Maybe he’ll be different from who he was and always is.” ― Stephen Colbert
I will not attempt to improve on the endless reviews of The Trump Administration after a year in power, but I will weigh in on what is happening under the radar, while you slept, sub rosa, etc.First, however, let's do the poll thing: As I go to press after Turkey Day, the Gallup poll shows that 37 percent of Americans say they approve of the job performance of President Trump while 56 percent do not. One may quibble about this poll, of course, but it closely parallels some fifty others click here . However, as Fortune magazine notes, "...the most important take-home here is less that Trump’s approval rating is low, than that it remains surprisingly high after an objectively troubled transition. The relative persistence of Trump’s support [reveals]..the polarization of American politics..."
"In particular, the poll found Trump’s approval rating is much higher among white voters, at 46%, than among minority voters, which is at 20% overall. There is an even greater spread between urbanites, 25% of whom approve of the president’s job performance, and rural voters, 52% of whom do. Trump also has higher approval among non-college graduates, though that spread is less dramatic, with about 10% lower approval among those with four-year degrees or more." Further, it should be noted that the Harvard CAPS-Harris survey revealed that "79 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Trump voters approve of the job he is doing. Trump slumps to only 38 percent approval among independents and is...disliked among [virtually all] Democrats, African-Americans and Clinton voters."
This nasty political environment strongly echoes the cultural wars of the 60's and 70's, when "The Silent Majority" wanted to keep abortion illegal, keep women in the kitchen, keep homosexuals in the closet, keep abortion illegal, keep supporting a bloody war in Vietnam, keep black folks segregated and keep Nixon as president. Turns out, the Silent Majority was neither silent or a majority. Americans rose up en masse to support federal laws which eliminated everything the vocal minority wanted to keep. So it was indeed a traumatic shock for me as well as the majority of Americans who did not vote for Trump, to see him in The White House and consequently attacking much of those changes wrought 50 years ago.
As a Journalist, I have always sought to pursue truth with an objective point of view, but it remains difficult for me to find a positive view of the current administration based on hard facts.
While Trump deserves some credit for the continuing economic growth which he inherited, and he has signed a slew of executive orders, but his efforts to pass major legislation have failed. Trump takes credit for how American military might has contributed to the virtual annihilation of ISIS in Iraq, but those efforts began well before his election. Afghanistan enjoyed an increase in American troops by Trump, but recent reports by US military leaders in county say the Taliban is in control of half of the country. He can also take credit for a decrease in border crossings, but nothing even remotely like the 3 million aliens collared by Obama in 7 years.
Readers of my posts have shown they are very well informed about current events, so I will not add to the long list of deeply concerning developments created by Trumpians last year. But here's a partial refresher list, lest we forget: Hundreds of flat out lies, the creation of "fake news", insults and childish rants aimed at dozens of politicians in both parties as well as his own cabinet, a thinly veiled hatred of racial minorities and immigrants, investigations into Russian electoral collusion, the proudful embrace of ignorance, etc.
Enough of the report card. Now let's look at what you may not know about the inner workings of the Trump administration:
OPEN GOVERNMENT
According to the watchdog group Open The Government's recent reports here: In its first nine months
in office, the Trump Administration has shown its antipathy to open government and international
agreements. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the administration has delayed releasing a “National Action Plan”
(NAP) to articulate goals for increasing government transparency and accountability.
"The plan... is required as part of the United States’ participation in
the Open Government Partnership (OGP)...a multinational initiative...to
encourage governments worldwide to commit to using transparency to fight
corruption and empower citizens. Countries that commit to...OGP agree to create National Action Plans that outline reforms and
accountability initiatives the government will take...The United
States—a founding member of OGP—has submitted three national actions plans so far."
