Fasten Your Seatbelts

Meet Radical Islam's New #1 Recruiter

Not only has the Trump Administration violated the basic ethos at the heart of the American experiment, he has instantly made us much less safe in the process.

Because the Adminstration's broad-brush application of immigration policy is widely perceived to be anti-Islam, moderating Muslim voices will have a hard time getting heard, inevitably leading to a further rise in extremist thought and action, both here and abroad. Some will argue that this is "their" problem, not ours, but the fight for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims has always been central to U.S. diplomacy.

Judges can reverse his executive order, but the damage has been done. Those who are now less safe than before are:

#1) U.S. and allied troops serving in the Middle East.
#2) Muslim leaders who are allied to the U.S.
#3) Americans living and working in predominantly Muslim countries.
#4) Americans at home.

Once again, I struggle to see the logic in this new administration's thought process. There are other, more diplomatic, ways to achieve their basic goals if they want to limit or even shut off the flow of refugees without issuing radical and polarizing executive orders; a quiet internal memo, or maybe even a few well-placed phone calls, might have sufficed.

So, it seems as if the Trump Administration is hell-bent on sowing chaos in order to shift to a new paradigm. Another word for that? Anarchy.

Pinche Muro Estúpido

Part of the already existing border wall, this section in Nogales, Texas

Why is Donald Trump trying to do everything he can to burn every ounce of goodwill that we might have accumulated since the Mexican-American War? How is that part of a good negotiating strategy when dealing with a close neighbor and ally? This is exactly what I feared when Donald Trump was getting close to winning the Republican nomination, which is that his style would degrade the discourse and elevate our most base instincts.

For example, does he not understand that making a border wall such a high priority, and insisting that his neighbor pay the construction cost, is the perfect recipe for a complete disintegration in diplomatic relations? Is that his objective? How is that in the interest of the United States or in the region's interest, for that matter?

Not to mention, that we already have walls in place where the Border Control agents have determined they are most needed (typically where there are two contiguous urban areas that cross the international border, such as in between Nogales, Texas and Nogales, Mexico), and adding walls in the vast, desolate areas where there are few people or eyes watching will serve as little obstacle to a determined migrant.

Add to all of this the completely irresponsible Trump threat to impose a 20% duty on all Mexican imports, when he knows perfectly well that customs duties between the U.S. and Mexico are set by international treaty and that arbitrary contravention of said treaty, except in times of war, is illegal?

Mexico and the United States have many common interests and many ways in which to benefit one another. Shutting down Mexican imports will not miraculously bring back American jobs and will not stem the flow of migrants and drugs from Mexico. To the contrary, Trump's actions, which are already destabilizing Mexico in dangerous ways and are threatening to weaken the U.S. economy, could cause these problems to get much, much worse.

Health Care Super-Consumers

Some healthcare consumers are in and out of the ER constantly

In the healthcare industry there is a term for patients who consume exceedingly high health care dollars: health care super-consumers.

It turns out that these super-consumers, who represent 5% of all domestic health care consumers, consume 50% of the total health care dollars.

I need to repeat that: 5% of consumers of health care services demand 50% of all health care dollars.

No wonder, when Obamacare demanded that health insurance providers cover all consumers regardless of prior health conditions, premiums for the rest of us started going through the roof and insurance companies started leaving the marketplace.

Prior to Obamacare, these patients were either not covered by any plan or were covered by Medicaid. After Obamacare, they were able to join the ranks of the insured, resulting in an explosion in claims costs for the insurance companies.

This is why the federal government, or the state governments with or without federal funding, need to insure these super-consumers and get them off the rolls of the health insurance companies.

The way the system is now, at least 50% of the typical consumer's health care insurance premiums go to fund the needs of only 5% of the population. It is fundamentally unfair to ask that of the average U.S. family.

As a nation, particularly a nation as powerful as the United States, has a moral obligation to provide for the health care needs of its populace. However, charging exorbitant insurance premiums with ridiculously high deductibles is not an answer.

If the insurance companies go back to the model where they can red line certain consumers based on pre-existing health conditions, thereby pushing them into a federal or state plan, the majority of the population can go back to health care plans with low premiums and low deductibles.

God knows the status quo is not working anymore.

German Healthcare Engineering

By any measure, the U.S. healthcare system is failing in its primary mission: to provide the overall population access to healthcare at a cost that does not bankrupt the nation.

We can argue about the details, but why, when an example of how a healthcare system should work already exists, in Germany?

Without going into too much detail, the German system is the best existing hybrid of public and private, without the rationing of care that exists in Canada and the UK, and at a reasonable cost. The efficient, German system costs the Germans 10.5% of their GDP, while our fractured, chaotic system cost the U.S. economy 17.9% of GDP in 2015, and is rising dramatically.

So, we should simply adapt the German system to the U.S. market with one primary interest in mind: the health and satisfaction of the U.S. healthcare consumer.

Russian Hackers?

The media has been making reference to alleged Russian hacking efforts as if advanced cyber weapons were used that only a State actor could possibly possess, thereby elevating this whole affair into something akin to an act of war. The truth, as far as I can tell, is something quite different.

Instead of cracking the encryption algorithm or deploying specialized malware bots, the hackers used a much more low-tech approach: they tricked the holders of the email accounts that were hacked into giving up their passwords. It really was that simple.

