Don't Like Thinking About Deficits? Then Better Be Sure You Win The PowerBall Or Mega Millions.

Let's concede that deficits are not a choice subject of conversation or discussion for too many Americans. They'd almost rather reach for their Instagram and look at the latest flicks of kitties punching each other than delve into any economic topic, especially deficits.   But with the latest planned shitstorm by the GOP - passing a new round of tax cuts they ought to be paying more attention.

In a WSJ report on Friday we learned just how reckless the GOP and Trump bunch has been in pumping up spending (via tax cuts) to record levels, even as the likes of 'Bitch' McConnell talk about "having to cut entitlements" - namely Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why pray tell?  Well, because the tax cuts passed last year didn't "pay for themselves" as the Repuke hucksters had promised. Indeed, the Treasury Department reported that the federal government's budget deficit grew to $779 billion for the year ending Sept. 30th.  This was up 17 percent from the year before and came as a result of last year's sweeping tax cut.

That tax cut drastically reduced tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product .  At the same time, according to the WSJ report '(Federal Deficit Has Widened') government spending rose 3 percent to $4.1 trillion.  Meanwhile rising interest rates and the amount of total debt outstanding drove up federal interest costs 14 percent last year, by $65 billion".  (Imagine paying $65 b  just in interest on your credit card)  Trump complained that this was because of the Fed raising interest rates, but of course he was talking out of his fat ass.

The interest rates being leveraged by the Fed are most directly concerned with too rapidly rising wages and prices. However, it is true that the national debt does increase if  the federal interest rates increase.  Higher short and long term Treasury rates mean the federal government's borrowing costs also rise, so generating significant consequences for the budget and national debt.   This is why generating revenue - especially in an environment already replete with aggregate demand (because of the exceptionally low unemployment rate) - is more important than reducing revenue via tax cuts for an unnecessary stimulus.

But that is why we need circumspect leaders and political parties who are courageous enough to add revenue - via higher taxes - when needed, instead of tying to score political points.  Every manjack in the country - especially students with massive loan debt and ordinary folks tapped out on their credit cards- knows that interest on their debt can eat them alive if they're not careful. That is why credit card companies insist you pay back only a minimum amount each month - hoping to keep the interest $$$ flowing into their bank coffers.

But this is now the situation with the U.S. government which is spending way more than it takes in.  And instead of increasing our income to accommodate our spending - like you or I would -it insists on spending even more while reducing revenue!  Can anyone say madness?

But lo and behold there's a method to the madness.   Thus, earlier last week Sen. Mitch McConnell responded to the growing deficit by blaming "entitlement" programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.  Indeed, he and the putative next House GOP chair (if the Reeps win everything again) have promised the 'big three' will be the first things they will go after for cutting.

Trump himself has called for massive cuts - trillions of dollars worth - to food stamps, disability benefits, welfare and student loans.  (Not cutting interest on them, but cutting the loans altogether).

Nancy Pelosi, say what you will about her, was at least honest in her assessment of the situation, quoted in the WSJ report:

"Republicans have exposed their true agenda in budget after budget: add trillions to the deficits to justify slashing the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that seniors and families rely on."

But, of course, we knew this from the time the odious "stimulus" tax bill was passed, when no stimulus was needed, see e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/12/paul-munster-ryan-admits-he-wants-to.html

The shortfall in government expenditures will rise above $1 trillion next year. Deficit spending makes sense during a recession. But what Trump is doing now is essentially allowing the rich to siphon the cream off the top, providing the middle class with some skim milk, and leaving the sour dregs for everyone else.  The stimulus where none is needed also makes it much more probable the Fed will have to continue raising interest rates to cool off an overheated economy. Fed chief Jerome Powell has already indicated that if things keep going as they are several more interest rate hikes may be coming next year - not good news for those who have mortgages, or plan on buying a home. (Already as reported in the weekend  WSJ and FT, home sales are receding - as interest rates now approach 5 %.)

Then there’s corporate debt which is now set to be on rocket power given the corporate tax cuts.  Companies have taken advantage of low interest rates to borrow like crazy. This summer, corporate debt hit a new high of $6.3 trillion. Worse, the cash-to-debt ratio, which was 14 percent in 2008, has dropped to 12 percent: that’s $1 in cash for every $8 of debt.  Nor are companies doing much with that tax cut money other than share buybacks, further fueling excess valuations, higher P/E ratios in the asset bubble, overheated stock market.  It's no wonder now the volatility is spiking again.

