By John Shaffer One of the biggest happenings of the past week has been President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey. It is a little delicious that a catch phrase ('You're Fired!") made famous by the President during a previous career as a reality-TV show host would be the cause of so much turmoil. The last time a President fired an FBI Director was 1993 when President Clinton fired William Sessions. The Republic did not crumble in 1993, and it won’t over the Comey firing either. That doesn’t mean the Comey firing was handled well – and it hasn’t proven to be very “popular,” especially with Democrats – although many of them were all but crying for his scalp just about up to the time he actually was fired. How many people believe that Mr. Comey would have lasted 117 days into a Hillary Clinton administration? Of course, President Trump has a tendency to buy trouble (one is one pretty solid ground to say that almost all of President Trump’s “problems” vis-à-vis the political establishment, the news media, Congress, and his friends and his opponents alike, are at their foundation self-inflicted) and this instance is no exception. He has created outrage less for the things he has done than by the way he has done them and what he has said while doing them. He is impulsive and rash, and still has not learned that Republicans cannot count on much support from the mainstream media, academia, the political establishment, or the entertainment world. Mistakes or missteps from Democrats may be downplayed or ignored by those folks, but if from President Trump, they are taken as proof of irrationality or incompetence. Who knows, maybe they are – but President Obama could get away with equally incompetent or irrational behaviors because he had a deep well of support from those folks listed above; and they also tend to give support to Hillary Clinton that makes their support of President Obama look weak by comparison. President Trump should have figured that out a long time ago, and the sooner he learns to watch what he says and how he explains things, the better off he will be. It's pretty safe to bet that the media will do their best to extinguish the embers of a scandal in a Democratic administration but will fan them into flame in a Republican administration.
By John Shaffer We have some big "thank yous" for "above and beyond" work last week. Normally our paper is printed by the kind folks at the press plant of The Daily Review each Wednesday morning, and we bring it back to Canton where it is labeled, taken to the Post Offices in Canton and Troy, mailed and delivered and on the newsstands by 3 pm. Thanks to a major power outage that stretched out for several days, on last Wednesday that routine was not possible. Brian Schlosser, production manager at the Daily, found a press in Oswego, New York, which did our job. Our paper arrived back in Monroeton at 10 pm that night. We picked them up then, labeled and sorted and took them to the Canton and Troy post offices before 7 am on Thursday. All of the mail customers between Ralston and Gillett, including Granville, received their papers in the Thursday mail, without missing a beat. Thanks to our own staff, Brian and The Daily Review and the Oswego employees, and the Postal employees for doing a marvelous job under difficult circumstances.
By John Shaffer The US House of Representatives has now passed legislation to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. This almost certainly will not be the final product, for the Senate will present its own version, and then the two versions will be reconciled through conference, and something, maybe very different than the House bill, will be passed and signed into law. The bill was passed with no Democrat votes (and about 20 Republicans also voted against it), just as the original Obamacare law was passed without a Republican voting for it. The House that passed Obamacare contained 257 Democrats. The voting public was not pleased, turned 64 of those seats over to Republicans, giving them the majority in the House, which they have maintained ever since. And yet, the same observers who watched the electoral consequences of passing Obamacare are essentially predicting the same result for repealing it - suggesting that the GOP will lose its majority. Well, perhaps, but it strikes us as odd that the same voters who punished the party that passed Obamacare would now punish the party that "un-passed" it.
Of course, dishonest claims about the House legislation may have something to do with it - such as the contention that the House bill does away with "pre-existing" conditions, thus denying treatment to Jimmy Kimmel's baby, and nearly everyone else it would seem. As George Gershwin wrote, "It Ain't Necessarily So." In fact, it isn't "so" at all - not even a little bit. Here are the facts: If parents have health insurance, their child is covered under their plan, even if that child is gravely ill. This was true before Obamacare as well as with it, and will be true after it, too. What’s more, American hospitals must provide emergency treatment to everyone who requires it and comes to a hospital. It does not matter if the patient is insured or not, if they have money or not, or if they have a “pre-existing condition” or not. By John Shaffer “One hundred days” has been somewhat of a standard for incoming presidential administrations since the heady days of the New Deal, when the Roosevelt Administration passed a flurry of legislation and implemented a series of regulations aimed at combating the Great Depression. Among the major steps were a bank holiday, taking America off the Gold Standard, and regulations to take control of the economy, banking and agriculture. No administration since then has compiled as extensive a record – but none since then had a Great Depression to confront, either. For better or worse, FDR’s 100 Days remade the government’s approach to the economy and greatly expanded the power of Washington at the expense of the private sector and state and local government. We should not judge any presidency by only its first 100 days. The Trump Administration’s “100 Days” faced a unique set of challenges, and many of its first steps aimed at undoing actions of the previous administration. The Trump administration misfired in its attempt to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, and, lacking the one-sided majorities in Congress that FDR enjoyed has been unable to pass a similar wave of legislation. Remember, presidential terms last four years, not 100 days, so we should be careful not to judge this or any administration solely by its ability to pass major legislation within 100 days.
