Blog

Here’s a challenge for you. … Please watch the full video of President Trump’s speech today to the U. N. General Assembly [this link will access it, possibly preceded by a 20-30 second commercial]: President Trump’s U. N. Speech – Full Video (41:24)]. It would have been great if every citizen and non-citizen resident of this country could have watched this speech before watching any media commentary and endless point-by-point analysis sessions by media pundits and their “international relations experts”. Since that is practically impossible these days, I would simply ask that regardless of your political and ideological leanings and whether you “like” our President or “hate” him, you do your very best to put all that aside, watch the speech, and simply listen to his actual words, all in their intended context [which is often lost in collections of “clips” shown by media outlets].

Also, while listening, watch him, trying earnestly to put aside any perceptions you have of him, personally [whether positive or negative] — i.e., just think of him in the context of what he was doing today: addressing the leaders of the world in his capacity as President of the United States. Consider his demeanor, his “Presidentialness” [whatever that means any more], etc., and decide for yourself whether or not you think his words represent who he is and how he thinks, and whether or not he truly has America’s interests at heart.

If your conclusion falls in line with negatives on which the largely liberal elements of the media will no doubt focus in characterizing this speech [and our President as the one delivering it], so be it. Although I disagree with your conclusion, I respect the fact that you are entitled to it and that you and I are two out of over 320 million people who are all entitled to our opinions.

If, however, your conclusion is positive, it certainly matches mine. I believe our President, in this speech today, was just as “presidential” as any President who has ever been characterized in that way in the past. However, he “told it like it is”, and was much more direct in his remarks than most Presidents tend to be [i.e., he didn’t “water down” his remarks to try to make his points without offending specific U. N. members]. To me, that’s a good thing — and I believe that kind of candor is a necessary and important part of “draining the swamp” [the international “swamp”].

Whether history will ultimately characterize Mr. Trump’s presidency as successful, mediocre or a failure remains to be seen, but after watching his speech live today I understand better than I have before what he means as he stresses themes like America First, patriotism, and our country’s respect in the world.

Regardless of where you come down on this, I would like to encourage all of us to consider getting away from the partisan polarity that seems to be the norm these days, respect our President, quit bickering with each other on less important issues than those he addressed today, and become more involved in our nation’s affairs — at a minimum, by keeping ourselves aware of what is going on, and by being more active in making this nation function the way it was designed to function.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

On September 7, 2016, I started up this website [www.USAparadigm.com] and began weekly posts to its Blog section, so my post last week marked the beginning of my second year in this mode. As I began writing today’s post, something from “back when …” came to mind: Paul Harvey saying “Page 2 …” as he transitioned to one of his self-written commercials or another section of content in his radio news broadcasts.

For this “Page 2” of my Blog posts, I’d like to recap why I decided to embark on this endeavor, restate my main goal at that time, give you my assessment of the overall situation now, and outline in broad terms my intentions going forward from here.
In The Beginning …

Although with a much broader long-term purpose, I started this website and began posting to its Blog section with a much more focused initial short-term goal — to do everything I could to clearly lay out for anyone who would listen the fact that, like him/her or not, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would be our next president, and that either abstaining from voting or voting for any other candidate was, in effect, an unwitting vote for one of these two candidates.

The overall long-term purpose of this website appears in the tagline on the Home Page … “Currently dedicated to identifying and understanding the current paradigm, and the new paradigm that is rapidly developing, in the USA [and as applicable, in the World]. Future plans: monitor development of the new paradigm and identify signs of future paradigm shifts.”

The Situation Now …

It is doubtful that my efforts here, viewed in isolation, had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election outcome. However, if I was one of thousands, maybe tens or even scores of thousands of people who felt compelled to personally do something about what was going on in this country, and if I played one tiny part in creating the current situation, it was well worth the effort.

The one thing about the situation now that is absolutely certain from my perspective is that the Old Paradigm is already dead [even though many in both the “swamp” and the mainstream media still don’t realize it], and the New Paradigm is rapidly maturing as the Current Paradigm [re: the A Major Paradigm Shift Well Underway page at this site]. Hardly a day goes by that evidence of this huge shift is not clearly visible — e.g., the President’s obvious focus on doing “whatever it takes” to get things done [recently, to the chagrin of Republican leadership in passage of a Continuing Resolution with support from enough Democrats to outweigh opposition from some “entrenched” Republicans].

