The Trump Border Crisis Address and the Democrat Response

The problem of a porous southern border which our politicians have done nothing about has been festering for decades. President Trump has now brought the issue to a head and has started a real national debate. In actuality Mr. Trump is just a vehicle for bringing this situation to the forefront. The peculiar circumstances of his election was the result of large masses of U.S. citizens being disgusted with our dysfunctional federal government. The real instigators of all this fuss are the people who voted for him, the people who are increasingly concerned about the enlarging numbers of illegal immigrants among us along with drug traffic and the influx of some truly bad actors, the people that finally want some action about this fundamental federal government function.

Mr. Schumer and speaker Pelosi argue that a barrier would be ineffective, which defies common sense. Border walls have been shown to work dramatically in Israel and Hungary, and for that matter in our own country where they exist. Their idea that the present request for $5 billion is too expensive is laughable, considering the way billions are thrown around by their colleagues, not to mention the national expenses that would be reduced by truly controlling the border. Mrs. Pelosi argues that a border wall is immoral which is silliness. If that were true we should tear down the effective border walls we already have, such as in San Diego and El Paso. For that matter why would all our other efforts to prevent unauthorized entry such as the Border Patrol not then be considered immoral.

They argue that the President should sign their budget bill, and allow the federal government to fully function and then they will seriously address border security. How dumb do they think he is? The veto power is the one serious tool that the President has been given by the constitution to serve as a check on the congress. The obvious truth is that the main reason for the opposition of the Democrat leaders to principles they vigorously espoused in the recent past is to avoid giving Mr. Trump a political victory. I suppose that's understandable, but in doing this they are also thwarting the strong will and desire of those who put him in office. In truth I believe that a large majority of our people see the need to control our southern border, and indeed fix our broken immigration system generally, and are ready to have something serious done about the matter. Mr. Trump has put his plan on the table and it seems like a reasonable start. The Democrats offer us – opposition!

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Cost of Government, and Especially the Federal Government

 

Since I now have the time, I've been using a software program which tracks and broadly categorizes all my personal income and expenses and it's enlightening.

 

One thing that's notable is that the largest expense category of all is taxes. And that doesn't even account for added on taxes like sales and gasoline tax. Breaking that down further I found that federal taxes amounted to more than twice the amount of all other types of taxes combined together.

 

Now despite what it may seem I'm not an anti-government anarchist. Government is essential in human society for protection, settling of differences and as Jefferson put it, for the pursuit of happiness. And for these United States a federal government that's strong enough to carry out its essential functions is important. Our founders determined that point after observing the results of the weak federal government embodied in the original Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Constitution which they devised was truly a work of practical genius, world-changing really. They established the principle that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the citizens and they laid out a simple framework in which this principal could be expressed in practice. They came up with a system dividing up specific functions, balancing each with specific powers over the other, and accommodating regional differences.

 

There are essential services that belong at the federal level and these are timelessly spelled out in general in the Federalist Papers. That must have been a remarkable time when there was a real national debate on whether to accept the new constitution. The Feds are needed to protect the general integrity of the country from outside forces, to interact with foreign powers, to settle differences between the States, to establish a common currency, and importantly as a general protector of individual rights. On the other hand the principle was established that governing should be done as close to home as possible, where we can get our hands on it if need be, and where its services pertain specifically to the community. I like especially the 10^th amendment to the Bill of Rights which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

So back to taxes. We certainly have to provide the funds for all this necessary government functioning. But I ask myself, should it be the largest expense category? Well then I look at what I'm getting in return. It's significant – roads, schools, garbage pickup, the courts and so on. But then it strikes me that most of that stuff is all fairly local, paid for by local and state taxes, plus the added on sales and gas tax. To be sure there are some important federal services that are not so evident, like the military and the ambassadors. But are these enough to justify federal taxes that are more than twice all the other taxes combined.