By John Shaffer This week the talk is about another “government shutdown,” which may or may not happen, because Congress and the President can’t or won’t agree on some type of a mechanism to keep the money flowing as spending issues are being debated.
There are many different ways to look at the “crisis,” but the real problem boils down to this: the government continues to spend money it does not have, continues to keep passing legislation or promising to support programs that cost money – yet it seldom stops or even seriously reduces those current programs to got us $20 trillion in debt in the first place; but there never seems to be a problem with spending more. And the Trump administration wants to spend on a border wall, and on the military; and the Democrats want to spend on Obamacare; and it seems every member of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have a favorite project to promote. Almost nothing ever gets cut. Even when the administration threatens to withhold federal funds from self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities,” it is being done as a punishment, not because we can’t afford to spend the money. We wish that the government would more prudently guard the public purse, and realize that the money for all those programs has to come from somewhere. If they can't find it by reducing present programs, maybe it shouldn't be spent at all! By John Shaffer Its official name is “Massive Ordnance Air Blast,” and the first letters of each of those words were painted on the side of the device, compelling some service man to dub it “Mother Of All Bombs,” and the United States dropped one on a tunnel complex in Afghanistan last week, killing an estimated one hundred ISIS jihadi fighters, as well as destroying a nerve center for our enemies. This was the first time the weapon was used, and it was very effective and also very efficient. MOAB costs about $170,000, and it did what powerful weapons are supposed to do: it eliminated enemies, thus averting the risks entailed if US, Afghan or coalition forces had been forced to take those tunnels one passage at a time. It saved the lives of Americans and of America’s friends – and, if it helps to bring the war to a swifter close, saved the lives of enemies as well.
Recall please that the atomic bombs America used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took around 100,000 Japanese lives – but they also compelled that nation to surrender, forestalling the need for an armed invasion of the Japanese home islands. Estimates of US and Allied casualties in such an invasion were in the one million range, and those among Japanese military and civilian personnel surely would have been even higher. Those bombs saved lives by forcing a surrender and shortening the war. We can hope that MOAB or similar lethal technologies might do the same. By John Shaffer After a most contentious confirmation battle, President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice was confirmed by the Senate by a 54-45 vote. Three Democrats (all up for re-election in 2018 from states that went heavily for Mr. Trump last November) joined 51 Republicans (one Republican was absent) in confirming Mr. Gorsuch to the court. This was one of the closest votes in recent history, and that in itself is noteworthy, considering Mr. Gorsuch’s stellar credentials, impeccable record and esteemed reputation. He should have been approved unanimously, as he was when he was appointed to the federal bench without dissent in 2006. But, Democrat Senators look to philosophy rather than credentials, and for the most part do not want conservatives on the highest court. Republicans don’t want progressives on the court, either, but there are always at least a few of them who will look solely at qualifications instead of philosophy and will vote to confirm the likes of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (the three most liberal members of the Court). That is why Democrat appointees have almost never had trouble reaching the “60-vote threshold” that, under recent interpretation of Senate rules, was a “requirement.” Of course, the Constitution doesn't require 60 votes for Court confirmations.
By John Shaffer Well, we are among those hoping that the Republicans haven’t broken one of their main campaign promises – that is, to repeal (and replace) Obamacare – but they have experienced an embarrassing delay in keeping that promise; and it is all self-inflicted. The party has the White House, and it has the votes in both houses of Congress, and yet it was unable to knit a coalition together to pass a repeal. We note that they had passed repeals in previous Congresses, only to have them vetoed by President Obama. The fact that there even is the necessity of knitting a coalition from one’s own party demonstrates the problem that the Republicans have. And, despite Speaker Paul Ryan’s warning that we will have Obamacare for “the foreseeable future,” the Republicans and the White House are working on ways to revive the repeal.
And, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, a medical doctor and a strong opponent of Obamacare when he was in the US House of Representatives, is still unequivocally in favor of ending Obamacare. There are plenty of things he can do from a regulatory standpoint, since the Obamacare law (passed, we remind everyone, 100% with Democratic votes) includes dozens of references along the lines of “The Secretary” shall decide or determine various ways in which the law shall be interpreted or enforced. The “Secretary” when the law was passed was President Obama’s appointee – but today’s Secretary is not, and he should respond appropriately. What’s more, the Obamacare structure is collapsing of its own weight and will continue to do so, even if Republicans do nothing. However, that would be, potentially at least, irresponsible; so we hope that they manufacture a law that repeals Obamacare, and also find the votes to pass it. Let’s face it – the failure to repeal has the potential of being a disaster for the Republicans; and that is why Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were leaping for joy. The did so for two reasons: 1) the signature action of the Obama years has been preserved; and 2) the Republicans have disillusioned and dispirited their own base of support. There are many ways Republicans can recapture that support, but the best way is if they do what they said they would do: repeal the Obamacare law. For some reason that is beyond our understanding, a few Republicans succumbed to the fear that they would pay a fierce price at the polls if they voted to repeal. We have news for them: they will pay a much larger price at the polls if they do not. The Democrats know that – and that is why they are so gleeful. By John Shaffer The Canton High School Drama Club presented a fine production of The Wizard of Oz last week, directed by Susan Rockwell. The play showcased the great talent of our young people, and we celebrate the rebirth of the program at Canton High School.
By John Shaffer President Trump has had an eventful first two months in office. Most new Presidents make a stout effort to win over their opponents and usually have managed to alienate a good chunk of their supporters by now. President Trump has done pretty much the opposite: almost everything he has done has pleased his supporters; and he doesn’t seem to care if his opponents like him or not – in fact, it seems that he goes out of his way to enrage them. We count ourselves among those who think that most of the President’s policy moves have been, if not ideal, at least are in the right direction.
However, he does have a proclivity for undermining his own message. He does this through distractions, through being thin-skinned and too-quick-to-react; he still hasn’t shaken that “schoolyard tough” image. Think how much more successful he would be if he could combine President Trump’s policy moves with President Reagan’s pleasantness, graciousness, and joviality. The President remains often coarse, rude and harsh, and he certainly is not one to “turn the other cheek” or to ignore the fray. Other Presidents “stayed out of the gutter” while their hatchetmen did the verbal retaliation and argument. This President does his own arguing and doesn’t need anyone’s help to retaliate. His “tweets” are a well-known example of this, and if someone comes along with the knack of convincing him to abandon that practice, how much more smoothly will flow his presidency. So many of the people who like what he has been doing don’t care for the way he has been doing it – they are still on his side, but if he keeps it up, who knows how long they will remain? Conversely, how many neutrals could he win if he made an effort to win them? And we don’t mean by abandoning his policies or even softening them – but rather by softening his rhetoric and smoothing the corners on his attitude. Sure, his political opponents are saying some harsh things about him – but he is the 45th President about whom harsh things have been said (yes – that’s all of them we have had!). The most successful of the other 44 could turn away wrath and could laugh away criticism. President Trump should learn that one doesn’t have to take oneself too seriously to conduct a serious presidency. By John Shaffer "Well, the Congressional Budget Office has “scored” the Republican “repeal & replace” of Obamacare, and the headlines aren’t what the repealers and replacers wanted, because the CBO says that “24 million” people would lack insurance by 2026 under the “r & r” plan. That’s not the best news, we guess, but we recall that the CBO “scored” the original Obamacare bill, and what it said then proved to be..to put it charitably...laughably dead wrong. For instance The CBO said Obamacare would cut the budget deficit by $119 billion in its first ten years. President Obama claimed that his signature legacy plan “would not add one dime to the deficit," and using the Progressive vocabulary, that is not false. It did not add ONE dime to the deficit, but instead added $18 billion. The CBO also declared that Obamacare would enroll 23 million people in the “exchanges,” and with other aspects of the Obamacare law in effect, the number of uninsured was supposed to drop by 30 million, according to the CBO scoring. Well, the number of uninsured dropped by about 14 million, and the number signed up in the exchanges was around 12 million, and that means the CBO numbers were wrong by a mere 50%. One thing the actual enrollment numbers conceal is that all but about 2 million of the “newly insured” are insured under Medicaid or other federal programs. The number insured in private markets actually dropped by over 3%. We are not sure how many of the people who are in the exchanges were uninsured beforehand, for many of them had insurance that served them well (in simple terms, “They liked their plan.”). But if their companies abandoned the market or stopped writing policies or their policies couldn’t satisfy the Obamacare requirements, they had to find something new (in simple terms, “They couldn’t keep their plan.”). That usually meant going into the exchanges, so to give an artificial boost to the Obamacare numbers. It’s sort of like pushing someone into the pool and then getting a reward when you save him.