Here's another alarm bell for those (mainly investors) who might need one. For several years the term premium (the additional yield investors demand for the risk of lending over long periods) on the 10-year Treasury has been negative.  This is a rarity that is tied - in part- to supply constraints and bond buying by the Fed and other central banks.  But this month the term premium became less negative, rising to -0.32 from -0.45 percentage point (at the end of last month)

In the months ahead the term premium could get even less negative and possibly even turn positive. Also, supply constraints on the bond market are likely to shift as the Fed continues to reduce its balance sheet, i.e. the trillions of bonds purchased via quantitative easing after the financial crisis.  The more imminent danger point then will arrive as other central banks also rein in their bond-buying programs and the U.S. government issues more debt in order to cover its growing budget deficit.

Buckle your seat belts and pay attention, because ultimately - unless you're independently wealthy - what happens with the deficits and tax cuts will affect you!

Why No Health Care "Compromise" Is Possible With The Right

Amidst millions of gallons of ink spilt very few have pointed out that the Senate Healthcare Bill ("Better Care" - so called) never fessed up to its central premise: to cut federal medical benefits to the bone. So no wonder so few citizens are enthused about it, opting to engage in high profile protests (with the disabled in wheelchairs) including at Senators' offices and outside their homes.

Meanwhile, the ideological Right pushes its "free market" (i.e. you're on your own) agenda in op-eds and other forums to get the Reep bill passed, any bill. Alas, that bill resides in limbo as Mitch McConnell waits for John McCain to recover from blood clot surgery to return to D.C. and vote. Of course, McCain - like McConnell-   has a "Cadillac" level of care in what is provided via his Senate health plan. Too many millions of Americans do not.

How bad is what's on offer? Over the past few days we beheld the organization known as AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans) put the kibosh on the version of the Reepo bill offered (via amendment) by Ted Cruz. To remind readers, Cruz'  proposal (called "mini-Med" by critics ) would let insurers  sell low cost plans with skimpy coverage as long as they also sell policies providing a stringent set of services they're already required to provide under the ACA, aka "Obamacare".  But the AHIP and its sister organizations (e.g. Blue Cross - Blue Shield Association) have asserted this would:

- Be unworkable in any form

- Increase premiums

- Lead to widespread termination of coverage

Bottom line, this gimmick would encourage the healthy to go "lowball" and buy the bare bones policies leaving sicker people (who need comprehensive coverage) confronting unaffordable costs. In fact, two insurance groups assert premiums would skyrocket for those with pre-existing conditions, especially for middle income families who don't qualify for the bill's tax credit (which is pathetic as it is and in no way compare's to the generous ACA subsidies that actually made a difference).

But hey, this is exactly what the Repukes want! A bare bones, mock "health care" bill masquerading as a real one to provide PR cover so they can deliver tax cuts to the rich. Once one grasps that, and that cutting the biggest piece of the health care puzzle (Medicaid) is what the Right is all about, then it becomes evident why no compromise is possible.

Let's start with the delirious Peggy Noonan who recently wrote in a WSJ op -ed  ('On Health Care, A Promise,  Not A Threat', July 1-2, p. A13) that a Democratic Senator ought to come forward to work with the Repubs for a health compromise thereby "showing a little humility and humanity".  According to her "this person would be a hero in the Beltway which prizes compromise and constructiveness".

Adding:

"The Democratic Party made this mess. It's on them to help dig out of it. If they show some humility, Republicans would look pretty poor in not responding with their own olive branch."

I have news for Miss Peggy, the Republicans already look pretty piss poor with their barbaric Senate bill - even after a proposal to remove the tax cuts for the rich. Why the hell should any Dem with more than air between the ears help these fools out of their morass?  Besides, there is simply no way to any such compromise given it would be political suicide for the Dems to go along with gutting Medicaid, which is the core basis of McConnell's bill.

Since the Repukes will not cooperate with the Ds unless Medicaid is cut (some $774 b by 2020)  and the Ds will not cooperate with the 'pukes if they insist on such cutting - then there is absolutely no way to any Noonan-style compromise, whether the Beltway likes it or not.

