Trump’s budget cuts national priorities

by Margret Straw
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, March 28, 2017

Takeaways

• Great countries invest in things that make their countries great, but Trump's budget defunds many important programs.
• It's time to tell Congress that we want to fund national priorities such as diplomacy, science, health, clean air and water, arts, basic programs for the needy, and our parks.
• A vote to make America Great Again didn’t mean that we wanted to fund defense and forget about funding things we all count on.

Rather than making America great again or placing America first, the president’s first budget reads like a race to the bottom.

Great countries invest in research. They lead in diplomacy. They take care of the elderly. They have clean water and air. They fund the arts. They celebrate their history and natural resources.

Instead, Mr. Trump’s budget cuts investments in scientific and health care research. It cuts our State Department budget. It cuts funding for programs such as Meals on Wheels. It attacks the EPA and does away with funding that’s critical to localities like the funds for Chesapeake Bay clean-up and for brownfields clean up.

It does away with funding for the arts, humanities, and public broadcasting. Staffing freezes are already leading to closures of historic sites like Ben Franklin’s print shop in Philadelphia.

It is time to tell Congress that we want our federal budget to continue to fund important national priorities such as science and health, clean air and water, arts, basic programs for the needy, and our parks. We want to continue to invest here at home. A vote to make America Great Again didn’t mean that we wanted to fund defense and forget about funding things we all count on.

Margret Straw is a Warren County resident.  Prior to retirement, she was a senior research fellow at AARP. 

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org

Trumpcare: Health insurance for young, wealthy

by Margret Straw
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, March 21, 2017


Takeaways

• President Trump promised better, lower-cost insurance but Trumpcare will cost more and provide less.
• Trumpcare would cause millions to lose insurance coverage, and end the Medicaid expansion that covered 11 million working poor. 
• Age-based tax credits won't compensate for the elimination of income-based subsidies.
• If you have employer-paid insurance, you're not safe. The new health care bill does away with the requirement for large companies to provide coverage.
• Dislike for the imperfections of Obamacare is not a reason to sign a death warrant for thousands of people.
• Call Trumpcare what it is: health insurance for the young and wealthy.

There is a huge gap between the promise of Trumpcare and the reality. President Trump promised better, lower-cost insurance available to everyone. In reality, Trumpcare will cost many people much more and provide less. It isn’t an exaggeration to say that millions of people in the country will lose their insurance, not by choice, but because they cannot afford it. Charity care cannot take its place. People will die because they aren’t rich enough to go out and buy good insurance without help.

Over the next few years, Trumpcare ends the expansion of Medicaid that provided coverage to about 11 million working poor. It turns Medicaid itself into a block grant that provides states with a fixed amount per person instead of paying for a percentage of the cost of running the program. Those changes may sound insignificant, but they will have a huge impact. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will decrease its Medicaid spending by $880 billion dollars in the period from 2017 to 2026. As a result, 14 million Americans will lose coverage over the next 10 years. For many with cancer, chronic illnesses, or sudden health crises, this is a death sentence.

The damage from changing Medicaid isn’t limited to what we think of as traditional health care. Medicaid funds almost two-thirds of people in nursing homes. As the population gets older, more Americans will need Medicaid for long-term care services, but the funding won’t be there unless states fill in the gaps.

Trumpcare also eliminates the income-based subsidies that make insurance affordable for people with low incomes who are not eligible for Medicaid. It substitutes an age-based tax credit ranging from $2,000 to $4,000. At the same time, Trumpcare lets insurance companies charge older people five times as much as younger people. AARP’s Public Policy Institute has estimated that a 55 year old earning $25,000 a year could see premiums go up by $3,600 a year. The news is even worse if you are poorer and older. At age 64, when the age penalty hits the hardest, someone earning $25,000 a year would pay $7,000 more in premiums, while someone earning $15,000 a year could see insurance premiums go up as much as $8,400. Think about that. How many people with an income of $15,000 could possibly buy insurance? The result: More citizens without coverage and more people dying because they aren’t rich.

Republicans want to trim benefits such as maternity care, rehabilitation, drugs, and mental health to make policies less expensive. Making insurance cheaper at the expense of providing the treatments and medications that sick people need is a bad trade off. At a time when the United States already has shocking infant mortality rates, how many more women and newborns will die because they could not afford adequate maternity care? How many people with chronic health problems will die because they couldn’t afford their prescriptions?

