Why Not A Wall?

The Wall - should we or shouldn't we?

There's been dueling "experts" trotted out both for and against building a border wall across the portions of the border where there isn't already one. The issue isn't whether walls "work" or not, but whether this wall should be funded and built. Here are a few reasons put forth by Trump and his supporters and my reasons why those are not valid:

The Argument of Deterrence:
It seems to be common sense that a high enough wall will prevent or deter people from crossing. Some Border Patrol agents claim that there job became a lot easier when barriers went up in the San Diego area. But even the highest wall can be scaled, tunneled under or cut through if there are no Border Patrol agents around. Personally I believe walls, fences, or other types of barriers can and should be part of an overall strategy for keeping our border secure, but the Trumpian idea that The Wall will magically solve all our problems at the U.S.-Mexico border, or with illegal immigration, or with criminals and drugs is not an idea that has been thought-through.

Democrats Have Voted For A Wall Several Times Before:
It is true that Democrats in previous Congresses have voted to construct walls and fences at the border, and that past Presidents, including Democrats, have pushed for more effective ways to control immigration. What is not true is that these politicians have supported a Wall in the form that is now being pushed, or for the reasons that underlie it. Even if Democrats had supported a Great Wall in the past, doesn't mean that it's a good idea now. Trumpists will say that this is hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats: that they are only opposing construction of a Wall because Trump is for it. For a party that made its whole platform opposing anything that a Democratic president wanted to do, this certainly puts the shoe on the hypocritical other foot. (Of course the point that I just made is whataboutism, but I couldn't resist!). Perhaps there is something to that, but Trump has never really made his case on why we need The Wall and why we need it now.

There's A Crisis At The Border:
This is an area where Trump is just flat-out lying to make his point. Are there criminals among the people who are sneaking across the border? Probably there is. But illegal immigration is at a 46-year low. Trump recently claimed that this low ebb of illegal crossings was due to his leadership, even though this is part of a decades-long trend. He fear-mongered about the "caravans" coming from Central America, which turned out to be not an invasion at all and was contained by the Border Patrol. He likes to spotlight the families of people who were killed by undocumented immigrants. While any death is tragic, the percentage of crimes of any type committed by illegal immigrants is tiny compared to those committed by citizens. He likes to scream about all the drugs that flow into the United States from Mexico, when in reality, these drugs come in mostly through legal ports of entry, including airports far from any border. Towns and cities along the border report no more crime than any other American city. But the question that Trump can't answer is "why wasn't this a crisis during the last two years?" - During the last two years Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and passed numerous spending bills and appropriations that did not include any funding for A Wall.

It's The Fault of The Democrats:
Just last month, the Senate unanimously passed an appropriations bill that would have funded the remaining parts of the government without money for A Wall. Until the President dug in his heels after being mocked by right-wing radio personalities in December, he signed every other bill (without Wall funding) that came his way. The House, under former Speaker Ryan refused to vote on the same appropriation when he read Trump's angry tweets and now McConnell will not bring to a vote the same bill that had previously passed unanimously. A fair reading is that neither party is very excited about giving Trump his Wall. The Democrats never have been and  the Republicans are only going along because they fear Trump's tweets and perhaps getting primaried next year. What you don't hear much of is that back in February 2017 there was a bipartisan agreement to fund The Wall at about five times the current request in exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA enrollees. Trump would not go along with it because it lacked two other things that were the rant du jour back then: eliminating family-based migration (which he denigrated as "chain migration") and the visa lottery. He could have had his Wall almost a year ago. He killed that deal.

The Wall = Border Security: 
Trump regularly denigrates his opponents as wanting open borders, not caring about border security or the safety of Americans. This is, of course, ridiculous. He conflates "border security" with "A Wall". While walls and barriers may be part of a complete border security strategy, it's not the only thing and should be considered as part of a considered debate about immigration reform. He has recently taken to claiming that the Democrats' objection is to concrete, so we'll just build a steel Wall.

