Republicans control the executive branch and both houses in Congress. That does not necessarily mean Trump can get the legislation he wants passed.
It takes 60 votes to overcome filibusters in the Senate, and Republicans only have 52.
However, there are Ten Red-State Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018 who may (or may not) be willing to side with Trump.
It is impossible to know how this unprecedented drama will unfold for them. As the nonpartisan Cook Political Report put it in a recent analysis: “The reality is that no one has any idea what the political environment is going to look like in the summer and fall of 2018.
In political terms, the Democratic 10 actually divide into two subgroups, those from states Mr. Trump carried easily and those from states he barely won. In the former category are West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, Montana’s Jon Tester, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill and Indiana’s Joe Donnelly. On the other end of the scale are those from states Mr. Trump won in a squeaker: Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, Florida’s Bill Nelson and Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow. Somewhere in the middle is Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, from a state Mr. Trump won by eight points.
Ideologically, the group ranges from a true liberal, Mr. Brown, to a group of moderate to conservative Democrats, such as Sens. Manchin, Tester and Heitkamp. Indeed, the Trump transition team even considered offering Mr. Manchin and Ms. Heitkamp jobs in the administration, a move that might clear the way for them to be replaced in the Senate by Republicans.
The key question is where some combination of ideological affinity and political pressure might compel some of these susceptible Democrats to cross party lines to support the Trump agenda. That is most likely to happen on environmental issues, where home-state politics may push these swing Democrats into line with the Trump agenda, Senate aides say.
It is less clear that Republicans can woo enough of them to get to 60 votes on questions such as dismantling the Dodd-Frank financial regulations. On health care, some of these Democrats likely will be sympathetic to the call for repealing the Affordable Care Act, but probably only if there is a clear alternative in hand to replace it.
The biggest question mark is where the Democratic 10 will land on key economic issues. On some of those questions—particularly Mr. Trump’s talk of imposing big tariffs on some imports and generating big spending on infrastructure projects—he may have at least as much trouble unifying his own Republicans as he has wooing these Democrats.
Some of the swing Democrats may be open to voting for a Trump tax cut. Predictions are hard on that front because of uncertainty about the shape and details of the Republicans’ 2017 tax plan. How big a tax break will it offer top earners? And will the plan include trims of some kind to Medicare and Social Security spending? Those two questions will be key in determining whether any Democrats can jump on board.
One thing these Democrats know is that they will enter the 2018 election cycle with a giant bull’s-eye on their backs. Republicans will consider them the most vulnerable opponents in a year in which Democrats will have to defend a stunning 25 Senate seats—including two independents who caucus with Democrats—of the 33 up for re-election.
Mixed Bag for Two Years
I suspect a mixed bag for the next two years. Obamacare is so widely hated that it’s likely be dismantled. Tariffs will be disastrous, but unless there is a Democratic filibuster, expect such legislation to pass, provided Trump was not just blowing protectionist campaign smoke.
In 2018, Republicans are highly likely to pick up at least a handful of Senate seats, even if there is a recession. That might be enough as it would then only take another two Democrats to go along with the Trump agenda.
Can Republicans pick up eight?
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Why would you want them to pick up 8? Both parties are lying. The less either party can get done the better.
LikeLike
Mish even the Democrats have crossed the isle asking for a new Healthcare law. Actually they asked for the republicans to help them fix their monster before the election.
They were smart and did not do anything. I do not think the repubs will have any problem trying to get rid of the current law. Most Americans that are now seeing their diminishing disposable income vanish to healthcare will vote for to remove its backers.
If your a dem and you do not like firearms you may get ready to be tossed as well. Many forget there are a lot more dems that like to shoot then the staunch gun haters.
If Donald delivers and actually helps this county and puts people back to work, I imagine the voters may well deliver him a super majority in Congress. Now if he goes off and becomes a lunatic then he will be facing a democrat run congress.
As usual the media are going to count everything he does wrong but hey they lost credibility a long time ago and will continue down that road if they do not stop trying to divide this country even further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Harry Reid opened up the non filibuster option. Now I expect the Republicans to use that option. You can’t play nice when the opposition does not. Classic game theory.