Another thing that folks tend to forget is that Obamacare massively subsidizes insurance premiums – to the tune of $42.6 billion next year (with no changes). Not only that, but because Obamacare has forced a huge rise in deductibles, most people will pay more out of pocket for premiums and deductibles combined than they did before the law was passed. BY JOHN SHAFFER President Trump is making claims that he was wiretapped by the Obama Administration. We don't know if that's true or not, but we do know that the Obama administration eavesdropped on or investigated other people, including Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany; Benjamin Netahyahu, Prime Minister of Israel; James Rosen, news reporter and correspondent for Fox News; and we know that the IRS under President Obama’s administration targeted his political opponents. We also know that the Obama Administration and the Democratic party specifically targeted Fox News, organizing a boycott of that organization on the grounds that it was not “a real news organization”; but it also investigated or harassed journalists from CBS, the Associated Press and other entities that it did consider to be “real.” With all this, we know that the Administration had the inclination to take steps against those it perceived as enemies, and on many occasions did just that, so it certainly is plausible that they could have targeted the Trump campaign as well.
BY JOHN SHAFFER Every year the Drama Club at Troy High School presents an outstanding show, and this year's production of Aida, The School Version, surely maintained that great tradition.
This play, a re-telling of Verdi's opera Aîda, isn't one that is in the traditional repertoire, and lacks the familiar tunes and story of the classic Broadway shows, but it has a marvelous score and some great stage numbers for singers and dancers. It requires a great deal of skill and talent to present such an ambitious show well, and the Troy Drama Club presented it very well indeed. The main roles each were excellently served and the supporting cast and chorus and pit orchestra also were top-notch. Director Sydney Blade and her cast and crew truly earned a standing ovation and they have written another wonderful chapter in the story of magnificent productions by the Troy Drama Club. By John Shaffer President Trump gave the speech that many of us have been waiting for him to give, and one that many others thought (or hoped) he was incapable of giving. In a wide-ranging address to a Joint Session of Congress, he said many things that appealed to his base, but also plenty of things that appealed to a wider audience, and he said them positively, with a dignity and grace that previously he seemed to disdain. He showed pride in what he has achieved, but he was not arrogant. In numerous passages he reached out to the Democrat opposition. His delivery was first rate, his tone presidential, his vision statesmanlike – especially in contrast to some of the hurly-burly, the thin-skinned defensiveness and the schoolyard pugnacity of some of his previous statements. We hope this shift in attitude and demeanor is permanent.
BY JOHN SHAFFER Monday was Presidents’ Day. The banks, the Post Office, government buildings, and many schools were closed. The day is an official federal holiday – but according to the law, its official name remains “Washington’s Birthday.” The “Presidents’ Day” moniker came into popular use after 1971, when we began celebrating the holiday on the third Monday in February instead of February 22 (Washington’s Birthday). Well, actually Washington was born on February 11, 1732 – but that was because Great Britain and its colonies used the Julian (or “Old Style”) calendar until 1751, when they adopted the Gregorian calendar. That calendar was eleven days ahead of the Julian calendar, so in order to make the change, eleven days “disappeared” and February 22, not February 11, became Washington’s birthday.
In 1879 Washington’s Birthday became a Federal Holiday (at first, only in the District of Columbia) but in 1885, the holiday was expanded to cover the entire nation. Those of us of a certain age can remember that Washington’s Birthday and Lincoln’s Birthday were observed in school classrooms year after year. The holidays were respectful commemorations of our two greatest presidents. In 1968 Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which moved Washington’s Birthday to the “third Monday in February.” There was talk at the time of renaming the day “Presidents’ Day” thus honoring Lincoln as well, but that never passed Congress. In 1971 America began observing (in the popular mind, at least) “Presidents’ Day” rather than Washington’s Birthday. There is sentiment for honoring all US Presidents on the holiday; but officially, it remains “Washington’s Birthday.” There is a point to this brief history lesson, because just as Washington’s Birthday evolved into Presidents’ Day – this year, some people gave it another name: “Not My President’s Day,” and yes, you guessed it – those people did not, have not, and probably will not ever accept President Donald Trump as “their” President, so they chose to observe “Not My President’s Day.” We assume that “their President” is Hillary Clinton, who never was President – or Barack Obama, whose term ended on January 21 of this year, so although he served for eight years, he is not President now. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|