Today, despite opposition on every front to the President’s agenda, hardly anybody can make a substantive argument that the country is not better off today than it has been in recent years — employment, GDP, equity markets, etc., not to mention a reasonably balanced Supreme Court that has not gone completely off the liberal end of the scale.

The best way I can think of to articulate what we need most now is to use two cartoons from an extremely liberal newspaper [The Nashville Tennessean] lampooning Hillary Clinton’s book “What Happened?”. Interestingly, many liberal media moguls, even uber-liberal comedians, have expressed a disdainful “just get over it” impression of the book. Our leaders need to “get over” brooding about the election and discrediting our President at every possible opportunity [Democrats], quit thinking of everybody who has viewpoints other than ours as “the enemy” [both parties], and get on with doing what this country needs its government to do — fix the Healthcare debacle, get our economy moving [create jobs, reduce taxes and regulations, etc.], put us on a sustainable fiscal path, and restore the balance of powers among the three branches of our Government.

What Lies Ahead …

The short description of what lies ahead is “I’m not sure”. My thinking at this time is to focus less on specifics [healthcare reform, tax reform, etc.] and pursue the general theme of picking items from day-to-day “goings on” to paint a clearer and clearer picture of what this New Paradigm is and how our future will be developed under that paradigm. Because of specific knowledge and experience I bring to the table on the subject of Healthcare [see the Repealing And Replacing The ACA page at this site], I may continue, as I have heretofore, to get into more depth in that specific area, but my general thinking is to “rise above” the details and write about the bigger picture [the paradigm shift].

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

Interestingly, on this 16th anniversary of 9/11, a commercial that aired thirty years before that tragic event came to my mind [Follow this link to that one-minute ad:  [Link To Ad]. The ad, which featured Native American Iron Eyes Cody, was about the environment — not pushing the “climate change” rhetoric that’s so prevalent today, but depicting the need to be mindful of keeping the environment pristine for future generations. Sadly, I’m in Mr. Cody’s mode today, because I’m doubtful that the esprit de corp that for now has drowned out or at least dampened the constant vitriol that has unfortunately become the “new normal” in America will last more than a few months at the very most — probably more like a few weeks. All it will take is for one post of some silly remark on some dingbat’s Social Media account to “go viral” — and the vitriolic atmosphere will be immediately back to “normal”.

On 9/11/2001, the iPhone was still five years into the future, Social Media was not an integral part of our vocabulary, and the news reported in the media was still orders of magnitude closer to being actual news than the polarized commentary, even propaganda, that it is today. It is worth noting here that in at least one respect, 9/11 came at a time not altogether unlike now, when there were deep political divides stemming from a still relatively recent highly contested Presidential election. In the compassion being shown in the aftermath of two major hurricanes in the past few weeks, there is a glimmer of hope that we can still come together as we did at least for a while in the aftermath of 9/11, put our differences aside, and accomplish much as Americans.

I think the following excerpt from something Reverend Franklin Graham posted on his FaceBook page today is something we should all think about:

“When tragedy strikes, historically Americans pull together. Neighbors help neighbors; strangers help each other—without giving a thought to political affiliation or any other differences. Once again with the disasters of Harvey and Irma, we see ordinary citizens rise up as heroes. I hope in the coming days we can build on this unity and remember the importance of being “one nation under God” [Source: FG – FB].

While I look at the situation in this country a month ago [before all the hurricane domination of media time] through tearful eyes like those of Iron Eyes Cody’s in 1971, I honestly hope that somehow the long-range outcome of the time of transition in which we find ourselves now will be better and more durable than the time since 9/11.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.
 
Charles M. Jones

Donald Sussman, Oscar de la Renta, Emanuel Ax== CARNEGIE HALL Celebrates It’s 120th Anniversary (After Party)== Plaza Hotel, New York== May 5, 2011== ©Patrick McMullan== Photo-JIMI CELESTE/patrickmcmullan.com== ==

This week, I decided to take a shot at backing away from the day-to-day din of vitriolic activity going on in our country these days to see if I could discern the “root” of it all. As I got into that thought process, I’ll have to admit that my disdain for those pushing us toward liberalism as a thing in itself probably affected any objectivity I might otherwise have brought to the table. Given that admission up front, though, I do think there is merit in at least considering something I came up with.