 

Then I look at the statistic about half of all the richest counties in the U.S. being with an hours drive from Washington and the $20 trillion dollar national debt, and it makes me wonder what's going on here. No real answers but it's worth thinking about.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Bizarre World of Hospital Charges

I'm involved in a minor financial battle with a hospital where I stayed overnight back in July. Being what's called technically an "observation" admission, my Medicare covered everything but "self administrable" medications. Why the distinction is anybody's guess. These are meds you normally take at home, but in the hospital they're provided for you and you're never given the option to bring them from home, and I don't even know if hospital policy allows it.

 

In any case, while I was in the hospital a nice lady from the business office came by and briefly mentioned the charge along with other details. I was feeling fine and everything was hunky-dory.

 

Three months later I got my bill for $200 for the one day supply of my meds. I take a few, and one expensive one, but nothing even close to that price. So I wrote back that I thought the charge was unreasonable and requested an adjustment. I recently got back an itemized bill listing the individual meds and the charges and sure enough they were all anywhere from 5 to more than 20 times  their out of pocket cost from the pharmacy, that is, not the discounted cost that the hospital would pay.  I won't go into the details, but for example 1 baby aspirin for $5.50.

 

So it brings up the whole subject of medical prices which is a great mystery, since no one pays for anything directly. We get letters from Medicare monthly in 20 different languages explaining the unexplainable, what the charges are, what Medicare approves, and what we may be responsible for, which is of course the only thing we're interested in. But that leaves out the secondary coverage which adds to the mystery.

 

At least now I have the actual charges detailed, after the fact of course which is a bizarre aspect of the whole transaction. I mean how many restaurants do you go into without prices listed on the menu and you find out when the bill comes. If you're in the rare one with no prices, you shouldn't be unless you are a multi-millionaire or a Washington politician.

 

So I wrote them back, thanked them for their service, which was good by the way, but still contended that the $5.50 baby aspirin, etc. was pretty absurd and I still want an adjustment. After all, I could just as well have brought in my pills from home and taken them with no problem.

 

Hospitals are a particularly byzantine component of the high cost of medical care. The ins and outs of the finances of these "non-profit" institutions is a great mystery, even for someone who worked in them for many years. It's true that they must write off a lot of services that they're obliged to do because they get federal financing. So they shift the cost to other payers, and that's where things get really complicated. But the bottom line is that they're a big player in the medical care cost picture. These "non-profit" institutions pay their CEO's big salaries, are presently in the process of buying up doctor practices wholesale, and are a bright spot in our somewhat shoddy infrastructure picture in that they seem to have the dough to build shiny new high tech buildings all over the place.

 

If you think handing over medical payments to the government would solve the problem, think again. One big reason for the present comfortable status of such mega health care institutions is that they're hand in glove with the federal government.

 

So it's going to be interesting to see how my little battle works out. The service was done, the hospital was out of town, so I could just blow it off, but I like to pay my bills. I just don't like getting caught up in this shell game. Emily says I should just pay the bill, but I'm too stubborn for that. Medical consumers should fight back, but it's hard to do when everything is a secret until you get the bill.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Would a Wall be Too Expensive

In response to the last post the question of the cost and efficacy of a border wall has come up and I want to address that. 

Protection of our national borders is a truly fundamental legitimate function of our federal government, an activity which could not reasonably be left to the individual states. It is far more legitimate for example than federal involvement in the education of our children or our medical care which should be primarily state, local and of course individual matters. So for border protection the federal government should provide the funds to carry out the job and tax us accordingly. To be sure we are provided with a border patrol and other measures, but it is obvious that our federal representatives and officials for decades have failed miserably to properly carry out this fundamental business. Mr. Trump, despite his personal idiosyncrasies and lack of political experience, was elected to some considerable extent because he spoke up about the fact that the emperor has no clothes. He called out the Washington politicians for their obvious failure in this important area and proposed his own solution and this resonated with a large portion of our citizenry. These comfortable politicians, from both parties, mostly dislike Mr. Trump but have no one to blame for the disruption to their lives that he's causing but themselves. 