The technique, called phishing, involves sending out spoof emails that look, for all intents and purposes, like they are coming from a legitimate source. Typically, they warn you that your personal information is in danger and that you should log in immediately and change your password. However, the link that they provide is actually to a webpage that is owned by the hacker, not the host you think you are accessing. As soon as you provide a new password the hacker then logs in to the actual account with your old password, updates your password to the new string you selected, and begins to download your email archives in bulk. You, on the other hand, walk away feeling smug, thinking you have defeated a nefarious attempt to gain access to your email account.

We know that this is the way that John Podesta's email was hacked because the Clinton campaign has admitted as much, and I suspect that the other accounts were compromised in a similar fashion.

I know what you are thinking. "Wait, I get those fake emails all the time! I know better than to click on those!" And, yes, these sorts of exploits are all too common. Fortunately, they are very easy to detect and block using common security software and two-step verification procedures.

So, is this really a matter that deserves a court of inquiry and a global cyberwar? If this needs a court of inquiry it should be an inquiry into how Hillary Clinton, the State Department, and the Clinton Campaign could have all been so stupid as to let this happen.

Sorry, Hill.

She seems to be saying, "Sorry, Hillary!"

I find profound irony in Jill Stein's efforts to force a recount in key battleground states that went red in the last presidential election, particularly if you realize that votes that went to her were more than the margin of victory in both Wisconsin and Michigan.

If Jill Stein had simply made the announcement prior to the election that she was concerned about the possibility of a Trump presidency and that she was removing herself from consideration, and for her supporters to PLEASE hold their nose and vote for Clinton, Hillary would have won!

What was the point of her campaign? Did she intend to be a spoiler from the beginning? She wasn't even on the ballot in all 50 states. She certainly knew she had zero chance of winning the election.

Bernie Sanders could have easily done the same thing and run as a third party candidate, which would have tilted the outcome even further in favor of Trump, but he did not. He used the primary campaign as the vehicle for his platform, realizing that a third party run would split the Democratic vote.

Could Jill Stein really be so stupid to have not seen the possibility of this outcome? I find that hard to believe, which makes her disruptive actions all the more ironic.

Wait, I Won!

Some Predictions for Trump's First Term

Economy

Expect interest rates to rise and the dollar to fall, with inflation ticking up significantly by the mid-point of the first term. The U.S. will pressure China to stop selling the Yuan and allow it to float, which will mean that the Chinese will have to start selling the Treasury Notes that they have accumulated. Between a lower dollar and higher tariffs, prices for entire baskets of goods will increase. The stimulative effects of the lower dollar and higher import costs will not be instantaneous, and it will be rough sledding while U.S. manufacturing tries to gear back up. Meanwhile, the U.S. debt will explode, which will undermine confidence in the greenback, further pressuring the value of the dollar and driving interest rates even higher. The march back to a booming U.S. manufacturing sector could become quite a slog.

Geopolitics

Apart from some sort of grandiose show of force to crush ISIS (probably in cooperation with the Assad regime and the Russian military), I expect U.S. military spending to decline, not increase. U.S. support will tend to gravitate toward strong-arm leaders who can maintain regional order. The notion of the U.S. as 'global cop' is over with. Our allies should be ready to defend themselves, and we will gladly sell them the arms they need to do so. In other words, it will be a good time to be an authoritarian dictator, and concerns about violations of human rights will be largely ignored.

Infrastructure

Think bridges, bridges and more bridges. Plus, airports. Pretty much everything Trump said he would do infrastructure-wise he will attempt to do, and he'll find little resistance in Congress to his appropriation bills.

Education

Say goodbye to the Dept. of Education and to Common Core. Say hello to taxpayer-funded school vouchers for private and parochial school students. Charter schools will also see a rise, but I expect the expansion of the voucher program to be the biggest change.

Obamacare

I don't expect that we will go back to a situation where we have as many Americans without health insurance as we did under George W. Bush, but I do expect rates to start to reflect risk, which will mean higher rates and higher deductibles for those who are obese or with preexisting conditions. At the same time, I don't expect the federal subsidy to keep pace with these higher rates, so many families will be adversely affected and, ultimately, driven off the insurance rolls. Or, fixing Obamacare could prove too messy and we could simply go back to what we had before.

The Environment

In a word: toast. I expect huge swathes of U.S. coastal real estate to be under water regularly before the end of Trump's second term. Who is going to pay for all that damage? I don't anticipate any major federally-funded civil engineering projects to ward off the inevitable sea rise, even though the social and economics impacts will be huge. Or, you could just move to higher ground.

Immigration

Apart from efforts to better secure the border with Mexico, a major effort will be undertaken to identify and vet all undocumented aliens residing in the U.S., and those who do not pass muster will be deported along with their families, including minor children who may have been born in this country. Those who can be shown to have no criminal history and who are gainfully employed will be given a path to legal residency. Simultaneously, I expect the Trump Administration to dramatically increase the number of H1B visas, subject to extensive background checks, to provide labor to those industries (particularly agriculture) where labor is scarce. How successful these efforts will be overall is questionable, as their implementation will be fraught with hazards and legal challenges. On one hand, I would expect many families to voluntarily return to their countries as they have been doing in large numbers since 2008. On the other hand, the deportations will be expensive, heart-wrenching and disruptive to families and communities.