Any comment on the China entrusted bonds issue Mish?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-26/mystery-chinas-multi-billionaire-default-deepens-new-bond-scare-emerges
LikeLike
There is another way to look at this. With elections coming in 6 months, if Trump proceeds with legislation that is widely wanted and is stymied by the Democrats, he can go to the electorate highlighting those that opposed the legislation and effectively lay the blame for not being able to proceed on them.
LikeLike
Mish,
If the dems stick with identity politics and believing the echo chamber of old media, they’ll get hammered again in 2018. Smart Dem senators will realize the winds have changed and will adjust their voting asap. Trump is very likely going to have a filibuster majority on certain key topics.
CALexit will become a significant issue soon enough. Signature collection for the 2018 ballot initiative will begin shortly. It’s better than 80% chance get on ballot.
CALexit will be a deeply divisive topic among Dem leadership natiionally. California Dems might recognize the lucrative benefits accruing to them with CALexit. The national Dem party will be horrified at losing 55 EC votes forevermore and the deep pockets of Hollywood & SF donors.
LikeLike
Great comments about CALexit, ‘Vooch’. In the cycle just concluded, Clinton won the national popular vote by almost 2.9 million votes; she carried California by almost 4.3 million. If, somehow, California did go solo, the Dems would be unlikely to win another national election, Q.E.D. Then again, if the Repubs did something incredibly stupid–which they have a long track record of doing–like offering illegals a ‘path to citizenship,’ the GOP would have a tough time ever winning a national election again, too. Efforts to do away with the Electoral College are doomed to fail because the 13 smallest ‘red states’ will never vote to ratify such an amendment.
LikeLike
With all due respect, “Calexit” just ain’t gonna happen, even if 100% of California voters vote for it. California is too strategically important to the rest of the country. A big bunch of nuclear weapons live there, the military has the pacific fleet mostly based there, and the technology and R&D are too important to let go.
And given your observation of the 55 freebie electoral votes, I suspect the Democratic machinery will crank up the fear tactics before the election anyway.
So I wouldn’t worry too much about “Calexit.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: CALexit. Most of the technical arguments against CALexit are red herrings for example:
1) Federal military bases ? The US military has hundreds of military bases in foreign countries already. Many of these military bases have been in place for 70 years. no biggie – easily negotiated between a independent California and the Feds.
2) Colorado River water allocation ? The current allocation of Colorado Ruver water is the result of a agreement between the states of AZ, CO, NV, and CA. CALexit would not change this agreement at all.
3) Social Security and Federal Pension payments ? Plenty of people living in foreign countries already collect Social Security & Federal Pensions including military pensions. Californians elgible to collect SS or other federal pensions would still collect their checks, same as any other eligible person living abroad. CALexit represents no change here.
4) Federal Deficit ? CALexit suggests ~10% of Federal Debt would be assumed by Californian gov’t because Californians are ~10% of USA population.
5) Federal Lands within California ? Federal gov’t could determine if they wanted to retain, sell, or lease Federal lands owned by Feds. If the Feds want to keep managing yosemite national park, why not ?
As far as technical subjects are concerned. CALexit represents little or no change.
LikeLike
If Cali splits off, can we here in the surrounding states deport the surplus of Cali refugees back to their socialist utopia?
LikeLike
Good points all, but no state has ever successfully seceded. I think that record will remain unbroken.
LikeLike
All this Calexit crap is nothing but BS. California can not choose to leave by itself. It requires consent of the other 49 states. Another much ado about nothing story that the press will whip up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
USA.gov has gone to war over less, and does not accept Crimea vote to exit Ukraine or Palestinian vote for Hamas, much less Southern Succession in 1860s. So, just wishful thinking and bravado to think USA.gov would accept a California exit vote. Though would be a good riddance for many, I doubt the rest of the USA wants a totalitarian socialist state as an independent republic on their doorstep with Obama as its President for Life. A Socialist/neo-Bolshevik Utopian Wet Dream. Better bet is that USA.gov would nuke California out of its misery before letting Manifest Destiny run in reverse.