I follow quite a bit of opinion expressions in the media, and I have not heard what I’ll be expressing here from any of the sources I monitor — so if I’m repeating a concept somebody more famous than I am has already promulgated, it’s not plagiarism, it’s just ignorance.

What — and/or who— is driving this rapidly-accelerating move toward liberal interpretations of almost everything — the Constitution [including, perhaps especially, the 1st and 10th Amendments], human sexuality, religious liberty, even the Bible [i.e., whether it’s relevant anymore, and if so, its interpretation] …?  My career experience taught me that consistent movement in a direction over time isn’t something that “just happens”. Such movement is the result of conceptualizing what that direction should be, developing a plan for converting that concept to reality, and effectively managing the execution of that plan.

Who’s At The Helm?

Although they might argue with use of the label “Liberal” [preferring labels with less potential for negative connotation, like “Progressive”], I doubt that most Democrats would argue that they clearly fit into this ideological category [their Party Platform document would certainly support that characterization]. However, at the risk of sounding a bit sarcastic, maybe even crass, I honestly don’t think that our current elected Legislators [by and large, with some exceptions, of course] are the “sharpest knives in the drawer”, capable of effectively performing the requisite components mentioned above to produce movement in a direction over time. I’d even go so far as to say that an alarming number of them are “a couple of bricks shy of a load”, “a few French fries short of a Happy Meal”, … well, you get the picture.

So if Democrats are not driving the movement, what — or who — is? I took to heart and have always considered very wise something one of my college professors said — “If you want to figure out how things work and who the movers and shakers are, draw a diagram of the ‘system’, and follow the money” [“system” in this context means people and entities involved, and interactions / transactions that take place among them; a popular methodology for depicting “systems” this way is to draw Entity Relationship Diagrams].

I mentioned in a post last February [Fake News Or Just Meaningless News?] that 90 percent of U.S. media is controlled by six corporations [see this Link to the Source of information referenced in that post]. We can logically assume that they are driven by at least two factors that bring into question their objectivity: 1) their responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits; and 2) the worldview of their top leadership [i.e., the context within which these leaders make decisions about what does and does not make it into their publications and broadcasts]. Could it be that the media is driving this liberal agenda, and that Democrats — as well as scores, maybe hundreds, of well-funded advocacy organizations — are simply pawns [operatives]? [The “follow the money” train of thought would suggest that the actions of most Legislators are driven by two things: lobbyists pushing the interests of businesses and other organizations (including advocacy organizations); and donors who can provide the funds to get them re-elected.]

The Bigger Question

That liberal media moguls are driving movement in their preferred direction may seem far-fetched, particularly to people [like me] who want this country to operate in the way envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Realistically, though, how else could even a hint of activity [particularly in confrontational situations that make for good headlines and “breaking news”] on some particular issue [gay marriage, transgender “rights”, “discrimination” against LGBT citizens, police “brutality”, a $15 minimum wage, tearing down monuments that some people consider offensive, sanctuary cities …] almost instantly flood the media on any given day — maybe for days or even weeks? One could argue that the issue itself doesn’t matter. It’s the liberal agenda, as a thing in itself, that matters — i.e., any “hot button” event du jour on which well-known people whose livelihoods depend on controversy and media visibility can capitalize.

The Even Bigger Question

A fourth element I would add to the requisite components mentioned above to produce movement in a direction over time is a Project Manager — sort of a CEO of the process. The space program of the 1960s, brought about by John Kennedy’s bold 1961 charge to “put a man on the moon by the end of this decade”, was successful because of the efforts of many highly intelligent people in multiple disciplines — Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Materials Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine, Psychology, … . However, without the organizational and management skills [in addition to his substantial technical skills as an Aerospace Engineer] of Dr. Werner Von Braun [1912-1977], that success would not have been possible [Von Braun was Center Director at NASA’s facility in Huntsville, Alabama, where he headed the Apollo Applications Program that NASA had established in 1968 to develop manned space missions].

So the even bigger question, if the basic premise of what I’m postulating here is valid, is “Who is the Werner Von Braun of the Liberal movement?”. I didn’t get into that phase of this thought process before reaching my self-imposed length limit in this post, but it’s an intriguing question. I may pick up on this theme in a future post.

Thanks for reading this post, and if you regularly follow my Blog, for that, too. Please consider sharing this or other posts with your friends, colleagues and associates.