"To be fair, a delay in
submitting a country’s NAP does not necessarily mean a country is walking away
from the goals and commitments of OGP...Unfortunately, the
signals from the President suggest it is not the intention of.. this administration to commit to meaningful, measurable goals
that reflect the priorities of open government advocates...This administration has already withdrawn from prior specific transparency
commitments, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – a
corruption-fighting effort involving governments, corporations and civil
society groups [seeking] greater transparency in the oil, gas and mining
sectors. The administration has also rescinded various prior commitments related to law enforcement transparency and accountability efforts. More broadly,
an administration that has been antagonistic to a free press, withheld the presidents’
tax returns, kept secret White House Visitors logs, targeted protesters for surveillance and
monitoring, and backed out of commitments to disclose information about warrantless
surveillance programs, seems unlikely to embrace meaningful
commitments under a voluntary, international agreement.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Herein is a synopsis of multiple sources on the subject which may bore some folks, but it is vitally important to anyone with access to the internet:
Wikipedia defines net neutrality as a principle according to which all Internet traffic should enjoy an equal treatment. Defenders of net neutrality want Internet providers and governments to treat all data equally, without any kind of discrimination...[and no] restrictions to the content, sites, platforms and quantity of data that can be downloaded. Net neutrality is about ensuring a level playing field for all online services and content providers, such as phone and cable companies, can't give preferential treatment to anyone especially in supporting their own network money makers, like Netflix or Amazon.
The Obama administration understood that this preferential treatment was enough of a threat that it passed regulations in 2015 prohibiting internet service companies from interfering with the content streaming over their networks.
The FCC, under Trump's administration, has proposed dramatic changes to those regulations. According to ABC News,
"The action is expected to put more power in the hands of the internet service providers, allowing companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to block or slow certain websites, giving priority to those who pay for it."
FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, said the rules have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation." It's a sure bet that the majority will prevail at the FCC meeting on Dec. 14.
According to the LA Times, Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn called Pai's rule change "a cornucopia full of rotten fruit, stale grains and wilted flowers topped off with a plate full of burnt turkey...and would dismantle net neutrality as we know it by giving the green light to our nation's largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services."
Here's an example: Under current rules, Comcast couldn't provide more reliable access to their service or slow down streaming signals from Hulu or Sling TV, because broadband fast lanes do not exist. After the rule change becomes reality, however, there would be nothing to stop Comcast from messing with your feed, making the prospect of broadband fast lanes — and deliberate traffic jams — very much a reality. They could demand that companies like Netflix pay extra for more reliable signals. It could also charge its own subscribers more for fast-lane access to content.
The telecom industry welcomed Pai's rule change but made no commitment to actually invest in better networks.
Cinnamon Rogers, vice president of government affairs for the Telecommunications Industry Assn., said ditching net neutrality "will improve the business case for deploying next-generation wireline and wireless broadband to meet growing consumer demand for connectivity."
One possible positive outcome--the commission gave its explicit blessing to phone companies blocking robocalls before they can reach customers' landlines or mobile phones. God knows that consumers hate them passionately, so it sounds good until you read the fine print; along with giving phone companies the permission to block calls, the FCC told them they can pass along to customers any costs incurred in stopping robocalls, almost guaranteeing another fee added to your bill.
In my opinion, this proposed change will be met with a bazillion, mad as hell, citizens who will clog the streets in protest in the next few weeks.
WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?
A well known pattern of the Trump administration has emerged in a year: His cabinet choices are largely opposed to the goals of the departments they lead. For exampleRick Perry famously included the Dept. of Energy on a list of departments he would gut if he became the President. Now he heads the department. And who better than Scott Pruitt to head up the Environmental Protection Agency than Scott Pruitt, who as attorney general of Oklahoma, waged an unceasing battle against the EPA's climate and energy goals? The Department of Education is led by Betsy Devos, who has spent years trying to expand charter schools, while attacking public education schools. Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, according to The Nation. "...has a miserable history of aligning with right-wing and corporate interests [against labor].