LikeLike
you really believe the 33/50 Rep controlled state legislatures are going to vote against CALexit ?
2/3s of the states will vote overwhelmingly to support CALexit
LikeLike
What the other states think or vote is irrelevant. There is no constitutional basis for a state vote to leave. The vote would have no legal force. There is no Article 50 like in the EU. End of story.
LikeLike
Next to Hilary/Jill Stein’s moronic attempts to overturn the election, CalExit has to be the most dim-witted idea ever floated.
Without Alaska’s crude oil, California will have to give up all cars. Go ahead and think you can all drive Tesla fire traps, but if you have a brief moment of sobriety, take a look at what clogs the Santa Monica freeway every day.
Without “green” hydro-electricity from Oregon / Washington (and Canada) — all the tree huggers in CA won’t be able to have central A/C on their McMansions. Electricity prices in neighboring states will be lower.
The public servants who bankrupted CA all get their pension checks mailed to Utah and Nevada. Once CA separates (and loses all voted) — those payments are going to get taxed like CA gasoline. Please, oh please, call our bluff on this!!!!
Speaking of CA’s inability to pay its state bills, good luck selling your muni bonds when you are a stand alone country. Ask Mexico or Greece how this process works.
CA doesn’t really produce the high profit margin stuff it takes credit for. Apple is headquartered near San Fran — but its products are made in China, and its customers are mostly outside of CA. The taxes will be too.
The “rich” in CA will discover that they have been paying special capital gains tax rates, after some weird accounting shenanigans (that is one reason your state is bankrupt, DUH!). As a separate country, they will have to pay the same tax rates as all the little people.
Since most of the “rich” CA socialists get their money from IPO gains from tech companies comes — and those IPOs happen on a capitalist stock market, not your socialist fantasy world, you won’t have the capital gains to worry about.
Right now, CA has water rights from the Colorado River, based on an agreement governed by US law. Once CA separates, it no longer has state standing, it becomes an international treaty — international treaties get breached whenever politically expedient. Without those water rights, the farm industry in CA will literally dry up — and to be blunt that is the *ONLY* thing that CA contributes to the country (really the illegal immigrants do this work, not the tree hugger hippies).
Once the “rich” in California realize just how many weeks it will take for their wealth to evaporate as a stand alone country — they will tuck their tails between their legs and learn some serious humility.
But if CA decides to call our bluff and vote to succeed? The errant little children will be taught a lesson they will not soon forget. The rest of the country is still angry at you over Witch Pelosi and Obamacare FRAUD — we are out of patience with your bullsheet. You are way too old to be acting like whiny little 3 year olds.
Go ahead California. Threaten to hold your breath until you pass out. We won’t stop you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alaskan Oil ? guess Californian refrineries will just send their money to Indonesia Oil Companies and import their oil. LOL
Muni Bonds ? are priced based upon the locals buying them. A red herring
Capital Gains Tax Rate ? California currently gets by with a maximum 10% capital gains tax which is 1/2 the federal capital gains tax. Guessing that Rich people going to love CALexit
Water ? The Colorado River Compact is signed between the States. No change here – only difference would be court of arbitration moves from SCOTUS to ICJ
Electricity ? Plenty of Ekectricity is sold across national borders. 1/3 of the electricity used in NY state is brought in from Canada. Another red herring.
Pelosi ? It would be a happy day to see Pelosi jobless
LikeLike
You are even less informed than I realized. Indonesia hasn’t been a net oil exporter in decades.
You also seem to think sour heavy crude is the same as light sweet. That says a lot about what California schools teach in chemistry class. Maybe you have whatever academic credentials, but you don’t know sheet.