Charles M. Jones

A few days ago, Hurricane Harvey slammed into the Texas Gulf Coast less than 30 miles from a town [Victoria] where my wife and I lived for two years just after our graduation from LSU in 1967. Harvey’s Category 4 winds certainly wreaked the havoc that would be expected of a hurricane of that magnitude, but the rainfall and rising water damage over the four to five days since landfall has made it the worst rainfall disaster in Continental U. S. history. In 1970, I was transferred by DuPont to that company’s plant near LaPlace, Louisiana — which is about the same distance from New Orleans that Victoria is from Harvey’s landfall point. Interestingly, it was twelve years ago this week that New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

Encouragement From Tragedy

I grew up in a small town about an hour’s drive North of New Orleans, so I understand hurricanes. I have close relatives who lived South of New Orleans, much nearer to the Gulf Coast, and some of them experienced considerable property loss from past hurricanes like Betsy and Camille. I certainly would not want my remarks here to minimize in any way the heartache people in Texas are experiencing at this time, but there is something very encouraging that I’ve noticed as I’ve watched news coverage of this hurricane.

The Real America

There is no encouragement, of course, in the numerous stories of loss. Those stories are absolutely heartbreaking. The encouragement is in seeing the real America — people from all over this great country pulling together to help those affected by this tragedy.

It is so refreshing to have multiple days in a row of this kind of positive news coverage, shoving all the hatred and vitriol among small factions in our midst to the back burner. The liberal media is having to search very hard to find negative stories in an attempt to hide the reality of what is going on: 1) the very prompt, efficient and well-coordinated manner in which the impact of this tragedy is being managed by governmental agencies at all levels [local, state and federal]; 2) charitable organizations pouring in with volunteers and financial resources [and very effectively coordinating their efforts with governmental resources]; 3) our President and First Lady personally visiting the state [and by staying away from the hardest-hit areas in order to avoid burdening their governments with security requirements that would dilute their effectiveness in disaster management], doing so in a way that showed compassion and support while avoiding the logistical issues associated with a Presidential visit; and 4) the lack of looting, complaining about poor government support, etc.

There are, of course, the never-fail-to-find-a-way-to-criticize-Trump die-hards in the media who are meeting head-on the challenge to find negative stories — “The President doesn’t show compassion during Texas visit”; the First Lady wore spike heels when leaving the White House for the trip”, etc. I’m sure some tenacious reporter will learn from an “anonymous source close to the White House” the shocking news that the heels were given to Mrs. Trump by a Russian official during the campaign collusion going on last year. Thankfully, these media outlets are the ones with small and dwindling readership/listenership/viewership — so what most people are being exposed to during this respite is the real America.

What Now?

I’d love to believe this will continue after Harvey is no longer a top daily headline — i.e., that there will have been at least one beneficial impact of Harvey 2017 [a wake-up call to the media, resulting in more sensible news coverage]. I won’t hold my breath on that, but it’s a nice thought.

Thanks!

Charles M. Jones

I visited the Alexander Graham Bell museum in Sydney, Nova Scotia this week. I was amazed at how many innovative things other than the telephone he was involved in — not only technology associated with the transmission of voice [and images], but sound recording, aviation, hydrofoiling, etc. I found this quotation particularly intriguing: “I believe it will be possible in a very few years for a person to take his dinner in New York at 7 or 8 o’clock in the evening and eat his breakfast in Ireland or England the following morning” Alexander Graham Bell [1896].Well, I couldn’t resist. That got me to thinking how one with such foresight today might complete a sentence starting with “I believe it will be possible in a very few years …”. Whether I am a person with foresight is for others to decide in the future, but I thought I’d take a stab at making a prediction. Don’t forget that you heard it first right here in this blog post [before I became famous 😊]. …

I believe it will be possible in a very few years …

So here’s my prediction … “I believe it will be possible in a very few years for a U. S. citizen to have sensible choices when they go to the polls, to see the officials they elect conduct governmental affairs in a fiscally responsible and morally sound manner, and within the bounds dictated by civil interaction that is focused on producing results through consensus, do what they promised in their election campaigns they would do if elected”. …

I think initial movement in this direction is already underway.  It began at least as far back as the early days of what is now called the Freedom Caucus, and the 2016 presidential election was a major inflection point. The specific path that will ultimately get us there may not seem clear right now, but I honestly believe the direction has already been established.