The Campaign Promise:
Finally, there's the issue of why A Wall is even being discussed. Trump started his campaign for president railing about Mexicans as rapists and murderers. He tapped into xenophobic bigotry to rile up anti-immigrant sentiment among what became his base. The Wall became shorthand for that. It was an applause line designed to get maximum response from rally-goers. Trump was never good at articulating actual policies, but he was a master at telling people what they wanted to hear and converting it into easy-to-remember-and-shout slogans. Of course, saying that Mexico would pay for it ("and like it" he said at least once, which sounds kind of rapey to me) was part of the shtick. Once it became clear that Mexico wasn't ever going to cut us a check, we were treated to the bizarre explanation that Mexico would be paying for The Wall via all the billions that would be raking in from USMCA. To buy that you'd have to forget that USMCA, which is really just NAFTA  with some of the dents knocked out and shined up a bit, has not been ratified, carries no guarantee that our balance of trade with Mexico will improve, and even if it does, that increase in cash flow goes to business who will see increased profits. It also requires you to forget that Trump said while campaigning that Mexico would write us a check. (He was once asked how he would compel Mexico to pay - his answer: "Oh I will, and The Wall just got ten feet higher").

There may be valid reasons to erect barriers, but not for this barrier. The great deal maker has shown himself incapable of making a deal. We cannot let the precedent be set of Trump holding the government hostage if he does not get his way. 



 

Trump's Wall & The Art of the Deal

As I write this, about 20% of US Government employees are either furloughed or working without pay. This partial shutdown is occurring due to a disagreement over one item: funds to build a border wall along the US-Mexico border. President Trump, who initially said that he would "proudly" take responsibility for any shutdown, has since blamed the Democrats. He has accused them of not wanting border security, i.e. "open borders", not caring about crime that immigrants supposedly bring, and being motivated by the desire to deny him "a win".

The truth is that no Democrats support what he claims that they support. While it is true that Democratic Congressmen have in the past voted to fund walls along the border, those barriers, which in great part still stand today, were part of a broader plan for border security and immigration policy.

No one believes that there shouldn't be a border, or that we shouldn't screen people who want to immigrate to the United States. What Trump's opponents do believe is that our immigration policies should be more humane and that the process should be more expedited than it is today.

The Wall itself (when referring to Trump's idea of a wall at the border, I will capitalize Wall), however, isn't part of an integrated immigration and border security policy. Trump's policies (if you can call them that) are more often than not slogans that garnered excitement and applause at his campaign rallies in 2016. Trump may be incoherent, ignorant and incompetent, but one thing that he is good at is reading a crowd and feeding them lines that will keep their interest and stoke their enthusiasm. Trump tapped into a vein of bigotry that ran through significant portions of the electorate. Immigrants, especially those who entered the country illegally, were a convenient scapegoat for many of the problems perceived these people. When Trump needed to convince the immigrant-haters that he was their guy, did he craft, with the help of experts, a thought through plan for securing the borders? No, he found a simplistic, easy to articulate applause line: that he would build a "big, beautiful, Wall". This Wall was predicated on bigotry and became a "campaign promise" because repeating it over and over fed into the feedback loop between Trump and his supporters that was a typical Trump rally. Since being elected, the Wall concept (stretching the meaning of the word "concept") hasn't gained any more solidity. It's still a vague and nebulous thing wherein the specifics change depending on Trump's mood. In addition, illegal immigration has been steadily decreasing over the last decade. And there's much evidence that the criminals and drugs aren't coming in over the supposedly unprotected border, but by sea, through tunnels, smuggled in trucks. Budgets for monitoring and interdicting this illegal activity have been reduced since Trump was inaugurated. He has focused exclusively on a Wall. Trump has also not addressed how the Wall will deal with the long river border between Mexico and Texas, or all the private land that will have to be seized through eminent domain.