You may think this doesn’t impact you. You have employer paid insurance, so you are safe. Think again. The new health care bill does away with the requirement for large companies to provide coverage. Let that sink in.

Even if your policy is not affected, the health care system as a whole will feel the change. Both the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association oppose this plan. When those who provide our care believe that a plan will damage health care and hurt patients, it is worth paying attention.

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? Of course it isn’t. But hatred of Obama is hardly a good enough reason to sign a death warrant for thousands of people. The notion that consumer choice and the free market should guide our health care system makes no sense if the consumer cannot afford what the market place is selling. When Republicans in Congress and the administration find a way to provide good, affordable insurance to all Americans, I’ll be the first to applaud. Until then, let’s call Trumpcare what it really is: health insurance for the young and wealthy. Everybody else may want to cross their fingers and pray to stay healthy.

Margret Straw is a Warren County resident.  Prior to retirement, she was a senior research fellow at AARP. 

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org

Why Change The Constitution?

by Steve Foreman
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, October 10, 2016

Takeaways

• The label, 'right to work', is misleading, since it does not help employees find work.
• The existing law, the Wagner Act of 1935, provided protection for workers against exploitation in the wake of the excesses that contributed to the Great Depression and set the stage for unprecedented post-World War II growth and prosperity and the blossoming of the middle class.
• Right to Work is an attack on the Wagner Act and continues the tradition of Republicans and corporations teaming up to chip away at worker's rights.
• Workers already have the choice to not become a union member, even though they benefit by the union's work to improve wages and conditions.
• When the economic balance is set to favor corporate profits instead of family life, and profits rule over all other considerations.

In addition to the other important electoral choices Virginians are deciding this November, we are faced with a proposal to change the Virginia state constitution by adding anti-union language. This proposed amendment wound its way through the state legislature over a period of years, and regards the right-to-work law, a Virginia statute since 1947. This revision is being pushed forward by several Republican state legislators.

The label, 'right to work', is misleading, since it does not help employees find work. Instead, it adds an amendment to the state constitution to make it harder for future General Assemblies to undo the already existing law. There have been no challenges to the current law, and many question the need for an amendment since it is already state law.

The existing law bans employers from requiring union membership as a condition of employment. The Wagner Act, instituted in 1935, sought to allow collective bargaining as well as setting up a National Labor Relations Board, and allowed closed shops. This legislation was an attempt to provide protection for workers against exploitation and provide better conditions for employees in the wake of the excesses that contributed to the Great Depression. The right to work law was passed as a state level reaction to the Taft-Hartley Act enacted in 1947.

The Wagner Act and accompanying legislation were part of the New Deal which set the stage for unprecedented post-World War II growth and prosperity and the blossoming of the middle class. At the beginning of the 20th century excesses like child labor, unlimited work hours, and unsafe working environments were all commonplace. Instead of being forced to exist in the conditions created by employers, collective bargaining gave the working man a say in his work life and greatly improved countless lives.

Workers were finally recognized for their contributions, instead of being treated as just another disposable material resource. As time wore on, workers were further able to create a level playing field and attained wages that allowed the abundance of the mid-twentieth century American culture.

Why the need for this amendment, especially when the election process is expected to be heavily burdened in this election cycle due to high voter interest? The existing law has been in effect for four decades, but once placed into the state constitution, it would not be possible to modify it in a timely fashion. The efficiency of the right to work laws are supported by some with studies showing that it attracts business. On the other hand, there are opposing studies saying that allowing employees freedom to a strictly union shop increases productivity and quality.

This attack on workers continues the tradition of Republicans and corporations teaming up to chip away at worker's rights that reached a low point under the Reagan administration when striking flight controllers were summarily dismissed instead of bargaining to remedy stressful conditions that could impact public safety. This amendment erodes union's power to represent labor int its lopsided struggle against corporations. As a result, all workers find their wages, insurance and safety impacted.

Workers already have the choice to not become a union member, even though they benefit by the union's work to improve wages and conditions. It also removes a company's ability to require union laborers who may be better suited for a particular type of work.