Write It Down …

It’ll be interesting to see if the museum that will no doubt be constructed about yours truly, that great blogger from the early 21st century, has this prediction posted within its walls. Even more interesting will be how it is characterized — like Bell’s intuitive prediction I’ve quoted here, or like Thomas Watson’s [IBM founder’s] 1943 prediction “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers”, or Ken Olsen’s [Digital Equipment Corporation founder’s] 1977 remark “Why would anybody ever need a computer in their home?”

So write it down, and tell your grandchildren to be on the lookout for this quote [if they can find the museum 😊].

Charles M. Jones

The media’s reporting of the terrible tragedy this past weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, has been most interesting.

First, let me say that while I firmly believe in the First Amendment right of all Americans “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” [which includes the right to engage in peaceful demonstrations], I believe just as firmly that there is no place in America for open displays of hate, and certainly none for violent demonstrations.

That said, the media coverage of the Charlottesville situation is as good an example as one could find of the extremely heavy bias against our President, and the apparent dogged determination by many factions [Democrats, the mainstream media, the so-called “Deep State”, etc.] to seize on every opportunity to discredit him and to thwart his every move — no doubt with the ultimate goal of getting him out of office in 2020 at the latest [sooner if possible].

Double Standard

During President Obama’s tenure, he was criticized, mainly by Republicans, for being extremely hesitant to utter the phrase Radical Islamic Terrorism, but the mainstream media generally characterized that tendency as being “above board”, “not making hasty judgments”, “sensitive to millions of non-violent Muslims”, etc. But President Trump’s omission in his initial statement about this incident of phrases like White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis has been practically the only thing you can read, hear or see in the media for the last three or four days.

At 5:29pm on Monday 8/14/17, President Trump tweeted “Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied…truly bad people!” I’m sure the majority of the media — which is grossly weighted toward liberal views on issues — will take this as “just another swipe at the media by the president”.  However, I went back and looked at what the President actually said during the weekend [before all the facts were known] about the tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia, and then looked at how it was immediately characterized in the media.  I couldn’t help but notice how Establishment politicians [not just Democrats — Republicans, too], and of course the mainstream media, were focused entirely on whether or not the President’s remarks were appropriate [by their definition] — the basic issues, and the fact that one person, Heather Heyer, was killed and 19 were injured, actually faded by comparison.

Interestingly, Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, issued a statement through the media thanking Trump for “those words of comfort, and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred”. The media seemed to overlook that little tidbit — the first I heard of it was in President Trump’s August 15 news conference [which I should add, was called to announce and discuss his Infrastructure initiative, but in which the only questions asked were about this issue].

At Least There’s Some Evidence That Some People “Get It”

In this morning’s [Nashville] Tennessean, I was actually encouraged by how a much broader perspective on all of this seemed to come out in multiple articles [that “theme” was not intended, I’m sure, either by that publication’s editors or those of their affiliate USA Today network, all of which are generally extremely liberal]. The “theme” to which I’m referring is that what we should be focused on is the extremely divisive “atmosphere” in our country. This whole thing blew completely out of proportion because bitterness between two “factions” heated up to a point that escalated into violence. That has happened so many times in recent years that it almost seems like “the new normal” [Black Lives Matter (“pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!”), violent student demonstrations against some person scheduled to speak on their campus, etc.]. I’ll close with some quotes from today’s Tennessean articles that indicate that some people really do “get it”:

• • A Freedom Rider and participant in the sit-ins that desegregated Nashville lunch counters in the 1960s said he saw the “same dynamics” in Charlottesville that he saw at the height of the Jim Crow South. He did not blame Trump for the violence. Trump “didn’t create the Klu Klux Klan, he didn’t create the Confederacy,” he said. “That hate starts way, way, way back.” [quotes from two local civil rights leaders, to whom the deadly chaos over the weekend wasn’t a surprise].
  • Various statements by both Republican and Democrat candidates for Governor were almost unanimous in both condemning the violence and denouncing “hatred, bigotry and prejudice”, but an underlying “theme” in all their statements was the need for being less “militant” [my term, not theirs] in our attitudes toward people who don’t share our opinions on issues.
  • Various statements by both Republicans and Democrats on the National level were also almost unanimous in both condemning the violence and denouncing “hatred, bigotry and prejudice”. The underlying “theme” in those statements, however, was more along the lines of “tolerance” and “unity” — a good theme, but clearly worded toward their various voter constituencies.