None of the conservo opinion writers, as I will show,  appear to grasp that the entire state -federal funding system for low income and disabled citizens would be changed to a per capita cap if Medicaid was cut.  Such a move would forever limit federal spending to the states - many of which are already facing huge budget crunches, deficits. What do you then think would happen? Well the disabled and sick would be tossed out to beg for any help they could get.

The 'pukes talk of getting these low income folk into cheaper policies (like Cruz' advocates)  but what they're really advocating is putting them into health care ghettoes: exploitative policies preying on pools of the mostly sick featuring monumental deductibles combined with outrageous premiums and very limited care (e.g. no maternity care, no mental health care, no ER visits).  What sort of  political moron would sign onto that  and have his/her name on the legislation? Certainly no sane Dem!

Thus, Noonan's blather that "the GOP donor class would likely hate a compromise bill as the Democratic Party's nihilist left - which wants no compromise" misses the point because she doesn't grasp the fact that giving away the store to make nice is a losing wicket. Once again, for a million economic reasons, gutting Medicaid to salvage McConnell's bill can't be part of any humane compromise.

The steady, stupid spin of the Right in assorted op-eds and thinktank blather also has antagonized the Democrats. One of the most ignorant and disgusting of all was rendered by Peter Cove in his July 5th WSJ piece ('Get Able-Bodied Americans Off The Couch') depicting those on the Medicaid rolls as deadbeats and latter day welfare queens.  He argued that basically there were millions of "able bodied" - including men- just laying around and grabbing Medicaid without working - when they could work and get health benefits from a company.

One had to wonder what this asshole was drinking or what manner of dope he was smoking.  Other WSJ  letter writers also echoed his babble including that "those in poverty have the luxury of saying 'no' to a job and suffering no consequences when they choose not to work".  Suffer no consequences? What is this dense cretin thinking? How about his kids without enough food, or having his utilities shut down or his home foreclosed?   Added to the earlier drivel,  this other ignorance: "Someone who loses a job loses not one penny of cash assistance nor his food stamp vouchers nor Section 8 housing".  Again, no remote idea that de facto cuts have already been applied to those programs.   For example, in March, 2016 a budget decision by the Repukes  led to up to 1 million in 22 states losing their food assistance (SNAP)  benefits after three months regardless of how hard they were looking for work.

But that's the key characteristic of these Philistines on the Right:  they don't care that people are already working.  If they're not earning enough money it's all on them,  not the economy,  which is geared more to Wall Street than Main Street. (Look at how the DOW has shot past 21,000 yet consumers have cut back on spending the past two months, according to the WSJ , July 16).

No wonder the above sort of comments and Cove's piece elicited furor in the Colorado Medicaid care and recipient community. Moe Keller, a Vice President of Mental Health Colorado noting (Denver Post, July 9, p. 16A):

"There is a shocking ignorance about who these people on Medicaid are. They (op-ed writers, public officials, much of the public) think they're just siting around eating bon-bons and watching TV. They're not. They're working individuals."

Or - they are people who have worked hard, and  are not now in a physical condition to do what they used to.  At least one WSJ letter contributor - an M.D. - did provide the proper perspective. As he wrote in his reply to Cove's piece (July 17):

"Some of my unemployed patients are over 50, have a history of back or similar injury, abuse or previous jail time. Employers don't want to take the risk of employing such an individual as firing them might entail claims of age discrimination, or payment for work-related injuries......A person on Medicaid with significant and costly chronic medical problems who wants to work simply cannot afford to take the chance of losing public health benefits as private insurance with its copays and deductibles are overwhelming at entry level positions"

In other words, the choice not to work (if one's job potential is limited) - for whatever reason  - is a rational one. It is also a rational one to go onto Medicaid if one is already covered by their own insurance but have a child with severe brain damage whose physical needs would not be fully covered by that private insurance.

This is the case of Jennifer and Matthew Fischer highlighted in the Denver Post's extended look at Medicaid recipients in Colorado (op. cit.). Both, as the Post notes, "have health insurance and work full time".  It "covers major medical issues picks up substantial costs for their child's medical care" - though they inevitably hit their maximums in January each year.   But there is much it doesn't provide and that's where Medicaid comes in. That includes: the wheelchair ($25,000), the formula their 11 -year old (Cecilia) which needs to be ingested through a feeding tube. ($500 a month), and the nurse who accompanies their daughter to school and attends to her needs.  As the Post explains:

"All of that is covered through a Medicaid waiver, making Cecilia among the 45 percent of the state's Medicaid recipients who are age 20 or younger."