Trump has always promoted himself as a great deal-maker, it was one of the things that many of his supporters claimed would make him a great president. He appears to have no inclination to actually negotiate. Negotiation in good faith requires that you give something up, or give something to the other party to get what you want. But he has proved that for him, making a deal means making a demand and then digging in his heels until the other side acquiesces. The same with bipartisanship. For him bipartisanship is the other party doing what he wants. What's ironic is that, back in February, a bipartisan deal was on the table. The Democrats were willing to fund a border Wall in exchange for a path to citizenship for people in the DACA program. Trump refused to sign it because it did not include several other immigration-related things, such as an end to family-based migration (what he called chain migration ).

Trump doesn't have a plan for border security, he has an ego-driven desire for "a win" by getting funding for an applause-line campaign promise based on bigoted assumptions. He doesn't know how to deal, he has a toddler-level "understanding" that tantrums are a great negotiating tool.

Tariffs

What is a tariff? Simply stated, a tariff is a tax that a nation places on specific imports.

Usually the purpose of a tariff is to protect domestic producers. For example, American widgets retail at $10/dozen. On the other hand, Panamanian widgets retail at $7/dozen. Labor costs in Panama are lower, or perhaps Panama is subsidizing Panamanian widget manufacturers. If quality is comparable, American consumers of widgets will purchase Panamanian widgets. This will cause American widgets makers to lose business, perhaps closing widget plants and the widget workers losing their jobs. If the U.S. places a $5/dozen tariff on Panama-made widgets, then Panamanian widgets become more expensive than American widgets. There are several possibilities for what happens next.

All American widget purchasers could now switch to American suppliers, saving $2/dozen. The Panamanian widget companies would need to find another market for their widgets. If this happens, there is every possibility that the price of American widgets will increase, since the pressure of lower-priced Panama-sourced widgets has been eliminated. American widget purchasers, as well as anyone who purchases a product that contains widgets, will be paying higher prices. There is also the possibility that American widget producers won't have the capacity to replace the Panamanian production. In this case, Americans will be paying the higher price of the Panamanian widgets that now include the tariff. The government will certainly be collecting the tax from the Panama widget companies, but who is really paying? The consumer, of course. There is no scenario where the widgets, whether domestic or imported will decrease in price.

Then there's the specter of retaliatory tariffs. Panama will undoubtedly be issuing tariffs of their own, say, on fleegles. American fleegle producers will likely see the demand for their exports to Panama go down, as Panamanian fleegle buyers find cheaper alternatives.

Tariffs can be warranted in the case of a domestic industry competing with imports that are being sold below cost (kind of like the Walmart strategy!), or for propping up a fledgling industry. Rarely do  across-the-board tariffs make any sense.

What tariffs aren't good for is providing an inflow of "billions of dollars" from the country on whom tariffs are imposed. They cause chaos and confusion and are a blunt instrument for international trade relations.

Unfortunately we have a President who doesn't understand in the slightest how tariffs work.

Why I Won't Vote for ANY Republican

Once upon a time I voted for the candidate irrespective of party. I voted for Republicans, I voted for Democrats, I voted for Libertarians, I voted for Independents. I agreed with some of the things that Republicans did and disagreed with some of the things Democrats did. I voted according to whom I thought would best represent or lead my state, district, city or the nation.

That all changed for me after the 2008 presidential election.

The mission of the Republican Party, during the presidency of Barack Obama, changed from principled opposition to obstruction at any cost. And the cost turned out to be pretty steep: acceptance of the radicals of the Tea Party fringe as mainstream; acceptance of the virulent strain of bigoted and racist hatred of a black man who dared to run for president, including the claim that Obama was not a United States citizen, promoted vigorously by now-President Donald Trump; and a program of digging in their heels and mindlessly opposing and obstructing everything that President Obama did. This obstruction was fairly easy to spot, it required no interpretation or speculation, but was stated clearly by none other than the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. It was expressed throughout Obama's terms by dozens of fruitless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and culminated in McConnell's refusal to confirm, or even hold a hearing for, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Republicans at every level of government seemed to be on board with this and Republican voters seemed to buy into the apparent racism and irrational hatred for Obama.