The best of all was by a local [Black, I might add] Pastor of a very large [predominantly Black, I might also add] megachurch: “This crisis cannot and should not be viewed as an isolated event. It must be taken at face value for what it is. Our wonderful country with all its hopes and dreams is shifting from the United States to the Divided States of America. Our national identity of e pluribus unum — out of many, one — is at risk. … Our response to this threat cannot be to duck our heads and pray it will pass us by. Instead, we must be hopeful — and prepare ourselves to be our best selves.”

I long for an environment in this country in which we can all begin to see this bigger picture, rise above quibbling over what terms people [including the President] use to describe a situation, listen to what they are actually saying, and not “filter” what they say through the “lens” of our personal view of the speaker.

Unfortunately, the media is not our friend in any attempt to rise to this ideal. The reality is that headlines prevail in a “news” outlet’s ability to keep itself in business [read: “its ability to sell ads”]. Another unfortunate reality is that of all a person reads, hears and sees on a given day: after 3 seconds, 40% of it is forgotten; after 60 minutes, 50% is forgotten; after 24 hours, 70% is forgotten; and after 7 days, 90% is forgotten [my composite taken from various sources I consider credible].

Well, we can always hope!

Charles M. Jones

We need a Gang of 16 in the Senate and a Gang of 24 in the House! In 2013, the term Gang of 8 became the monicker used to describe a coalition of eight Senators — 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats — who agreed to work together toward a bipartisan Immigration Reform bill. The Senate passed the resulting bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, by a vote of 68-32 [a veto-proof majority], with 14 Republicans joining all Democrats. Unfortunately, the House [under Speaker John Boehner] did not act on the bill, and it expired at the end of the 113th Congress.

Although that specific effort ended in nothing productive, I think the time is right to reconsider that concept from a much broader perspective. Let’s look at the concept. … Eight people out of a hundred decided that trying to work together across party lines on a mutually recognized worthwhile goal was better than each party always circling its wagons and opposing the other. The result was a veto-proof piece of legislation passed by the Senate.

Had a comparable coalition been formed in the House, it would be logical to assume that some bill could have been passed in the House — if not with a veto-proof majority, at least a House-passed bill that go to Conference Committee along with the Senate-passed bill [which is how our law-making process is supposed to work, but which unfortunately has become a much-too-rare activity].

So the end result would have been that fewer than 10% of the members of the Legislature would have been the catalyst for action that produced a tangible result — a joint bill that both parties had always agreed would be a good one to have going to the President.

How Would The “Gang Of …” Concept play Out Today?

The numbers today would suggest that a Gang of 16 [8 Democrats and 8 Republicans] would be needed in the Senate and a Gang of 24 [12 Democrats and 12 Republicans] would be needed in the House — that’s only 16% of Senators and less than 6% of Representatives [less than 8% of the entire Legislature]. Given the “don’t take the blinders off — just press the party line” mindset so prevalent in our Legislature these days, maybe there aren’t enough sensible people there to work with, but in the hope that there are and that the “Gang Of …” concept can work even in this polarized environment, here’s how it could play out. …

Both the Senate Gang of 16 and the House Gang of 24 commit to each other that if they can craft compromise bills that they would all have voted to pass had they come to their respective floors absent their efforts, they will all vote to pass them in their respective chambers [i.e., no yielding to pressure from their party leadership, and no backing off for self-serving individual political “grandstanding”!].  The Senate Gang of 16 would be providing 8 Democrat votes, which if all other Republicans rally around the work of these eight colleagues of theirs [and yes, around the fact that it’s a bipartisan result], would result in the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster [and therefore in a Senate-passed version of the bill]. The House Gang of 24 would be providing 12 Democrat votes, which with some combination of 12 or more additional Democrats and/or 35 or fewer Republican defectors, would result in a House-passed version of the bill. Generally, depending on the President’s party affiliation and whether the joint bill passed with veto-proof majorities, that bill might still fail to become law — but in the current political mix, it most likely would become law. In any event, at least all the steps of the process would have been followed, and any failure to become law would have come about in the manner provided by the Constitution [rather than in a manner conjured up by politicians (Senate and House rules)]. That in itself would be a huge improvement over the current totally dysfunctional state.