Not going to waste my time arguing with the rest of your delusional fantasies. Go ahead and act like a 3yr old child. When you are ready to grow up (or when your neighbors force you to grow up), maybe we can have an adult conversation then
LikeLike
Oil is just about the most fungible commodity exported & imported all over the world. CALexit wouldn’t change the oil equation one itty bit. Alaskans need the money and Californians are willing to pay for it.
it’s called the free market and it works rather well
LikeLike
If California leaves then as part of the leaving terms it will possibly break up into multiple regions that can choose to stay or go. What happens when the rural parts of the state remain as US states and as they have the water resources (which they will keep for the agricultural produce that the US wants) and the coastal cities will have nearly no water. Would they then install nuclear power to run desal plants?
LikeLike
I am in favor of an attempt at calexit. Followed by a federal invasion and occupation, a military government and purge, and one hundred years of “reconstruction”. If they don’t like it we can disingenuously pull Lincoln out of our hats to shame them. Send in the carpetbaggers.
LikeLike
The Colorado River no longer reaches its original delta in the Gulf of California unless a special “pulse flow” is arranged, or the weather is unusually wet in the West. When the first pulse flow was sent downstream in 2014, it was the first time in 16 years that freshwater from the river actually reached the sea.
The following link is to an article titled “Rare Sight: Colorado River Reaches Gulf (Photos)”:
http://www.livescience.com/45783-colorado-river-reaches-gulf.html
If California leaves the Union, then it can reasonably expect that its water rights will be assigned the same level of priority as Mexico has with the US right now, and that the river will run dry unless either the US decides to take pity on their ecosystem and send a pulse or two per year downstream, or the West enjoys a once-in-a-few-decades very wet year.
LikeLike
california water allocation is not assigned by Washington. It’s a result of a ‘compact’ agreed to by the respective states. CALexit would not change this agreement
LikeLike
I think the WSJ’s assessment is sound, Mike. McCaskill won in 2012 only because the brain-dead Todd Akin starting babbling about women’s physiology. A similar thing happened in Indiana that enabled Donnelly to win. The GOP won’t field such dimwitted candidates in the next cycle. . .at least not in those two states. My hunch is that, besides the McCaskill and Donnelly seats, Manchin will cross the aisle to the GOP. Otherwise, he might get some heavyweight opposition in the 2018 cycle because of what Emperor Obama has done to coal-miners’ livelihoods. Heitkamp should be a walkover for a decent GOP candidate. Of the six remaining incumbents mentioned in the WSJ piece, I think Bill Nelson is the most vulnerable. But then, I think that every time he’s up, and he somehow manages to stay in office. He’s 74, though, and he might think about retiring. If Nelson decided to run again, Rick Scott could self-fund and give him a heckuva contest. I continue to be amazed that Debbie Stabenow can be elected to a higher office than Dog-Catcher, but she must have some highly camouflaged appeal that non-Michiganders can’t see. Summing up, I think the best that the GOP can probably hope for, at least in this group of ten, is a pick-up of five.
LikeLike
In 2013 the Democrats, led by Horrible Harry Reid changed the filibuster rules so that all presidential appointee filibusters can be stopped with a simple majority of 51 senate votes. (except for Supreme Court nominations). At the time the repubs were giving Obummer a big problem with his nominations, so the dems went to the “nuclear option” and changed a 200 year old rule. They were warned that it could backfire if the pres and majorities became repub again, but apparently the ultimately arrogant Reid did not think that was possible.
Well well, here we are!
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thecongress/fl/Explaining-the-Filibuster-Rule-Change-of-2013.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. There will be no filibusters.
LikeLike
For appointments. Legislation is a different matter.
LikeLike
O/T – Italians thought they had plugged MPS capitalisation gap with 5Bn euro state bail-out.
Not so. ECB has told them it has to be 8.8Bn. Solvency ok but liquidity worsened recently.
Jens Weidmann as ECB policy maker has increased uncertainty, says still open questions to answer.
Source Reuters and reads there is a risk it might not happen. MPS looking to understand the ECB calculation methodology.
Is there even a common methodolly both the authorities and banks share? Doesn’t sound like it but would have thought that essential for all parties to understand responsibilities and expctatons.
