt his message as her own.

 .