Author: hamilton1788

I read an article on Politico.com last week in which a former Obama Administration official argued that the North Korean economy is more exposed to the outside world than you would think, and that severe sanctions, followed by an Iran-style deal, could work there.  I’m a bit skeptical of his conclusions about the vulnerability of the North Korean economy, but in any event, the two countries are fundamentally different in the following ways:

1.  The Iranian government had to take public opinion into account; the North Korean government does not.  Iran is certainly no Jeffersonian democracy, but it does at least have some democratic elements in its system.  The North Korean government doesn’t care in the slightest about the well-being of its subject people; its only interest is in self-preservation.  If additional austerity is the price of maintaining power, so be it; the country has seen worse days.

2.  Iran was more diplomatically isolated than North Korea is.  You wouldn’t think that the hermit kingdom would have any friends, but the fact is that the Chinese will not, in the final analysis, take any actions that could jeopardize the existence of the regime.  Iran couldn’t rely on anyone like that.

It occurred to me a few days ago that Trump combines the worst features of Reagan and Nixon.  He resembles Reagan with his swagger and his lack of interest in policy details, but he has Nixon’s thin skin, perpetual sense of grievance, cynicism, and lack of respect for the truth, the law, and democratic norms.

Reagan was a fundamentally decent man, and Nixon was competent.  Trump can’t claim to be either.

It’s So Easy

It’s so easy to run the world.

It’s so easy to run the world.

 

It’s so easy, it’s so easy

Whoa

It’s so easy, it’s so easy

Whoa

It’s so easy, it’s so easy

Whoa

I’ll fix it all and go play golf.

 

Oh, it’s so easy to run the world.

It’s so easy to run the world.

 

Parody of “It’s So Easy” by Buddy Holly.

The one thing that Trump has done that has received bipartisan support and a positive media response (both were misguided) was the pinprick missile attack on Syria.  It was an effort to prove that he was tough and unpredictable without any meaningful practical consequences.

Given his love of popularity and lack of imagination, can you imagine him launching a similar pinprick attack on North Korea in the hope of putting an end to Kim’s missile and nuclear programs without a full scale war?  I certainly can. The difference, of course, is that Kim could either see through the bluff or respond by starting the ghastly war that Trump would presumably prefer to avoid, if possible.

The bottom line facts regarding the relationship between the US and the Koreas are as follows:

1.  North Korea already has enough firepower (both nuclear and conventional) to destroy South Korea, but cannot currently project it to the US;
2.  The progress made on their nuclear program, and their missiles, consequently threatens the US, but is irrelevant to South Korea;  so
3.  The interests of the historically allied US and South Korean governments in this critical matter are largely inconsistent.

Now, add the new South Korean government, which clearly wants to engage in a “sunshine policy,” to the mix.  “Sunshine” means that additional US sanctions have absolutely no chance of success in bringing the North Korean government to heel.  What are Trump’s options if the Moon government puts this approach into practice?

Acquiescence to the North Korean first strike capability against the US, or war. That’s it.

On the 45th President Trump.

He claims that he’s priming the pump.

A word to the wise:

Get your story straight, guys.

And still, there’s no sign he’ll be dumped.

One of the principal features of AHCA is its reliance on state governments to improve the health care system.  Sure, Medicaid is being slashed, and protection for pre-existing conditions may be devolved to state high risk pools, but aren’t the states better equipped to solve problems than the feds?  After all, they’re closer to their people, and know their issues better, than the federal government. Just give them a little flexibility, and they can do the job better than a bunch of Washington bureaucrats.

Your response to this will depend on how you perceive the governments of red states.  If you think that the legislatures and governors of red states are predominantly populated by one-world Christian Democrats who genuinely feel the pain of their poor constituents even though they typically vote for the Democratic Party, you might accept this line of reasoning.  On the other hand, if experience tells you that red state governments are usually controlled by Reactionaries who actively despise poor people, oppose all forms of wealth redistribution on principle (particularly to undeserving minorities), and want to make the lives of people relying on the public purse as miserable as possible, you certainly won’t.

No prizes for guessing which camp I’m in.

Not many Americans remember this, but back in 2003, the German economy was stuck in the mud, and there were even suggestions that Germany was the “sick man of Europe.”  Gerhard Schroder responded with Agenda 2010, a pro-business reform program that trimmed the welfare state and reduced labor regulations. The program split the SPD (it has never really recovered) and probably increased inequality, but, along with the vast demand for German products in China, it ushered in a new era of prosperity.  Today, the German economy is the envy of all other nations in Europe.

France didn’t have an Agenda 2010.  While the French economy has grown somewhat, and came out of the Great Recession in better shape than many other European countries, France has fallen behind the Germans, and is no longer taken seriously as an equal partner in the EU.  It is not a surprise, however, that Macron’s platform sounds a bit like Agenda 2010.  What is likely to happen to it?