The weak link in this chain remains Republicans because even one hold-out would kill the Senate version of the bill. Surely, however, the obviously-increased pressure against “bucking the party” would keep Senators who might otherwise be hold-outs from actually following through with that inclination [the public’s ire against them would certainly be greater than it has been so far].

So Are There Even 40 Bipartisans Among 535?

In closing, I’m reminded of the account in Genesis 18:20-33 where Abraham is “bargaining” with God to see if there is a way to keep Him from destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham says, “What if there are 50 righteous people in the city? Will You really sweep it away instead of sparing the place for the sake of the 50 righteous people who are in it?” God says “Yes”, so Abraham presses on.  “What if there are 45?”, then 40, etc., until he gets down to 10 [obviously, based on the outcome, there weren’t even 10]. Adapting that concept to the point of this Blog post, my question to all 535 Legislators is “Are there even 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans in the Senate, and 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans in the House, who will be bipartisan enough to step out and do this?

Thanks!

Charles M. Jones

This just in … After failing to pass anything remotely related to repealing and replacing the ACA [as they promised Americans who voted for many of them they would], Republicans have punted on the Healthcare front for the time being — ostensibly to move on to other priorities like tax reform.  So on the Healthcare front, here’s what will happen between now and the 2018 elections. …

If the ACA [Obamacare] is simply allowed to continue collapsing

The ACA will collapse [soon if so-called CSRs (Cost Sharing Reductions, which are loss-offset payments from the government to insurance companies) are throttled back — a distinct possibility with Republicans holding the purse strings]. Think of CSRs as the Healthcare equivalent of government subsidies for rail [Amtrak] and mail [United States Postal Service, or USPS] services. These ostensibly “independent” agencies will never be allowed to fail, so whatever losses they incur will always be covered by the government [i.e., by taxpayers]. In the case of the ACA, this essentially means that insurance companies contracting with the ACA exchanges have credit cards with no credit limit and no interest [from the perspective of those companies] on cumulative “purchases” [subsidies].

The ACA is not sustainable without the CSRs, so the CSR funding issue is simply a brake pedal — each congressional action to continue CSR funding presses on the pedal and slows the collapse [the amount of continued funding is analogous to the amount of pressure applied to the brake pedal]. If CSR funding is discontinued completely, the collapse would accelerate rapidly.

We already know that under any collapse scenario, Republicans will say “We told you so!” and Democrats will say “Republicans killed it by cutting funding”, so I won’t bother to pursue that train of thought. Here’s what will happen when the ACA collapses. …

• • At least as many Americans will lose their healthcare coverage as would have been the case had a realistic and affordable/sustainable repeal/replace law been passed [that would ultimately have happened anyway, which is why all the rhetoric about how many fewer people would have had coverage under the now-failed repeal/replace laws was meaningless — i.e., ten-year projections of coverage under the proposed laws was being compared with ten-year projections of coverage under an ACA that won’t last that long].
  • For the time being, though, a feeling of false euphoria will prevail, and politicians who feel that they have “saved” the ACA will be able to bask in their success for a little while.  And, the minority of Americans who are benefitting from the ACA will continue to benefit, and the majority of Americans who are suffering because of the ACA will continue to suffer.
  • There will be political fights over CSR funding [and other parts of the ACA], but when push comes to shove, the government will continue to pay “whatever it costs” to keep it afloat for as long as possible [it is impossible to accurately predict what that cost will be]. I anticipate that timeframe to be about two years if Republicans continue their legislative majorities in 2018, or three years if Democrats gain legislative majorities in 2018. If Democrats gain legislative majorities in 2018 and win the White House in 2020, this funding will last the lesser of 1) seven years or 2) the number of years left until our unbridled entitlement programs [now including this one] bring us to the brink of financial collapse [at which time all bets will be off for all government programs, entitlement or otherwise].

If some kind of political compromise is reached to prop up the ACA

Although Mitch McConnell says “It’s time to move on”, a significant number of Republican Senators are saying that it’s not over yet, expressing at least moderate optimism that something can still get passed, through the Conference Committee process, and signed by the President. If these Senators are correct, I still say that whatever finally gets to President Trump under the current poker-game strategy — if it’s even remotely akin to the ridiculous “‘Skinny’ Repeal/Replace“ bill that [thankfully] failed by one vote last week — will ultimately fail just as the ACA has failed [and for the same reasons]. For more depth into my rationale on this, see The AHCA – My Prediction.