In 2016, when Donald Trump was elected President, it got even worse. Trump built upon the mindless and overblown demonization of President Obama, Secretary Clinton and liberals in general that prevailed among many Republican voters and made it the centerpiece of his governing style. He emboldened white supremacists, neo-Nazis and others and exacerbated the already deep divisions within the country. The mainstream Republicans could have stood against the worst of his impulses while still supporting his policies (if you could dignify his brainless meanderings as "policies") that they agreed with, but they didn't. The Republican Congressional leadership, as well as state-level Republicans only intensified their support for Trump. They were prepared to prop him up, no matter what outrages and idiocies he perpetrated, as long as they could get conservative judges and tax cuts for the rich. And they continue to prop him up in the face of graft and corruption on an unprecedented scale, as well as incompetence and ignorance in virtually all matters.

Now we hear that in two states, Michigan and Wisconsin, Republican lame duck sessions of state legislatures are in the process of passing laws that restrict the power of incoming Democratic elected officials, officials who are replacing outgoing Republicans. The same thing happened in 2016 in North Carolina. Here is Lincoln, local Republicans pushed through a charter amendment restricting a Democratic mayor, who had already declared that he would run for re-election, from running again. Our Republican governor has used his own funds to "primary" other Republicans who would not vote in lockstep with him. So, when "the people" speak by voting out Republicans, the Republicans petulantly change the rules so that the will of "the people" is circumvented.

While theoretically there may be decent Republicans out there, and some may be good for their states, cities, the nation, anyone who aligns themself with the Republican Party, has by default, aligned themself with all of the sins enumerated above. Someday the Republican Party may heal itself, but that day has not yet come.

Donnie Two Scoops and Jim Acosta

President Trump and his supporters had been predicting that the 2018 midterms would be a "red wave" (of course attempting to flip the Democratic use of "Blue Wave". Most analysts predicted that the Democrats would take over the majority in the House of Representatives and that the Republicans would retain control of the Senate. The Republicans would pick up 4-5 Senate seats, with Democrats in states that Trump won in 2016 particularly vulnerable. The results were not that different than foreseen, with the Democrats doing better than thought. At most, the Republicans will have a net gain of 2 seats, assuming that the recount in Florida and the special election in Mississippi both go to Republicans. Democrats have netted an additional 35 seats, with a possible 39 when all the votes are tabulated. Democrats also picked up seven governorships. This was not a good election for the Republican party.

So what does Donnie Two-Scoops say about it? He calls it a "great victory". He whines about "the people not being told" about the Republicans increasing their Senate majority from 51-49 to 53-47 (maybe). He muses that other presidents have lost more House seats. The man is delusional in so many categories.

From a certain angle, you can look at the Senate results as a victory. Retaining the Senate majority means that Trump can still appoint federal judges, and even additional Supreme Court justices if the need arises. This is no small thing. The map, however, did favor Republicans. 23 Democrats were up for re-election versus only 9 Republicans (plus afew open seats). Most of the Democrats were running in states that Trump won comfortably in 2016. Four of those were voted out, but two Democrats won in previously Republican states. Democrats won 2/3 of the Senate elections. (The situation is reversed in 2020). There's no way that the House election can be viewed as anything less than a tremendous defeat. Notwithstanding the fact that President Obama suffered a much more stinging loss in his first midterms, the loss of so many Republican seats will guarantee that Trump will accomplish nothing legislatively these next two years. 

Of course, Trump is pretending that this is an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. This might be the case if he and his Republican allies hadn't done all that they could to shut the Democrats out of any decision making, or if Trump's idea of bipartisanship wasn't limited to the other party giving in to his demands without any concessions on his part.