Do the ECB make it up as they go along for political purpose or under pressure from Germany?
EU Commission in there somewhere too.
LikeLike
Obamacare is widely HATED… and that is not a strong enough word, even if it offends the San Fran hippies.
Trump should announce that any Federal aid that can be canceled or delayed WILL BE canceled for any Congress crook that tries to protect Obamacare fraud. Make their district suffer, and make sure the district knows it is because their representative is a traitor and a crook. Screw San Francisco and their witch. Repurpose Trump’s 2016 election team to work against any criminal (Dem or Rep) that dares to protect that fraud.
Congress (both parties, but during the time it was under Witch Pelosi’s leadership) exempted themselves from that crime because they know its a fraud and a terrible plan. They knew from the moment Pelosi wrote the legislation behind closed doors and bribed members to get it passed — that they were committing a crime.
Congress should know they committed a crime when they shoved ObamaCare down everyone else’s throats. Any public servant that tries to stop its repeal is a traitor and must be treated accordingly. No excuses, no safe space cr-p. Congress members who keep this fraud going are traitors and belong in prison, not public office. Treat them accordingly.
Trump promised to repeal this criminal act, and read my lips: Trump’s supporters will turn on him in seconds if he doesn’t.
Obamacare is FRAUD. No negotiating. Traitors must be punished.
– – – – – – –
As for other stuff that Trump wants, hopefully he will try to EARN bi-partisan support for them. That is how the system is supposed to work, and that is how it did work before the current batch of treasonous criminals decided to ignore everything that made America work. Over all, most are good ideas in concept, but the details need tweaking and hopefully both parties will help make those adjustments.
LikeLike
The wise taxpayer, Ben Dover, knows he’s in serious trouble when a bill has ‘bi-partisan’ support. i’m betting on the same single payer system that Hillary was touting.
LikeLike
You are out of your mind.
Single payer doesn’t work in any of the countries were it exists — the UK system is now bankrupt if you read beyond the political rhetoric.
And if you look at Amtrak, the Post Office, and so forth — you have to be on crack to think a single payer system is economically viable in the US. We already have a system based on fraud and fantasy.
Maybe the criminals in Washington **want** a single payer system, but they can’t make it work. Maybe the 3yr old hippies from California **want** a single payer system, but they also don’t want to grow up.
There are no examples of any country with a functioning single payer system. Not one. The developing countries that supposedly have them only offer emergency care — everything else is paid in cash (if you can afford it). Germany and other developed countries have systems based on mercantile export economy, and even then many procedures are not included in the so-called “free” system.
Several Canadian health ministers have been “caught” red handed getting health care in the USA.
Single payer is the same as saying the country will dissolve into anarchy. Its time for Americans to grow up and devise something that is economically viable.
LikeLike
PS — I think we read “bi-partisan support” differently.
Ben Dover, as you say, knows that Congressional bi-partisan support is a recipee for disaster.
But bi-partisan, as in getting middle America democrat leaning CITIZENS to support Trump over the crook… that is what bi-partisan is supposed to mean, outside the media.
“We the people” are supposed to run the country. “Them the representatives” (that is all Congress is) is supposed to reflect our wishes. Yes, that is idealism — but it doesn’t mean it can be ignored.
Witch Pelosi thought the citizenry were just a technicality, that all that mattered was bribing enough members of Congress. It doesn’t matter if Congress likes the law (they don’t they exempted themselves). It matters whether the country as a whole likes a law.
That is what I meant by “bi-partisan”. Something most of the taxpayers of the country (both parties) can support.
LikeLike
Agreed. Major Business and Cadillac taxes have all been postponed to never by Congress. The only Obamacare tax penalties remaining to be repealed and refunded are those on individuals. Trump owes that to the voters, and if the GOP incumbents value keeping their jobs, that will be one of the first things done. But GOP is often so dumb and out of touch, that you never know. Will be up to Trump to make it happen, as he did in the general election. If voters pay $695 penalties in April 2017 and do not get $395 penalties from last year refunded, GOP will have shot itself in the foot once again. Even money odds on that one.
