Category Archives: trump

The Travel Ban

During the presidential campaign Donald Trump made a point of excoriating Muslims. In December 2015 he called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This Muslim ban was talked up throughout his campaign and even after his election but before the inauguration.

It is not surprising then that he acted on the proposition. His initial action was a blanket ban on all travelers from seven middle eastern countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia. The ban was initially without exception, even for those who already had valid visas or green cards. The justification of the ban is based on protecting our citizens from terrorists. It is important to note that not a single terrorist attack has occurred in the United States by a citizen of any of the aforementioned countries. Not one.

The travel ban did not include several countries in the middle east whose citizens have committed terrorist acts, including the deadliest attack on American soil, the hijacking of planes and their subsequent suicidal attacks on the twin towers in New York and the pentagon in Washington, DC. These hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, none of which are on the travel ban list.

The ultimate question is will this action really make us safer? As noted the travel ban was not on all Muslims, but on all citizens from a select group of predominantly Muslim countries, so strictly speaking it was not a Muslim ban. In politics however, perception is reality. Trump spoke of a Muslim ban but banned everyone from Muslim countries. This will be perceived by many as the Muslim ban that he flogged repeatedly.

There are close to 2 billion followers of Islam worldwide and most of them are neither in the middle east or have anything to do with terrorism, yet. The Muslims in the banned countries represent only 12 percent of all Muslims, yet all Muslims have been insulted by this action. It is easy to see how this could be used as a recruitment tool for groups such as ISIS and Al Queda. Will the ban make us less safe?

What we get with this travel ban is a further polarization of attitudes of our citizens, a questionable change in the likelihood of terrorism on our soil and an image to the international community that grows darker by the day.

The United States has been a beacon of hope and promise for the disenfranchised around the world. After all, we are in the main an immigrant nation. Our success as the world leader depends to some degree on perceptions of us as a free and open society.

Exxon valdez cleanup

Trump, the Environment, and the Cabinet

It would appear that president-elect Trump thinks our air and our water are too clean and If he is successful we are likely to have less of both (and there is no reason to assume he won’t be successful due to the republican majorities in both houses of congress.)

Oddly, in 2009 he signed a letter along with numerous business leaders to President Obama encouraging him act. “”We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today” … and further “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

Now his pronouncements are just the opposite. In 2010 he said that Al Gore should have his Nobel peace prize revoked because he decided that global warming was a hoax. His evidence du jour was the fact that it was winter and snowing. Later still he expanded on the hoax idea claiming that not only were the world’s scientists conspiring to promote a hoax but apparently doing so at the bidding of the Chinese who invented the hoax in the first place.

So when Trump takes office in January which one will show up ? Will it be the Trump of “catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity …” or the more contemporary Trump of 2015: “it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax.” Some how it is not surprising that Trump sees money as the only motivation.

Based on a few cabinet nominations it looks like the recent Trump will show. Scott Pruitt, nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency is currently the Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma, the politics of which are dominated by the oil and gas industry. In this position he has sued the EPA numerous times to block the EPA from enforcing regulations aimed to protect our air and water. If the Senate approves the nomination, it will mark a sea change at EPA. Every previous administrator at EPA has worked to protect the environment and relied on sound science.

Another critical cabinet position is the Secretary of Energy, currently headed by a theoretical physicist with a PhD, Ernest Moniz. The Energy Department oversees not only our overall energy policy but also controls our nuclear armaments. Trump’s pick is Rick Perry former Governor of Texas and a friend of the fossil fuel industry. In 2008 Perry ran for president. One of his planks was the elimination of the Energy Department. With no small irony, during a debate he was asked to name the departments he intended to eliminate. He only had to remember the names of three departments, but he remembered only two – Energy was not one of them.

Although the mission of the state department is only tangentially related to the environment, Trump’s selection speaks volumes. Nominated for Secretary of State is none other than the CEO of Exxon-Mobile, the world’s largest player in the fossil fuel industry. Rex Tillerson as head of Exxon-Mobile had planned a 500 billion dollar deal with Russia to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic. When Russia annexed Crimea and was implicated in shooting down a commercial airliner over Ukraine, sanctions from the US and other western powers made the artic drilling deal null and void. Mr. Tillerson noted at a news conference in 2015 that he looked forward to lifting the sanctions on Russia. Drill baby Drill.