And now there's CNN's lawsuit on behalf of Jim Acosta. If this were any other president, I'd characterize Acosta's demeanor as rude and overly aggressive. And, even considering the White House's occupant, he's often over the top. But Trump has made his own bed. He's been rude and insulting to virtually everyone - not only the press, but legislators, our allies, even his own cabinet. Trump also seriously misunderstands the role of the press in a democracy. Their job is not to prop up the nation's politicians, nor to produce "positive" coverage, but to serve as an unofficial check and balance to the government, to ask the tough questions, to research and report on things that most of us don't have the time nor expertise to do. Trump does not like to be questioned, he bristles when his lies are called out and characterizes those who shine a spotlight on him as "enemies".

It will be interesting to see how the new White House "rules of polite behavior" plays out

Entitlements & The Social Security Trust Fund

Let's start off with what "entitlement" is not. It's not "welfare", i.e. payments to people who are not working for it. (The fact that there is no program called "welfare" and that most people who receive government financial assistance and are not disabled work is not the subject of this blog post).

An entitlement in the jargon of government is "a federal program, or provision of law that requires payments [to anyone] who meets the criteria". Under this definition Social Security, government pensions and veterans benefits are all entitlements. Other programs that require a specific Congressional appropriation of funds are called "discretionary". With discretionary programs a perfectly legal program can be effectively nullified if Congress defunds it, not so with entitlements.

So all those Facebook memes that you see raging about how your Social Security isn't an entitlement are not accurate. "Entitlement" isn't a slur. It means, by law, if you meet the criteria, the government has to give it to you.

The other misconception that many people harbor is that Social Security is "their" money and that they "paid into it" for their whole working life. That there is a "Trust Fund" that holds all of your accumulated "payments".

It's true that the more that you earn in your working life, the more that you will be able to receive in Social Security benefits, but you are no means guaranteed to receive everything that you "paid in" nor are you limited by that amount. You could conceivably die before reaching retirement age, or you could live for another 35 years after retiring. You are guaranteed, upon retirement, a certain monthly benefit until you die. But it will be limited according to how much outside income you earn or when you retire; neither of these have any connection to what you "paid in".

The Social Security Trust Fund does not exist like a giant bank account for all present and future Social Security recipients. Social Security is, and always has been, a pay-as-you-go program. The payroll taxes that current workers have deducted from their paychecks are used to pay the current retirees. Notice that I used the term "taxes". It's not your money, it's a tax that you pay that is used to fund the current expenses (retiree benefits). Tomorrow's workers will pay for tomorrow's retirees. So what is the Social Security Trust Fund? Every year (until 2018) the total of all payroll taxes exceeded the total of all benefits paid out. The surplus was by law, invested in Treasury Securities, not kept as cash in a government bank account.

(Why not a cash account? Several reasons. One, if the general fund budget is running a deficit, it will have to borrow money from somewhere to make up the difference. Better to borrow from itself, then have our debt held by foreign banks. Second, due to inflation, the value of the dollars in the trust fund, if they remained as cash, would decrease. The general fund pays into the trust fund interest on the treasury securities. )

This may be the source of the myth that various administrations "raided" or stole money from the trust fund. This is not true. The decision to run a deficit is unconnected to the availability of a "loan" from the Social Security Trust Fund. This shortfall would have been made up by issuing bonds or securities in any event.

A few paragraphs up I mentioned that until 2018 more was coming in than going out. So what's happening now? In the short term, the interest payments make up the difference, but each year the deficit between income and benefits will get wider. At some point, if the payroll tax and benefits both remain the same, the general fund will need to allocate funds to redeem the Treasury Securities held by the trust fund. It is estimated that by 2034 even the trust fund will be depleted. At that point it is further estimated that, if nothing else changes, the income from payroll taxes will be able to cover about 70% of benefits.

Nothing about what I have explained precludes the government from making changes to Social Security. In order to forestall the depletion of the trust fund they could scale back cost-of-living increases, they could raise the cap (income over around $130,000 is not subject to payroll tax), or raise the retirement age. They could lower the threshold upon which you start paying taxes on Social Security benefits, or lower the amount of outside income that you can earn before having your benefits lowered. In all likelihood any changes will affect future beneficiaries, not current ones.

Whatever happens, do some research and stop getting your information from Facebook memes

Why Do I Even Bother?