The pattern exists throughout his cabinet choices, but then I am assuming my readers know that. What is occurring in those agencies which do not require congressional approval for leaders is the rest of the story.
Consider this: According to Politico, "Trump wants to tap Thomas Brunell, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, to serve as the deputy director for the Census Bureau, where he will [oversee] operations for the 2020 census."
"Unlike his predecessors, though, Brunell has little experience working with federal statistics and none managing a big organization, which seems important when your task is to accurately count every single person who lives in the U.S.
His qualifications for the job, then? Brunell has worked with Republicans in support of their gerrymandering efforts and believes that the census over represents black Americans. In fact, Brunell wrote a book advocating the use of gerrymandering, Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America, published in 2008."
Over at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a major feud has erupted over who will lead the organization, which, under Richard Cordray's leadership, extracted nearly $12 billion in refunds and canceled debts for 29 million consumers. It cracked down on abusive debt collectors, strengthened protections for mortgage borrowers and created a complaints system that helped hundreds of thousands of people resolve disputes with financial companies.
Cordray has said he will step down and allow Deputy Director Leandra English to take over, in accordance to The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which established the deputy director position to lead the bureau between permanent directors. However the Trump administration has moved to appoint budget director Mick Mulvaney for the post, citing the Federal Vacancies Act which allows the president to appoint any official previously confirmed by the Senate. Mulvaney, a staunch conservative who once called the CFPB “a sick, sad joke” would likely freeze or significantly change the agency’s current agenda. As of 11/26, the dispute is headed to court.
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SCIENTISTS"
On November 15, Snopes fact checkers said that Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, has a new policy barring anyone who receives federal funding from advising the agency on funding decisions. As reported in Science: It marks a major change in who can serve on the committees, which help steer EPA research and regulations by providing input on scientific questions. Snope said "Critics of the move say it is a cynical measure ultimately aimed at increasing industry-backed scientists’ influence on the funding of research related to regulating their industries."
Snopes continues: "During the president’s first sixty days in office, legislators rescinded a number of environmental, health, and safety regulations without the required scientific review. Usually, in order to pass new regulations or repeal old ones... [noting] that 'agencies have to justify it, and that’s where some of the scientific analysis comes from.' Congress has circumvented the required review through what had been (until 2017) an obscure and almost never-used law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), [which] provides a fast track to overturn recently-approved regulations through a joint statement of disapproval by both chambers of Congress. In both the House and the Senate, such a statement requires only a majority vote. Congress used the CRA to rescind both the EPA’s Stream Protection Act, which required coal mining operations not to pollute local waterways, and a Social Security Administration regulation mandating that the agency transfer mental health data on individuals who receive a specific kind of disability insurance benefit to criminal background check agencies."
The legislative branch also used it to block a regulation preventing states from denying funding for women’s health services to facilities that also provided abortions, as well as a regulation that extended the amount of time that employers are required to retain data about workplace injuries."
Snopes correctly noted that top science posts, including the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, remain unfilled. Also noted: "Many of the individuals who have been nominated have a remarkably weak scientific background. Kathleen Hartnett White, whom Trump named to the the top environmental post in the White House... failed to answer extremely basic science questions during her confirmation hearing...Sam Clovis, a former talk show host and political science professor, [became] the chief scientist for the USDA. A 2008 law requires that position to be staffed 'from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.' Clovis meets none of these conditions." (Clovis withdrew his nomination after being informed that he was part of Robert Mueller's investigation.)
For this writer and the vast majority of citizens resisting Trump on the streets, in the press, and in electoral contests in many states, our democracy is alive and fightin' mad. We will prevail.
I will leave you with this century old prophecy from H. L. Mencken, which serves as a warning: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Editor's Note: I will be on vacation through Jan. 5th--Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!
WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?