This insight is critical in skewering the whining of other Right nabobs like WSJ columnist Daniel Henninger who has pissed and moaned  ('The GOP's Fatal Infatuation', July 9):because "Medicaid's original purpose was to ensure medical care for the disabled and poor women and children" i.e.  not middle class people.  So, of course, Henninger like other pro-GOP whiners has complained long and hard about Obamacare's "evil genius" in expanding the program.  Henninger concedes that GOP gubernators in "expansion states" have had no choice than to swallow "the kool aid" and accept it, because their citizens have grown dependent on it..

According to Henninger (ibid.):

"Once the governors took expanded Medicaid payments, they were hooked"


Adding that "Medicaid is already lowest common denominator medicine"

Well, try telling that to the Fischers who have seen their daughter Cecilia reach a level of capacity she wouldn't have otherwise, i.e. without Medicaid.  It's easy for  one percenter nabobs like Henninger to dismiss Medicaid when they reap Cadillac level care via their elite jobs, like at the WSJ. But for those who have it and depend on it, especially to keep sick and disabled kids and family  cared for at home, it's as gold standard as one could want.

Another Rightist letter writer, commenting on the Post's Medicaid story (July 16, Perspective), exceeded all lows for a normal human of any sentience by bellyaching that most Medicaid beneficiaries had "gotten themselves into their economic predicaments by their own choices".  Adding: "Why should I as a taxpayer have to bail them out?"  Well, uh...because you are supposed to be a decent person with some measure of humanity and care for your fellow citizens?

But let's not kid ourselves here. The Right, essentially, has zero interest in providing any kind of viable health care to those who most need it because such quality care costs money - which they may  have to pay for via taxes. So they'd rather engage in PR stunts and obfuscation than come clean to the American people about what they're really doing.  That is, to gut the one program that nearly 76 million depend on and which stands between them and medical catastrophe or bankruptcy and penury.

One of the most spot on observations made by one Medicaid recipient (via the ACA) appeared in the latest TIME (July 24, p. 34):

"The party that would have me crucified for having an abortion now wants to make it impossible for me to keep him alive."

Again, betraying the whopping magnitude of hypocrisy on the Right pertaining to abortion: that all it cares about is life before birth - but not afterward.

There is no way any sober and sane Democrat could ever agree to a compromise with this lot that demands the gutting of Medicaid.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/donna-smith/74038/ode-to-the-sicko-decade-and-single-payer-power

Sessions And Other 'Despicables' Need to Be Properly Vetted This Week - NO Rushing Through!

Jeff Sessions: Having this Racist Boor at AG would be like appointing  an ex Nazi as Israel's Attorney General

Seriously now, would you permit an uncertified or unlicensed guy who professes the skills of a surgeon (but who's been found to have botched numerous operations) to remove your gall bladder or appendix? If not, then why would you countenance the appointment of a racist scofflaw to the position of highest legal officer in the land? Would you not, as a matter of integrity for the office and respect, demand whoever aspired to this position be thoroughly vetted - especially his legal background- and not sped through with dramatic recklessness?

Let's not bandy words here: What the Repukes are trying to do  starting tomorrow with scheduling a slew of hearings for Trump nominations  is nothing short of unethical, and likely immoral as well.  And, as the NY Times noted in its editorial yesterday, this will be the first true test of the degree to which the Democrats are willing to fight, especially against the Johnny Reb racist swine Jeff Session.

To put this shameful rush into perspective, Walter M. Schaub, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics has already made his verdict known, affirming that the "pace of hearings is putting undue pressure on investigators."  (Denver Post, yesterday, 'Watchdog Worried By Rush to Confirm',  p. 12A).

Mr. Schaub informed Democrats as well as Republicans that such shenanigans are "of great concern" because the nominees have not been properly vetted.  That includes completing a detailed ethics review - by answering multiple questions in a formal questionnaire - as to do with possible conflicts of interest and ethical issues. In other words, it would be analogous to allowing a flock of doctors, dentists, lawyers through to practice without having  passed their exams or shown certification of any ability. This ought to worry not just Democrats but ALL citizens, and that includes Reepos.

