Saturday, March 31, 2018

Trump - Clinton or Capone?

Last Sunday’s “60 Minutes” episode was its highest rated in a decade. Americans turned in to watch the interview with Trumps alleged former mistress Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels. I didn’t watch because I wasn’t interested in his randy behavior as it really is none of my concern.

Bill Clinton suffered through years of investigations attempting to find evidence of misdeeds but it was his libido and attempt to cover up that nearly brought him down. I’ve always wondered what would have happened if Clinton had said “a gentleman doesn’t kiss and tell” or “none of your business”, when being questioned under oath about his liaison with Monica Lewinsky. Or perhaps if he’d said “Yes, we had sex. So what?” It was his lie that allowed the impeachment to go forward. In the end even a dozen Republican senators didn’t believe his falsehood was significant enough to warrant removing him from the presidency though his law license was suspended by the state of Arkansas.

Donald Trump doesn’t seem to have learned anything from Clinton as he continues to deny affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. It’s pretty clear that both women have evidence to support their claims and are likely telling the truth. Given that he’s in office now and isn’t even up for election for another three years it would seem Trump would do well to admit these as well as any others might also come out and clear the air. Instead his continued denials may yet lead to his downfall.

Unfortunately for Trump, his extra-marital affair with Daniels isn’t his big problem, it’s the cover up that may end up his Waterloo. It appears likely that he or at the very least members of his campaign broke campaign finance laws when they paid Daniels $130,000 in hush money. The watchdog group Common Cause which has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission calls it an in kind contribution which is required to be reported on disclosure forms. Allegations of threats and intimidation by his lawyer don’t help his case but aren’t material to the campaign finance case. As in Watergate this is a case of “follow the money”.

I’ll laugh my head off if the Stormy Daniels cover-up turns out to lead to Trump’s impeachment when there seems to be so much more significant material to work with like money laundering for Russian mobsters and oligarchs through his hotels and real estate businesses. Of course, there’s also the possibility he was complicit in the Russian efforts to get him elected such as the theft and publication of the DNC emails. Then there’s the Russian bots unleashed on Twitter, Facebook and other social media that may have been coordinated with his campaign. And we still don’t know enough the possible connections between Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Russian government operatives to say for sure whether or not there was a conspiracy though there’s plenty of smoke suggesting a good size fire.

Al Capone was never convicted of bootlegging, murder or any of his other violent and noteworthy crimes, instead it was tax evasion that put him in the federal penitentiary. Like Capone before him, I’m betting on Trump getting punished for something other than what most of us would consider his more substantial crimes.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - March 30, 2018

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Trump's take on 'Drug War' unhelpful, hollow

Earlier this week Trump called for the death penalty for drug dealers as if that will solve the opioid “crisis”. Given that the problem opioids are generally prescription drugs I suppose he’s planning to execute an awful lot of pharmacists and doctors. Like his border wall to fight unauthorized, immigration executing drug dealers is all noise and no solution.

There are numerous similarities and connections between drug smuggling and human smuggling. The similarities are that much of both are controlled by the same criminal organizations and they use similar routes and techniques often tractor trailers or carried on the backs of people walking across the desert.

Walls don’t work to keep out people who want to be on other side, it didn’t work for China around 200 BCE and it didn’t work for the Romans who built Hadrian’s Wall across England around 140 CE. Whether it is do to insufficient enforcement or bribes to those supposed to be watching if people want to cross the wall they’ve always found a weakness to exploit.

The “War on Drugs” that Nixon ramped up in the 1970’s has been a proven failure ever since yet we as a nation continue to the same tactics expecting a different result, a failing referred to as insanity in an oft quoted remark. We know the “War on Drugs” has failed because availability of a wide range of drugs is as high or higher than ever and prices have fallen while the potency has increased over time. In addition it drives other violent crime as dealers contend over sales territories.

Much of the authorization immigration and asylum seekers are driven by economic problems and violence caused by United States policies over the last two centuries. Some times it was overthrowing democratically elected leaders or fighting locals to protect the business interests of American companies such as Chiquita of banana fame and hence the term banana republics. On other occasions it’s been violence and corruption involving drug cartels that wouldn’t exist without the financial incentives of the black market for drugs in the United States.