It has been a daily frustration listening to and reading comments from Trump supporters. How many times have we thought that he'd crossed some kind of line, only to experience the world stage equivalent of "hold my beer"?

There is certainly room for disagreement on the best way to run the country: nation-building vs. minding-our-own-business; multinational trade agreements vs. bilateral agreements; ignoring despotic regimes' abuses vs. taking action against them; the extent of the government safety net; eliminate regulations vs. more regulations; more or less immigration...and the list goes on. Many of these subjects can be negotiated and compromises can be reached. But that's not the way things are being done now, everything is a battle for the soul of our nation. The other side hates America. I put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the Republican leadership.

Politics has always been a dirty game, full of betrayals and back-stabbing. But the partisan nastiness came to a head, not during Trump's mosh pit of an administration, but during Obama's. Whether or not you believe racism played a part (I do), once the Republicans took back first one house of Congress, then the other, their whole plan was to obstruct everything that President Obama tried to do. Not just the things where they were ideologically opposed to, but everything. In addition to that, they stood by while the Tea Party fanatics painted President Obama as not American or as a terrorist sympathizer when they weren't describing his policies a communism. They stood by while the future president  Donald Trump stoked the "birther" nonsense. They refused to even hold a hearing on Obama's Supreme Court nominee and McConnell was quoted as saying that if Clinton were elected, they would refuse to confirm any of her nominees. They tied up Secretary Clinton in hearing after hearing about the deaths in Benghazi and stayed silent as she was tarred with the accusation that she was running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor! They were willing participants in the demonization of the Democrats.

Then came Donald Trump, insulting his way to the top of the heap.

Trump tapped into the gullibility of much of America, Americans who were primed by years of conspiracy theories and character assassination to listen to the hatred and raw demagoguery that he spewed.

Although I was in no mood after Trump was elected to forgive or forget his misogyny, xenophobia and bigotry on the campaign trail, I thought for a brief moment that the immensity of the job would humble him. One of the first things that he said was that being president of all the people was very, very, important to him. But that humility didn't last long. And his supporters, despite frothing at the mouth in their frenzy to cheer on their new leader's hatred of the "other", were simultaneously in denial that he was spouting hatred. "It's the media" they would say, parroting Trump, despite virtually everything being readily accessible on video. Very little would turn out to be "anonymous sources".

Trump supporters excuse or rationalize his hatred, but they also brush aside his lies, either credulously believing them, even though they are easily disproved or debunked, sometimes by his own government, or decide that they don't matter because "it makes the liberals heads explode".

There's plenty to dislike about Trump, from his mocking of, well, just about everyone, to his cozying up to dictators while at the same time insulting our allies; from his threats to destroy some countries (North Korea, Iran) and invade others (Venezuela) while pledging to stay out of the internal affairs of others (Russia, Saudi Arabia); to his excusing the dismembering of a journalist who, while not a US citizen, was working for a US newspaper and a legal resident.

But lately, it's the lies.

Trump has always lied. He lied about where he got his money, about his success as a businessman, he lied about contacts with Russians. Trump lies even when he doesn't have to lie, when it's easily checkable. Lately though his lies seem to be targeted toward scaring his base into getting out and voting. He lied about nonexistent riots in California; he's lying about the Democrats wanting to cut Social Security when it's actually the Republicans who are talking about it. He's lying about an upcoming middle-class tax cut that can't exist because Congress is not in session, especially since it's supposedly ready to go before election day (oh yeah, he's studying it...hard). He lies so often and so outrageously that the safe bet is to just assume that he's lying until evidence to the contrary is presented.

So how can you trust someone like that? Even if he says something that you support, like tax cuts, how can you have any confidence that he's telling you the truth? The short answer is that you can't. He's untrustworthy. Yet millions of Americans think that the serial liar, who has screwed working Americans in business for years, is one of them.

A lot of Americans are stupid, a lot of them don't want to listen to reason, to logic, to the facts.

But some do.

I guess that's why I bother