As Mr. Schaub put it in a letter answering an inquiry by Democrats:

"The schedule...has left some of the nominees with potentially unknown or unresolved conflicts of interest issues shortly before their scheduled hearings."

Those with short memories might want to have them jogged regarding how Nixon VP Spiro Agnew was forced to resign (Oct. 10. 1973) when his background of political corruption and income tax evasion finally saw the light of day.  Thus underscoring the importance of doing a proper, thorough vetting of any high ranking government official.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but eight years ago Sen. Mitch McConnell insisted ALL of Obama's appointees submit to full vetting including full background checks and financial disclosures. Now, however, "Bitch" is singing a different, hypocritical tune, saying: the Dems are invoking "sour grapes"  (the same tune the Repukes are singing with the revelation of the Russian hacks) and blabbering:

"So all of these procedural complaints are related to their frustration in having not only lost the White House but having lost the Senate. I understand that but we need to sort of grow up here and get past that."

So, "Bitch", why didn't your lot "grow up" back in 2009 and just let Obama's appointees pass?  Oh wait, might it not be that "Bitch" believes there's one rule for his GOOPrs and one for the Dems? Yeppers.

As the Agnew case shows, these matters are not merely procedural complaints or technical abstractions. If a guy is allowed through to a high official position it can wreak no end of havoc on the nation, and on his party too. This is why blabbering balderdash (such as spouted by "Bitch") needs to be ignored and a proper vetting done. Again, would you really want a guy only qualified to be a cable technician removing your wisdom teeth? Or removing your gall bladder? How 'bout doing a prostate biopsy?

Well, it's the same damned thing here if we properly assume these positions bear real responsibility and aren't merely political rewards!  Nowhere is this more critical than vetting the racist, proto Confederate,  KKK sympathizer Jeff Sessions (who only backed off from a full endorsement of  the Klan because he learned they used marijuana).  Jeff Sessions, let's be clear, isn't fit to run a pig farm far less occupy the highest law position in the land, that of Attorney General of the United States. In fact, allowing this asshole to go through without a fight would be not so much different as Israel allowing a known ex-Nazi and S.S. ascend to become Israel's Attorney General.

The Senate Republicans' tactic of flooding the zone with multiple hearings over two days is itself despicable.  This is especially as many of these ultra-wealthy nominees (e.g. Betsy DeVos, Rex  Tillerson)  exhibit tangled financial interests that are nowhere near being fully vetted by ethics officials.  Also their paperwork is incomplete.

The fact McConnell made Obama's picks jump through ever hoop , dotting every i, crossing every t in this background paperwork shows the same must be demanded here. NO exceptions!.  Scanning over this  menagerie of misfits and despicables, the one that really needs a search light is Sessions.

As the NY Times Editorial put it:

"If anyone requires a thorough vetting, it’s Mr. Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama who trails behind him a toxic cloud of hostility to racial equality, voting rights, women’s rights, criminal justice reform and other issues at the heart of the Justice Department’s mandate. Yet in their eagerness to act on his nomination, Senate Republicans seem unconcerned that Mr. Sessions, who has made appropriate financial disclosures, has failed to turn over dozens — possibly hundreds — of documents that the committee specifically requests in its standard questionnaire, including transcripts of speeches, interviews, opinion pieces and other public remarks."

The Times went on to observe that Sessions  - who up to now has not provided all relevant details regarding background and conflicts of interest, once suggested that judicial nominees may be committing crimes when they withhold relevant information from the Senate,.  Well, how about prosecuting Sessions now for his own withholding of information? Or are we to permit this hypocritical knuckle dragger to practice 'do as I say not as I do' ethics? In other words, allow a scofflaw to become AG.

He's used the absurd argument the that there is no record of the vast majority of interviews he has given over the years, but a quick Google search disproves that.  Clearly, the Dems need to force the bastard to cough up the links for every one, especially the most racially charged and hostile. Then he needs to explains each and every instance where he inveighs against civil rights, especially voting rights.

Mr. Schaub. head of the government ethics office put this even more bluntly:

"I am not aware of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process"

Spiro Agnew clones on the way?  Maybe!

Trump & Repukes Need To Watch Their Step - They Have NO "Mandate"!