To subject workers to a partisan attempt at the whim of business is a slap at workers in our state. When workers are faced with the gnawing reality of making ends meet, and too many face the stark reality of having to work multiple jobs while juggling family responsibilities like childcare, rent and putting food on their families table, should we restrict their ability to have a voice in their future? When the economic balance is set to favor corporate profits instead of family life, and profits rule over all other considerations, is this an acceptable outcome?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce favors the right to work because they want a "better business environment" and they also call raising the minimum wage a distraction. Last year, Forbes Magazine had an article titled “The Decline Of Unions Is A Middle Class Problem”. Numerous economists have noted the downward effect of fewer union members on wages. Meanwhile, CEO pay has ballooned to 373 times the average worker’s salary.

Doesn’t providing more wages for workers provide the ability to spend and create stimulus at the ground level? How does this amendment improve most Virginian’s lives? I am voting no.

Steve Foreman is a writer, an IT specialist and Chairman of the Warren County Democratic Committee

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org

Unfit, unqualified, and unwelcome

by Steve Foreman
Originally published in the Northern Virginia Daily, March 8, 2017

Takeaways

• As Donald Trump adjusts to his role as president, his persistent reliance on his campaign tactics of attack and distract continues to divide the country.
• His statements reveal troubling gaps in his knowledge of basic civics as well as an unhealthy attraction to authoritarian power. 
• Donald Trump's messaging to voters weary of political correctness and frustrated with the status quo was unduly amplified by a press eager to captivate an audience.
• Steve Bannon's continued role in the administration underscores Donald Trump's lack of interest in effective governing, truthful messaging, and unifying the country.
• It's time for Republicans to show some leadership by putting country ahead of party and profit, before there are disastrous consequences. 

It is increasingly clear that Donald Trump possesses self-promotion and fortune building skills, but lacks qualities required in a president, or even in a city council member. His abilities made him a reality TV star, but do not translate to governance. Persuasion, empathy, or even the ability to look at the long-term effects of his actions are lacking. Instead of helping the forgotten voters, he has turned their government against them. When challenged, his first response is to strike out, flailing with baseless charges in every direction, empty words with no basis in truth. The erosion of trust in society increases by every utterance he makes against another branch of government.

Clearly, Trump does not command a basic knowledge of how government is structured, shown by his pronouncements about judges, the intelligence communities, or the role of a free press. His repeated admiration for Vladimir Putin is a telltale sign that Trump does not appreciate the ideals of a democracy, or even the basic function of a modern government: to promote the common good. Instead, he sees power and worships it, raising it above the welfare of a nation. His sole interest is the well-being of Donald Trump. Despite Trump’s wishes, we elect presidents not emperors, and time has run out for Trump to become “presidential.”

The actions that brought so much attention to Trump resulted in a strange appeal for his base voters, those so frustrated with the status quo they could not accept a conventional candidate, or those so attracted to what appeared to be a strong candidate that they were willing to overlook the usual slippery morality of politics, and support a man promising to tear down the establishment. Repeatedly, members of his base were quoted as saying that he “says what we are thinking” and he “rejects political correctness,” as if unfiltered speech was somehow more rational than a reasoned opinion.

The post-election period was an opportunity to consider what he accomplished and forge a cohesive direction forward. Winning a presidential election is seen as an extreme trial to prove one’s worthiness to command. Instead, he treated it as a popularity contest, and ignored the most important trust he was given, becoming leader of a whole nation. Instead of reassuring the majority who did not vote for him, he worked to alienate and create more opposition. The vacuum created by his lack of knowledge and morals has caused events to close in around him. His words and deeds have trapped him in a web of his own making.

As if the specter of somehow being involved or beholden to Russia’s current dictator was not enough of a burden, he saddled himself with a man, his closest adviser, whose past contains nothing but division and deceit, a purveyor of alt-right hate. This adviser has expressed his intent to be the ultimate disruptor, and desires to tear down the administrative state.

Prevailing on a platform of tearing down America wasn’t enough, as Trump dragged our national conversation down to a new low. Not content with casting doubt on the state of our institutions, he instinctively used lies and deceit to confuse and distract voters and manipulate the media. The embattled media, desperate for attention, was complicit in not calling out his lies, and in giving him more air time than any other candidate. Despite owing his rise to the media, Trump had no problem turning on them when the term ‘alternative news’ was created to describe his statements. Now there is widespread disbelief in any source. Trump has made the truth subjective. How can a people be governed if they cannot agree on what is true?