A well known pattern of the Trump administration has emerged in a year: His cabinet choices are largely opposed to the goals of the departments they lead. For exampleRick Perry famously included the Dept. of Energy on a list of departments he would gut if he became the President. Now he heads the department. And who better than Scott Pruitt to head up the Environmental Protection Agency than Scott Pruitt, who as attorney general of Oklahoma, waged an unceasing battle against the EPA's climate and energy goals? The Department of Education is led by Betsy Devos, who has spent years trying to expand charter schools, while attacking public education schools. Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, according to The Nation. "...has a miserable history of aligning with right-wing and corporate interests [against labor].
The pattern exists throughout his cabinet choices, but then I am assuming my readers know that. What is occurring in those agencies which do not require congressional approval for leaders is the rest of the story.
His qualifications for the job, then? Brunell has worked with Republicans in support of their gerrymandering efforts and believes that the census over represents black Americans. In fact, Brunell wrote a book advocating the use of gerrymandering, Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America, published in 2008."
Over at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a major feud has erupted over who will lead the organization, which, under Richard Cordray's leadership, extracted nearly $12 billion in refunds and canceled debts for 29 million consumers. It cracked down on abusive debt collectors, strengthened protections for mortgage borrowers and created a complaints system that helped hundreds of thousands of people resolve disputes with financial companies.
Cordray has said he will step down and allow Deputy Director Leandra English to take over, in accordance to The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which established the deputy director position to lead the bureau between permanent directors. However the Trump administration has moved to appoint budget director Mick Mulvaney for the post, citing the Federal Vacancies Act which allows the president to appoint any official previously confirmed by the Senate. Mulvaney, a staunch conservative who once called the CFPB “a sick, sad joke” would likely freeze or significantly change the agency’s current agenda. As of 11/26, the dispute is headed to court.
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SCIENTISTS"
On November 15, Snopes fact checkers said that Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, has a new policy barring anyone who receives federal funding from advising the agency on funding decisions. As reported in Science: It marks a major change in who can serve on the committees, which help steer EPA research and regulations by providing input on scientific questions. Snope said "Critics of the move say it is a cynical measure ultimately aimed at increasing industry-backed scientists’ influence on the funding of research related to regulating their industries."
Snopes continues: "During the president’s first sixty days in office, legislators rescinded a number of environmental, health, and safety regulations without the required scientific review. Usually, in order to pass new regulations or repeal old ones... [noting] that 'agencies have to justify it, and that’s where some of the scientific analysis comes from.' Congress has circumvented the required review through what had been (until 2017) an obscure and almost never-used law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), [which] provides a fast track to overturn recently-approved regulations through a joint statement of disapproval by both chambers of Congress. In both the House and the Senate, such a statement requires only a majority vote. Congress used the CRA to rescind both the EPA’s Stream Protection Act, which required coal mining operations not to pollute local waterways, and a Social Security Administration regulation mandating that the agency transfer mental health data on individuals who receive a specific kind of disability insurance benefit to criminal background check agencies."
The legislative branch also used it to block a regulation preventing states from denying funding for women’s health services to facilities that also provided abortions, as well as a regulation that extended the amount of time that employers are required to retain data about workplace injuries."
Snopes correctly noted that top science posts, including the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, remain unfilled. Also noted: "Many of the individuals who have been nominated have a remarkably weak scientific background. Kathleen Hartnett White, whom Trump named to the the top environmental post in the White House... failed to answer extremely basic science questions during her confirmation hearing...Sam Clovis, a former talk show host and political science professor, [became] the chief scientist for the USDA. A 2008 law requires that position to be staffed 'from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.' Clovis meets none of these conditions." (Clovis withdrew his nomination after being informed that he was part of Robert Mueller's investigation.)
For this writer and the vast majority of citizens resisting Trump on the streets, in the press, and in electoral contests in many states, our democracy is alive and fightin' mad. We will prevail.
I will leave you with this century old prophecy from H. L. Mencken, which serves as a warning: "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Editor's Note: I will be on vacation through Jan. 5th--Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!
No comments:
Post a Comment