Part of anti-Trump protest in New York City last night.

"There will be casualties on both sides. Because people will have to die to make a change in this world."  - Protestor last night in NYC.

Republicans emboldened by Trump's  electoral college win Tuesday night are already bloviating about "having a mandate" according to the headlines in The Denver Post this morning. But let's get it straight, no matter the GOP drunk with power delusions they have no mandate and further there is a savage backlash building which will be released when the shock wears off.   In fact it's already begun with dozens of protests in 40  cities across the nation last night.

And no, this wasn't a case of them "protesting democracy" as one dumb fuck bystander blurted. Democracy would be abiding by the results of the actual popular vote which saw Clinton winning by at least 700,000 at last count. The electoral college isn't based on true democracy but a derivative alternate enumeration invented by fretful Founders to stave off the possible results of a REAL democracy - which would be a  direct popular vote only.

Trumpies  with short memories may also want to remind themselves that Trump himself has been critical of the Electoral College in the past. On the eve of the 2012 election, he called it “a disaster for a democracy” in a Twitter post.  There is no mandate, let's get it straight, when you lose the popular vote by more than 700, 000 votes as Trump has done. It is a simple matter of math irrespective of the electoral vote contrivance: more people voted against you than for you. Same as happened to Bush Jr. back in 2000.

That means, if you are making noises about "coming together" and "unifying the country" you  had better damned well mean what you say. It doesn't mean that you get giddy drunk with power and start gloating with all the programs you plan to rip apart as soon as you and your lot assume power. No, that doesn't work. If you talk like that, it means you have no intention to respect those across the aisle and that means you have brought a battle on yourselves.  The GOP did this yesterday as they recklessly forecast all the programs they planned to roll back, ignoring the consequences of over-extending one's  mandate.

In his post-election victory speech, Trump said that he would be the president for all Americans, and that it was "time to come together as one united people."

"I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans. And this is so important to me. For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so we can work together and unify our great country."

But many are not convinced. Trump's threats to deport illegal immigrants and ban all Muslims from entering the country has many worried they will become targets

GOP talk about repealing Obamacare, leaving 22 million without, or cutting Medicare and Medicaid as well as other "entitlements" is a sure way to declare war - civil war. It has already broken out with the first protests in dozens of locations yesterday - some violent with effigies of Trump being burned in California as well as some buildings firebombed. This is only a taste of what is to come next year if the newly empowered Trump nation and Republicans overreach, overstep.

No surprise either that the protesters were screaming "FIGHT! FIGHT! FGHT!" - sending warnings to the new Dem minorities in House and Senate that they expect them to fight like Tasmanian devils to protect their economic security from Trump and his minions, not roll over.   Several signs carried by the protestors also featured the words: "Four Years of Fight!"  Indeed, and that is what it must be for us as citizens  facing an upcoming administration based on gender and ethnic hate, malice and xenophobia.

It's even worse, because like Hitler - when he vowed that if he came to power (as he did in 1933) he'd destroy the basis for democratic power, so also Trump has vowed to destroy all the foundational, civic things that make us what we are as a country. Can this be allowed? Certainly the aware and truly patriotic citizen must say 'No!'.

It is true, as numerous pundits (including Obama himself, yesterday)  have stated, that:  "the peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy". However, when that power has been handed over to a cabal of jackals only interested in disabling the other side and representative governance itself, it cannot be peaceful, or accepted. It was all very well for Obama to say yesterday "we are not Democrats first or Republicans first  but Americans first" - but  this is the typical "hopey" fluff we have come to expect from a President who muffed his best chances (by unforced errors like backing the TPP) to be transformative.

The very nature of modern elections today is based on turning out massive votes for a party and is at least ideology-based identity politics. Obama appears not to know this because he never ever espoused an ideology, which I noted in a previous post (March 12, 2014) , i.e. that here was a man, a leader without an ideology. I added:

" A leader lacking  a compass of ideological conviction or defined principles ends up everywhere and nowhere.  ON all sides of every issue and no sides. He takes this ambiguous stance as trying to please everyone, but the game can't last forever "

So  Obama can make all the appeals for "unity" he desires, but that doesn't mean the people who will be affected by the destructive program rollbacks of the Trumpian troglodytes have to follow suit. They don't and they showed it last night, in the aftermath of the GOP braggadocio and Trump's early moves to promise to appoint a fucking climate denier to the EPA.