Macron starts with some advantages;  for one thing, he won’t have to force a right-wing program down the throat of a Socialist Party.  It will be very important for him to portray the program as a means to regain equal status with the Germans;  if it appears that he is just doing Merkel’s bidding, the program will be dead on arrival.

On the ex-FBI man named James.

His firing’s his loss, but Trump’s gain.

Will the Russia probe end?

What’s the message it sends?

At least we all know whom to blame.

Given that he is a young, brilliant, relatively inexperienced politician who plans to govern outside the existing party structure, it is inevitable that Macron would be compared to Obama.  The analogy really doesn’t work well, however, because:

1.  France in 2017 doesn’t resemble the US in 2009.  Obama had to deal with acute problems arising from the Great Recession; Macron will have to address chronic French economic and social issues, which is harder.

2.  Obama could rely on the support of the existing Democratic Party; Macron has invented a new party.  No further elaboration is necessary.

3.  Obama was charismatic; Macron is more wonkish.  No one has suggested that Macron can move an audience the way Obama can.  That will matter as he tries to convince French workers that liberalizing the system is ultimately in their best interests.

4.  Obama was a genuine outsider;  Macron is an enarque.  Macron is the French establishment in a new and fresh package.  The only unconventional thing about him is his marriage.

Wow!  Even for Trump, the audacity of this, and the absurdity of the stated rationale, is breathtaking.

Whether you agree with his actions during the campaign or not, there can be no doubt that Comey politicized the Bureau to an unprecedented and uncomfortable degree, so there is a compelling argument for getting rid of him and making a fresh start.  That isn’t what Trump is trying to do.  Everything about this episode suggests that he is attempting to eliminate an independent check on his powers and weaponize law enforcement in his own interests.

A great deal rests on his choice of Comey’s successor.  If, against my expectations, he selects a respected, nonpartisan law enforcement figure, this could ultimately be for the best.  If, more plausibly, he chooses a Jeff Sessions crony, all hell will break loose.

GOP senators, are you paying attention?

Upon taking office, Macron will be faced with the same issues that so bedeviled Hollande:

1.  What to do with the EU?  Hollande could have been an active supporter of German austerity, or he could have taken up the cause of the Greeks and Italians and demanded more pro-growth policies.  He did neither consistently.  Today, the EU economies are growing (albeit slowly), and the euro is not obviously overvalued in France, so I would anticipate that we would see some agreement on slightly higher deficits after the German election, but nothing more than that. New growth is going to depend primarily on the ever-popular “structural reforms.”

2.  Whither the welfare state?  Hollande took office as a Socialist determined to exact a pound of flesh from the finance industry, but he left it as a sort of moderate right-wing reformer with minimal public support.  Macron’s platform included business-friendly changes to labor laws and the welfare state.  Recent history suggests that the government will introduce very limited reforms, the reforms will meet ferocious resistance, and whatever is ultimately approved will raise suspicions about what will happen next without actually doing much good. Can Macron break out of this cycle?  It will depend on the outcome of the parliamentary election and his political skills, which will be sorely tested.

Faced with the prospect of selling a product that provides less health insurance at a higher cost to the American public, the Trump Administration (including, but not limited to, the man on golf cart) is doing what comes naturally–lying about what is in the bill.

It is exactly what you would expect from the proprietor of Trump University. The problem is that even the poor saps who paid for Trump University eventually figured out they were being scammed.  If AHCA becomes law in anything like its current form, the day of reckoning may be postponed, but it can’t be avoided.

It is an article of faith within the GOP that the way to lower health care costs is to suppress demand by requiring consumers to have lots of “skin in the game.” Relative to European systems, however, this simply isn’t true; the American system is vastly more expensive because unit prices for everything are much higher, not because deductibles are lower.  This in turn is due to the fact that European governments intervene far more aggressively in the health care markets than does the American government, even after ACA.

The few conservative commentators who are honest about this will say that higher unit costs are the price we pay for innovation and a growing and prosperous health care sector, which is true.  The real question is, is the trade-off worth it? Are stagnant wages, high prices for our products, and mediocre health care outcomes on a macro level an acceptable price to pay for cutting edge treatment for rich people and wealthy health care and drug providers?  If not, what are we willing and able to do about it?

That is the health care debate we need to have.  So far, I’m not hearing it.

So the French dodged a bullet this time.  As I’ve noted before, however, it will be difficult for Macron to govern effectively, and if he can’t, it’s easy to imagine an extremist being elected next time.

A lot will be riding on the parliamentary elections to come.  The whole world will still be watching.