We already know that whatever bill gets passed will be heralded as wonderful by Republicans and lambasted as devastating and mean-spirited by Democrats, so I won’t bother to pursue that train of thought. And of course, it will in fact ease some of the short- to intermediate-term problems with the ACA [that’s what politicians do best — develop short-sighted fixes to long-term problems, essentially kicking the can down the road and making the problem appear to be fixed].

So, I’ll just outline what should be communicated in announcing the final solution to the “Repeal/Replace the ACA” dilemma [this, of course, isn’t how it will be communicated]. … This act is called the Simple Healthcare Access For Today act, or the SHAFT act. The minority of citizens who avail themselves of the benefits it provides might say they [and of course, if they are receiving subsidies, the majority of citizens who are footing the bill] are “getting the SHAFT” from the government. Here are the key features of this great new program. …

• • The goodies that are most popular among you have been retained [children can remain on parents’ policies until age 26, a person cannot be refused coverage because of preexisting conditions, etc.].
  • The mandates that theoretically would be required to make all the goodies you like affordable have been repealed [the employer mandate; the individual mandate; taxes on people who don’t get any coverage; subsidies, both to insurance companies and to citizens who cannot afford mandated coverage; etc].
  • The government will pay “whatever it costs” to keep this program afloat for as long as possible [it is impossible to accurately predict what that cost will be]. We anticipate that timeframe to be about two years if Republicans continue their legislative majorities in 2018, or three years if Democrats gain legislative majorities in 2018. If Democrats gain legislative majorities in 2018 and win the White House in 2020, this funding will last the lesser of 1) seven years or 2) the number of years left until our unbridled entitlement programs [now including this one] bring us to the brink of financial collapse [at which time all bets will be off for all government programs, entitlement or otherwise].

If Republicans [including Trump] wake up and actually realize what must be done

Since I’d put the probability of this scenario actually unfolding at almost nil, I won’t take the time to elaborate on it here. I want to be optimistic and hope for the best, though, so I’ll expand on it if/when it seems more probable.

So pick your poison …

The first and second of these scenarios will have the same result in the long term, so pick your poison in choosing between a salvaged ACA and a new law repealing and replacing it. The probability of the third scenario actually unfolding is almost nil, but please join me in hoping it will be the one that unfolds!

Thanks!

Charles M. Jones

I suggested in a previous post that our leaders should just refuse to answer any more media questions about anything but the agenda — what’s going on to deliver what the people actually care about and want. I honestly believe that would be a very smart move, so in this post, I’m expanding on the concept with a little poem. First, my previous mention:

Just Ignore It? [from my 2/24/17 post “Fake News”? (Or Is It Just Meaningless “News”?)]

Here’s an idea.  … I believe much of this kind of “news” would die away quickly [because there would be no “controversy” to drive headlines] if all Administration officials decided to just refuse to participate in interviews where trivial questions are being focused on, responding with “We’ve decided to quit wasting time on media-conjured ‘issues’ … I’d be happy to discuss progress, plans, policy, etc., if you’d like to get into those kinds of questions. Otherwise, I need this time for more productive work”.

So here’s the poem, which I’m sure puts me in the class depicted in the above pictures …

If I Were You …

If the President’s advisors included me
Or if a member of his Cabinet I could be
To help drive his agenda I’d do what I could
For to me it is clear — that would be good

If I were the leader of the party in power
In Senate or House, with moods so sour
I’d rise above all the partisan bickering
And get things done — first listening, then dickering

If I were the President with all his frustrations
This final Tweet to the media I’d post:
“No more responding to your constant accusations …
I’m moving on to what America needs most

The promises I made will be what I mention
When I speak at some location
And that is where I’ve turned my attention:
To making great again this Nation

The President’s tactics won’t fit the swamp mold
So establishment resistance won’t go away
And media jokes will still be told
But results matter most at the end of the day

If next year’s elections from our view can fade
We can focus on the foundation our agenda has laid
Like taxes lowered and jobs created
And the people we serve will be elated

Then when next year’s elections do draw near
The best voter decisions will be quite clear
Sixty Senators and a strong House majority
Leadership that can act with the people’s authority

So …

So interviews on accusations we refuse to grant
And if the media tries to give interviews that slant,
We’ll just say “We no longer fool with that kind of chatter;
Do you have any questions about things that matter?“

Thanks!

Charles M. Jones