Obama himself, whether he realizes or not, actually laid the foundation for disunity in the aftermath by incendiary campaign statements like:

"If his closest advisers don't trust him to tweet why would any of us trust him with the nuclear codes"

Does he believe you can just say a few nice words now and throw the "off" switch? He's dreaming, detached from political reality..

Nor do we have to have respect for the "office of the President" especially if contaminated by a racist "pussy grabber" like Trump. Nope, that respect must be earned and I doubt Trump has a chance. As Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out last night the meme of "respect for the office" was invented by politicians and poltroons for their own benefit. No citizen needs to acknowledge it.

If the other side that scored the putative (e.g. electoral college) win and Trump himself - despite all his verbiage- plans to just steamroll us into oblivion, there can be no peace, no unity. I noted two days ago there will be hard feelings on both sides, no matter the winners or losers. The only way to ameliorate those feelings is to actually together instead of promising roll backs of programs that millions depend on.

It also doesn't help when those like Sen. Mitch McConnell and others talk of using methods like "budget reconciliation" to try to get their agenda passed - while talking composure and unity on the other side of their mouths.  In the case of McConnell he initially said yesterday, seeming to warn his GOP brethren about overreach and "misreading" a mandate:

"I think it's always a mistake to misread your mandate. And frequently, new majorities think it's going to be forever. Nothing is forever in this country, we have an election every two years, right on schedule. We have had since 1788. So I don't think we should act as if we're going to be in the majority  forever,  I think we've been given a temporary lease on power and we need to use it responsibly.  The American people expect results as you know, and to get them in the Senate requires some Democratic participation and cooperation.

I think overreaching after an election is,  generally speaking, a mistake."

Well, I couldn't have made the case for circumspection better myself.  However, in the next breath he said:

"Repealing Obamacare is a pretty high item on our agenda and I would be shocked if we didn't move forward to keep to our commitment to the American people".

Totally ignoring that the 22 million now benefiting from the ACA ARE the American people too! But it is this type of glib posturing for overreach that invites what Robert Reich last night called "reaction".  As  Reich then elaborated on Chris Hayes' 'All In':

"Often as we've seen when you have Republican President, Republican majorities, they inevitably overreach. They think they have huge mandates and then overreaching generates a reaction and that reaction itself is a very powerful political force."

He added that the real question is how much damage will be sustained in the meantime, also noting "the Democratic Party has a lot to answer for" in that their namby pamby policy positons have enabled the loss of so many House and Senate seats, governorships, state seats and now even the Presidency itself. Again, I pin it on a lack of true ideology other than the witless embrace of Neoliberalism - which played directly into Trump's feral hands.

Even as I write this, the news has come out that Trump plans to put a climate change skeptic in charge of the EPA personnel transition, a move that,  if effected,  will roll back whatever progress has been made. That in itself is a call to arms, certainly and many environmental groups are now organizing for opposition - massive opposition in every venue imaginable.

Trump and his Republican allies in congress would do very well to tread carefully the next few months (as cabinet appointments are made) and beyond. If it appears that they plan to act as if they have a mandate vastly larger than actually exists they are beckoning trouble and it will arrive, make no mistake. It will make last night's protest look more like a garden party - and the actual ones will more resemble what transpired in the Ukraine some two years ago.

The "white lash" that saw millions of racist whites (including 53% of white women) vote in a xenophobic pussy grabber, will be met by a backlash from across the spectrum - not just whites. It will seal the expectation that this nation has now descended into a "failed state" to use the words of one NY Times columnist in the aftermath of Tuesday night.

One more thing: Do not blame this fiasco on "Boomers" the go-to scapegoats for too many dunderheads, like Matthew Sheffield in a salon.com article who wrote:

"According to exit polls, Trump’s success among the boomers is what gave him the White House."

No, this again commits the fallacy of division. All the boomers I know shudder to think of this imbecile ruling the country. Also, statistics for all potential voters disclosed that 46.3 MILLION sat out this election, most of whom were youngsters (millennials) and African-Americans.  I would say their lethargy in not voting contributed much more to Trump's success than 25 or 26 percent of Boomers in any given red states voting for Trump.



See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/69787/16-worst-things-we-can-expect-from-trumps-first-100-days