LikeLike
According to media reports (which may be true, or may have been made up in a facebook “news” meeting) — supposedly clueless crooks like Mich McConnell think they can ignore clear and lawful instructions from their boss (voters / we the people) to get rid of Obamacare fraud. That is why Rubio and Cruz won the republican nomination and then the national election… oh wait.
McConnell exempted himself from Obamacare, he knows the law is a giant turd. We the people gave him a clear and lawful order to get rid of the fraud for the rest of the population, and we expect our public servant to obey.
Send the traitor to prison if he doesn’t obey a clear and lawful order from his bosses. The same goes for all the other representatives…. represent the people you work for or go to jail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t need jail, if these politicians persist in being part of the swamp. They will be drained away in the GOP primaries like Eric Cantor and a number of arrogant former GOP Senators. Really all depends upon Trump. If Trump says no more using tax code to punish people for not buying an insurance product, then GOP Senate will have to fall in line or have their heads metaphorically handed to them on a pike by the voters as punishment. It is in their self-interest to be brought to heel if need be. Should not be a big deal, or that hard, if Trump tweets are behind it. Money saved on Air Force One and F-35s should more than cover eliminating Obamacare Non-Compliance Taxes.
LikeLike
If you do not obey the law, you would go to jail.
Why should our public servants not be treated the same way?
LikeLike
Congress, not the President, has the power to tax, spend, borrow and regulate. The President can propose or veto legislation. The President can also appoint people to executive agencies including the regulatory agencies. Trump could legalize pot at the Federal levelby changing it’s Schedule I status, I believe, if he appoints the right person.
But there is a lot more the President can do in foreign policy which is the main reason I preferred Trump over anyone else even though I didn’t participate in the popularity contest (election). He could cut off the Saudis just be refusing the appoint an ambassador. He could end sanctions on Russia just by telling the Europeans it’s okay to do so.
LikeLike
Agreed — except that the president can (and should) order every single government agency to review every single regulation; if it can’t pass muster (cost effectiveness and politics), it must not be enforced.
Legally, its a gray area. But regulations are not laws — according to the Constitution, only Congress can write laws. Congress, being lazy and corrupt, delegated authority all over the place. But that doesn’t make the delegation legal. Nor does “failure to enforce” make the delegation legal. It just means it hasn’t been challenged — yet.
Imagine the gridlock in Washington if Congress is forced to actually legislate on real matters, and to do so under the spotlight of angry voters. Think about all the special privileges that Washington bureaucrats grant themselves, while taxing angry voters.
Congress didn’t like Anthony Weiner “exposing” (pun intended) that Congress has its own private health club paid for by taxpayers, but taxpayers are not allowed inside.
Many corporations used to have private golf clubs, only the executives could play. Those got taxed out of existence. Congress still has three for their exclusive use just in the Washington DC area alone.
Congress will cave on most regulations (not all), because fighting Trump would mean exposing the lavish lifestyle that bureaucrats enjoy on the taxpayer’s dime.
Only regulations that can be publicly defended (maybe a quarter of them) would survive public scrutiny.
Sunlight kills more roaches than anything else. Washington DC is terrified Trump might open the blinds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democrats intend to block/alter the Trump/Ryan tax cut which they say mainly benefits the rich.
I kept hearing it from others. Recently I heard it from Trump himself… that the business tax cuts come first… then later the individual tax cuts [if they ever get around to it.] That is going to make many Trump supporters irate. I would be too… except I expected Trump to crawfish on tax cuts… just as he has crawfished on sending all illegals back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump will get rid of Obamacare, and there are plenty of ways (including jail) to get the democrats in line.
Beyond that, there is a limited amount any president, any party, can do in a government that has so over-promised and under delivered. They can’t raise taxes (without causing serious economic damage), and they can’t lower taxes (without formally defaulting).
The US government (with or without Trump) is going to just limp along, because it has no other options.