Trump(doesn’t)care

Generally the citizens of red states take in more from the feds than they pay out in taxes. Conversely blue states pay out more than they take in. There are exceptions, red Kansas pays out more than it takes in and blue New Mexico takes in more than it pays out.

Both Trump and the Republicans in congress have repeatedly stressed their plan to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare.) Will it be replaced? If So what will replace it? House majority leader Kevin McCarthy said “”Nothing’s been decided yet but I would move through and repeal and then go to work on replacing.” There are several competing ideas floating around, all of which will mean less support for healthcare.

The medicaid expansion is certain to go, eliminating healthcare support for about 14 million people nation wide. Most republican plans drive people with pre-existing conditions into very expensive high risk pools, essentially eliminating insurance for those with lower incomes. Most republican plans will return to annual and/or lifetime limits – exceed your limit and you no longer have insurance at any cost.

People will continue to get sick, insurance or not. In fact without the preventive care measures built into Obamacare, they likely will get more sick. Without reasonable healthcare protections, they won’t be able to afford to go to a clinic for treatment of a cold. They will wait until on death’s bed with pneumonia before they go to the hospital for treatment but can’t pay with dollars they don’t have.

So our population will suffer more serious health care emergencies, increased medical bankruptcies will lower payments to hospitals and staff, and smaller rural hospitals which operate on narrower margins will close their doors, further decreasing access to health care for much of the state’s working poor.

And it won’t stop with just healthcare. Expect cuts to any number of federal programs including food stamps, housing subsidies, subsidies for transportation, etc.

Here in Arkansas we are one of the net takers receiving more in federal dollars than we pay in taxes. Over 684,000 votes were cast for Trump. Around a half a million voters and their children will lose some or all of their healthcare support. Another half a million more could lose some or all of their nutritional support (foodstamps, WIC) including children. What do you think a Venn diagram of Trump voters and beneficiaries of federal largess would look like? Considerable overlap?

The real irony in all this is that the republicans’ lust for smaller government will negatively impact their voter base in the red states. The more prosperous blue states will have their treasuries buoyed by the reduction in federal tax payments. They can use that money to provide for the health and welfare of their citizens. The less prosperous red states will be allowed to continue on a downward spiral with lower wages, poorer health and an every person for themselves paradise. Be careful what you wish (vote) for.

Trump’s Environment

The votes have been counted and we have a result. Donald Trump will be our next president. For the second time in the last 16 years a Democrat drew more votes than the Republican only to lose to the vote in the electoral college. Secretary Clinton out polled Mr Trump by 2.8+ million votes, more than a 2 % margin.

If President Trump follows through on only a portion of what Candidate Trump said, it will be trying times for the world climate and the environment. Based on his dismissive attitude towards global warming, it is likely that the Paris Accord signed by Obama will be scrapped. World leaders meeting currently in Morocco are constructing the details of how to implement the international law. The objective is to reduce carbon emissions to prevent the temperature of earth from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)

Whether he makes a pronouncement to abandon the accord or not, his avowed policy of expanded use of fossil fuels, coal in particular, will make meeting carbon reduction goals impossible. The US has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 27 % compared to 2005 levels. The United States alone is responsible for over 20% of total global carbon emissions, and our target will reduce our share proportionately.

The only thing that may constrain his proposed expansion of the use of coal is economics. Cheap natural gas has undercut the price of electric generation from coal. Burning natural gas to produce electricity produces lower carbon emissions per unit of energy produced, hence replacing coal with natural gas will result in lower emissions.

Inaction has two damaging effects. First, not meeting our goal will seriously impair the attempts to stabilize the climate. The US and China alone account for nearly half of the global warming gasses. For us to not participate means one fifth of the global goal won’t be met.

Not participating also has a profoundly negative impact on international relations. Like it or not we live in a global economy and the only way a global economy works is if we all play by the same rules. Many other international laws protect us through other country’s participation: Whaling, fishing, hazardous waste disposal, illicit drugs, and the list goes on. Do we really want to tell the rest of the world we don’t care?

Meanwhile to our north, Canada will begin taxing carbon as a mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. An initial tax of 7.62 dollars Canadian per metric ton of carbon. At this rate it would add about a dollar to the price of a barrel of crude oil, currently around 44 dollars. Each year until 2022 the price will go up by 7.62 dollars till the tax reaches 38 dollars per ton. All fossil fuels – natural gas, oil and coal will be taxed.

We could do the same, in fact previous republican administrations have called revenue neutral carbon taxes a free enterprise way to manage the cost of pollution.