How long will the Republican majority in the government enable a man who has repeatedly shown that he has neither the knowledge, temperament, reason or compassion required for such a colossal job? Six weeks into his administration, we have seen how his judgment in choosing people and policy has already resulted in more chaos and scandals than the previous eight years of an administration that faced fierce opposition and world crises. Yet Republicans have no problem backing a man who is morally bankrupt, all for the sake of power for their party and to represent the 1 percent.

What happens when there is a real crisis not caused by Trump or one of his chosen ones? Will there be a reasoned response or will it collapse into an egotistical contest resulting in needless death and destruction?

Steve Foreman is a Warren County resident.

Steve Foreman is also Chairman of the Warren County Democratic Committee.

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org

Commentary: The difference between an immigrant and refugee

by Tom Howarth
Originally published in The Northern Virginia Daily, March 1, 2017 

Takeaways

• A frequent visitor to the La Chacra barrio of San Salvador visits his church’s sister parish and finds startling changes.

• Children are being recruited into gangs. If they refuse, they and their families are threatened with execution. Many have already died. So they flee. 

• An immigrant is a person who chooses to resettle in another country but a refugee is one who has been forced to flee his homeland in the face of violence and death.

Wendy spoke English and worked in the health clinic in the parish of Maria, Madre de los Pobres in the impoverished barrio of La Chacra in San Salvador, El Salvador.  Since 1991, I have been visiting the parish as a home away from home.

In the past, the health clinic was full on Monday mornings. People came to get medications or see the dentist. Pupusas were sold outside. But in December 2015, the place was empty. The people would not walk the streets for fear of gang violence. Children would not go to school nor would adults attend evening meetings.

I asked Wendy if she could walk with me to visit my friend Isabelle, even though I knew that doing so could be risky. We were at the corner where we would take a left and go over the small bridge. Then we heard rapid pops. We asked the person in her doorway if she thought those were fireworks. She grimly replied that they were gunshots. We turned around and headed back to the parish at a quick pace. There we saw the parish staff with terror on their faces.

What is the difference between an immigrant and a refugee? An immigrant is a person who chooses to resettle in another country but a refugee is one who has been forced to flee his homeland in the face of violence and death.

There are 2 million Salvadorans who took up residence in the United States during and since the 12-year civil war in El Salvador. At first, we said they were immigrants coming to America as so many had come before them. But, over time it became clear that they were refugees fleeing horrendous human rights abuses, torture and murder. These refugees were not given asylum in the U.S. They were given temporary protective status (TPS) that deferred but did not eliminate the danger of deportation.

The U.S. was not an idle bystander during the civil war in El Salvador. We trained soldiers who later committed massacres. We trained a soldier who participated in the murders of six Jesuit priests. Later, we declined to deport Salvadorans because the Salvadoran government could not absorb so many people back into a struggling economy and because money sent home by Salvadorans in the United States was a major factor in the Salvadoran economy.

In 1987 during the civil war, the U.S. sent $557.8 million in foreign aid to El Salvador. In 2016, we sent $30.8 million, down from $55.6 million in 2015. We were generous in the pursuit of war but stingy in the pursuit of peace.

The peace accords at the end of the civil war addressed some major issues in Salvadoran society but did not address the underlying economic issues. The benefits of peace did not bring economic renewal to La Chacra.

Extortion is illegal in El Salvador but if you live in desperate circumstances and have learned to solve your problems at the point of a gun, it’s one job you can do and that’s available.

My friend Nancy is a Salvadoran and has a green card. Her Salvadoran husband is now a U.S. citizen. Nancy has two brothers living in a barrio like La Chacra in San Salvador. Her brothers are being recruited into a gang. Joining the gang will, at best, put them on a path to prison and, at worst, on a path to death in armed clashes with rival gangs or combined police-and-army patrols. They’re told if they refuse to join the gang, they and their families will be killed. Like many youth in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, they flee.

Are these youth immigrants or refugees? Are they coming to the U.S. to seek a job at McDonald’s or to avoid certain death? The answer is rather clear.

It is easy to dismiss a faceless mass of people declared illegal immigrants. It is not so easy when you know them as Jose or Maria and you know their stories and their fears.

Tom Howarth s a frequent visitor to El Salvador. He serves on the Board of Salvadoran Enterprises for Women and is a member of the Warren County Democratic Committee.

Learn more about the Warren County Democratic Committee at www.warrencodems.org