We could pull the rug out from under the drug cartels overnight by legalizing drugs. Their income streams would take a massive blow that can’t readily be made up in other ways. The cessation of violence and reduced funding of corrupt officials would likely make many living in the source countries and transit countries more willing to stay. If the United States would take the money we now spend on DEA agents, funding provided to the military and police forces in those countries and reallocate them to education, infrastructure and business loans instead there would be less incentive to leave.

Natural experiments on both of these topics have taken place on the Iberian peninsula of Europe. Throughout much of the latter half of the 20th century unauthorized immigration by Spaniards to other European nations was very high due to a poor economy. Once Spain’s leadership gained the assistance of the EU and its economy improved Spanish immigration dropped off and many who were out of the country returned home. Spain wages still aren’t at the German level but they are markedly improved and so has life in the nation.

The other experiment is Portugal’s decriminalization of all drugs. Drug inspired crime is down dramatically, so are drug overdoses and HIV infections. Contrary to the expectations of many overall drug use didn’t rise significantly.

The proposals of the Trump administration are proven failures but there are other existing models that have been successful. It’s past time we tried them.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - March 23, 2018

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Welfare Makes Better Workers

Liberals are often said to be bleeding hearts and though our goals may be admirable we’re told our proposed programs and policies are impractical, too expensive, counter-productive or all of the above. The truth is that our empathy and gut instinct to do right by our fellow man is in fact not just morally righteous, but also practical, cost effective and productive. A fine example of this dichotomy of views is public assistance generally known as welfare.

Studies done around the world show that insuring that children are adequately fed and clothed via cash public assistance to the family can increase working hours and earnings, particularly when the beneficiaries are required to attend classes that teach specific trades or general business skills. Welfare isn’t just morally righteous it is an investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.

In a recent paper from researchers at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago the results of a Mexican program called Prospera, the world’s first conditional cash-transfer system, were analyzed. The program provides money to poor families on the condition that they send their children to school and go to the doctor regularly and stay current on vaccinations.

By matching up data from Prospera with data about households’ incomes the researchers were able to analyze the program’s effect on children several decades after they started receiving benefits. They found that young people who participate in the program for seven years usually completed three more years of education and were 37 percent more likely to have a job. Prospera beneficiaries grew up to become adults who worked nine more hours each week on average than similar poor children who didn’t participate in the program. On top of that they also earned higher hourly wages.

This is important for the United States in particular right now when the Republican Party is on a bender to reduce public assistance of all kinds including those programs like Medicaid which benefit poor children. Republicans make a lot of dubious claims about the connection between public benefits and non-working adults but the evidence proves they’re wrong. Of course, facts don’t seem to matter to Republicans all that much, particularly when they contradict core revealed “knowledge” spouted by their authority figures. It doesn’t seem to matter that the agenda of those authority figures is driven by the wealthy campaign donors and the corporations who will employ them once they have left congress.

It isn’t just Mexico where providing the basics goes beyond addressing immediate concerns, American adults whose mothers received prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity, higher rates of high-school graduation, and higher incomes than those from similar households who were ineligible for Medicaid. Other research has shown that children covered by Medicaid expansions went on to earn higher wages and require less welfare assistance as adults than similarly situated children who didn't get those benefits. Recent research from the University of Pennsylvania on people in Canada and the United States shows that even basic-income plans encourage people to either continue working or go back to school to improve their skills.

All this shows that the conservative claims that public benefits are too expensive is just short term thinking. In reality it’s much less costly to provide benefits now because those children will grow up to earn their own living and thus pay taxes than it is to leave them destitute during their formative years and have the public suffer the effects of too many unskilled people with no hope of ever earning a living for themselves and their families.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Dark Money and Foreign Interference in Elections

In a decision made by the Supreme Court in 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, overturning campaign finance protections, they made it legal for Political Action Committees (PACs) which spend money on political advertising to hide the names of the donors who provided those funds. Since the public is therefore in the dark as to who is really paying for the political advertising the term dark money was coined. In many cases people donate funds to one organization which must provide the names of its donors then that organization donates the bulk of its funds to another organization that doesn’t have to reveal the names of its donors. If this sounds like money laundering that’s because after a fashion it is, though it’s legal.

When interpreting a message most of us will consider not only what is said but also who is saying it. If a known liar makes a bold claim the average listener will consider that claim with a large helping of salt. The same is true for political advertising most of us want to know who is making the claims in the ad in order to better judge whether or not to believe the claims.