But if they don’t eliminate Obamacare, the feds will be formally bankrupt in 2018 — that is according to the GAO, not just Ron Paul or David Stockman or the like.
Trump will try to cut spending on government “services” (another oxymoron); but there are a lot of fingers in those pies, and lot of crime syndicates that must feed off the federal carcass. They will not back down until they are forced (which could be 2018 if they don’t eliminate Obamacare quickly).
That is why even the crooks will fall in line to kill Obamacare / save their own gravy train instead.
Finding a replacement health system, especially with so many 3yr olds who think they can get care for ‘free’, is going to be much more difficult. The 3yr olds will have to grow up before a replacement system can work.
And no, a single payer system is dead on arrival. I don’t know if Congress would pass one (who knows?). But it would lead to government collapse very very quickly. Ask all the PIIGS in Europe. There is no free lunch, and Congress can’t legislate one.
Too many promises, too many claims on very little economic growth. That is what future governments (Congress and President) face for the next 20 years at least. The order of the day will be deciding which promises to break, and in what order.
Hope everyone enjoyed the $200 trillion spending spree of the last 24 years… because now we get the bill whether we like it or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m in favor of Trump getting rid of Obamacare.
But that is NOT why I voted for him.
The main two issues that prompted me to vote for him [individual tax reform/cuts and deporting illegal aliens] he is crawfishing… backpedaling… ignoring.
.
LikeLike
In a perfect world, individual taxes would get slashed. But to make that economically feasible, the infestation of bureaucrats in Washington DC has to get slashed too (we have to live within our means now that we exhausted the credit line).
Cutting bureaucracy is great — except that it takes time. Time the federal government doesn’t have. I know Stockman and Ron Paul and others have been warning about this for a LONG time, but that doesn’t make it any less true… the US is running out of runway. We can’t kick the can down the road much longer, the US will look like every other has-been world power (Europe is full of them).
In 2018, according to Obama’s clueless accountants, Medicare goes cashflow bankrupt. I am not saying grandma and grandpa will get hurled into the streets — but I am saying hospitals will shut, doctors will not get paid, medical suppliers will not get paid. The system will dissolve into total anarchy — its not viable.
Congress is going to get full medical coverage while this chaos reigns? Yeah right. CEO’s will still get coverage? Dream on.
Raise taxes? On what? Supposedly the elderly already paid for this stuff (obviously a lie). Are you going to tax underemployed young people twice? Three times? Without wrecking the economy in the process?
Scoff and laugh all you want — but talk to doctors around the country and ask what the **average** time to get paid by Medicare is, right now… its about 18 months if things go smoothly. The docs have to pay taxes on the phantom revenue long before that, they have to pay medical suppliers within 30 days (same as everyone else), they have to pay nurses and support staff wages (and taxes thereon) right now. The system is dangerously close to collapse already, even if people aren’t talking about it.
Obamacare must get repealed first thing, because it will take time to figure out and implement “plan B” (whatever that is) — and the other thing has to be in place when medicare goes bankrupt in 2018 (about 18 months after Trump takes office).
The “free healthcare for everyone” babies are going to scream and mess their diapers something fierce… but they will have to grow up. Not one medical school professor works for free, not one member of the supreme court works for free. Free healthcare doesn’t happen anywhere in the world, and it won’t happen here either.
As bad as the previous presidents were (and they were terrible) — Obama leaves a foreign policy disaster, debt levels that more than doubled and cannot be paid (partial default is now inevitable), and with baby boomers dreaming of retirement Obama leaves a health system that is on the verge of total collapse.
Trump can’t fix Obama’s disaster overnight. Hopefully he can make a few things better and buy time for others (including the private sector) to deal with the rest.
LikeLike
GOPe Repubs like McCain and Graham will give Trump more trouble than Dems.
LikeLike
Trump will shame democrats in red states by calling them out by name on Twitter if they obstruct him. He does that one time and the rest will fall in line. Trump considers intimidation as part of any dealmaking. He will do the same with republicans. Trump will use social media to his full advantage when dealing with congress.
LikeLike