The most recently appointed Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, was supported by $10 million of dark money pushing for him. Given that it is a lifetime appointment doesn’t is seem appropriate that the American public know who was promoting him and in order to provide guidance on how legitimate the claims made about him might be?

If China had donated $5 million to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Iran had donated $3 million to an Islamic mosque in Houston which was then used that money to support Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency I’m quite certain that Republicans in congress and everywhere else would have jumped all over it. The National Rifle Association spent $30 million in support of the Trump campaign. It has come to light that Russia may have donated millions of dollars to the National Rifle Association at that time. Hardly a word is being said about it by Republicans.

There are laws in place prohibiting foreign governments and their citizens from funding political advertising or campaigns but when “dark money” is allowed how do we truly know whether or not those laws are being followed.

Dark money isn’t just a problem in presidential campaigns, there aren’t any prohibitions on it in state campaigns either. Numerous state legislature races have been impacted by dark money in recent years. State Representative Charlie Geren twice filed bills that would have prohibited such anonymous funding of campaign advertising but Gov. Greg Abbott hasn’t gotten behind the bills so Texas legislature has failed to pass them. Isn’t it well past time that the public get the opportunity to judge political ad claims by who is paying the bills for those ads?

Published in the Seguin Gazette March 9, 2018

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Five Great Reasons to Vote in the Primary

As of the end of early voting more Democrats than Republicans had voted in the primary in the 15 largest counties and that’s unusual. It’s a sign of Democratic voter enthusiasm that follows trends set in special elections across the country over the last 12 months. The Democratic wave that is building across the country has the potential to remake the House of Representatives and the Senate but that won’t happen if Texans don’t get out and vote.

There are important races in this primary which will determine who challenges Republican incumbents like the governor and US Senate. In the U.S. Senate race Texas Democrats have a terrific opportunity with Congressman Beto O’Rourke from El Paso. It’s important to vote in this race because in the past unknowns with no political experience, no support, and no campaign have won primaries against candidates like O’Rourke leaving Democrats with non-viable candidates in November.

A few years after O’Rourke graduated from college he moved back to El Paso and started a small tech company which soon became successful. O’Rourke also became deeply involved in the civic, business and community efforts in El Paso. He ran for El Paso City Council in 2005 and served for two terms before running for U.S. Congress in 2012, taking on an eight-term incumbent and winning. He knocked on thousands of doors and had real conversations, face-to-face, with the voters in El Paso. In Congress, O’Rourke serves on the House Committees for Armed Services and Veterans Affairs.

Mike Collier has been building his campaign for Lt. Governor for nearly 3 years and has developed name recognition across the electorate. Collier is a career accountant who has worked for some of the largest companies in the world and helped build a successful Texas oil company while serving as its Chief Financial Officer. Collier built a reputation for rigorous financial analysis, independent decision-making, and a commitment to telling the truth, no matter what. If we’re going to hold politicians accountable, that’s exactly what Texas needs right now. He hopes to challenge Dan Patrick in November and is one of the statewide candidates that actually stands a chance to win.

Joi Chevalier is running for Comptroller. Chevalier is an entrepeneur whose experience in corporate planning and product development could provide valuable prep for the job of a state comptroller, a position that serves as Texas’ chief financial officer and revenue forecaster. Chevalier has an impressive understanding of the state’s challenges. She’s endorsed by Progress Texas and she speaks regularly on entrepreneurship, food and tech, product management, and the opportunity for women and African-Americans in technology and through food entrepreneurship.

Miguel Suazo is running for Land Commissioner. Suazo is an energy and natural resources attorney with a decade of experience in energy, natural resources, government, and business. When I met Suazo a few weeks ago, he told me he's running for this office because he's incensed at the poor job George P. Bush has done handling of the hurricane recovery efforts along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Steve Kling is running for Senate District 25. He’s a former Army Captain decorated for his service in Afghanistan and Iraq who now works in the tech industry. One of Kling’s top issues is public education and he summarizes his views this way; “Meaningful finance reform only will occur when we reduce the dependence on our local school property taxes, streamline the host of unfunded mandates for teachers and districts, eliminate high-stakes consequences for students and provide support for a well-rounded education for all Texas students.”

You can vote today or Tuesday, make your voice heard.