So Mr. Trump, as he should, is now forcing the matter. In fact he had to force the members of congress from his own party to address it. So if the time has come to truly face the issue, and I and many others are hoping that the President can hold fast in his demand, the question remains of how to carry out the task. Since we must do it, it should be done in the most efficient, effective and economical way possible. The federal government does not have a good track record in this regard. 

Mr. Trump has proposed a physical barrier which on the surface at least seems sensible. Although the cost would be substantial it would be a one time expense and the amount pales in comparison with the amounts collected and spent by the federal government on its other projects. Under his leadership it's likely to be done properly. Whatever your opinion of Mr. Trump otherwise it must be admitted that he has great expertise in constructing high quality products, brought in on time and under budget. As far as its effectiveness is concerned such barriers are working in other countries, and it's hard to see where it wouldn't help to greatly reinforce the efforts of the border patrol. 

The Democrat leaders resist the concept of a physical barrier. In that they have previously acceded to one, it seems clear that a large part of their opposition is reluctance to give the President a victory. But lets take them at their word that their real concern is about cost and effectiveness and that technology and increased personnel could do the job better. Where are the concrete studies and plans that indicate what specific technology is needed, how it would be deployed, how effective it is predicted to be and what it would cost? And if more border personnel are needed what would be the ongoing cost of that? 

Here's the point! The Washington politicians from both parties have let this problem fester and grow for decades and have done nothing but make promises. It could be that, thanks to the efforts of Mr. Trump, the time has come for them to actually do what they're elected to do. No more Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown as was done during the Reagan administration. Mr. Trump has put his idea on the table and is anxious to get moving on it. If the Democrats in congress feel they have something better other than vague ideas, the time is short but they must get it out there. Let them get busy and pass a law specifying exactly the actions that are to be taken to prevent illegal entry over the southern border, and if it is believable it's likely they'll get public support. Otherwise we're tired of false promises. Personally I don't think they're sincere and that they actually favor the status quo. Until I see something better I say bring on the wall. 

The Battle of the Wall

Well, the great battle of the wall is on. Instead of posting someone else's article, as usual I'm going to say what I think about it.

The fundamental problem is that we have a long southern border past which annually tens of thousands of people come illegally, whose identity, destination and purpose we do not know. Everybody know this, so why point it out. It's because the politicians seem not to appreciate the problem. They say they do, in that for example there are numerous videos on the internet depicting them in the past decrying the negative effects of illegal immigration. It is hard not to doubt their sincerity in that this is a situation that has gone on for many decades without resolution.

Without getting into the arguments pro and con about the illegal entrants per se, as well as the other routes of illegal entry into the country, I think one of the major problems with simply ignoring our porous southern border is that it is a fundamental barrier to our developing a rational immigration policy. This failure of our government is detrimental both to our own citizens and the immigrants themselves.

Mrs.. Pelosi and Senator Schumer both claim to desire border security but are dead set against a wall. I just listened to a talk by Mr. Schumer who claimed the President is simply catering to his far right wing base. This is of course nonsense. Mr. Trump's promise to at long last address this problem by building a wall was a major element of his winning the election. Millions of ordinary citizens sensed that, unlike the usual political claptrap, Mr.Trump would fulfill his promise. Despite his other accomplishments, failure in this area would be a major blow to his support. In fact, if the truth be known, I believe a substantial majority of our citizens understand the negative implications of an uncontrolled southern border, would like the problem addressed, and except for the fact that Mr. Trump wants it, most Democrats would not oppose a physical barrier at least on the vulnerable parts of our border.

So the Democrat leaders are in favor of border security but against a wall. Mrs. Pelosi says it would be immoral. Others say it's too expensive or would be ineffective. These arguments don't stand the test of common sense. But taking them at their word that they really believe what they're saying my response is, what's your plan? Let's hear it. Nebulous talk of high tech sensors, drones, and increased personnel sounds doesn't cut it. Let's have a specific concrete proposal. That's what our elected congress is supposed to do. And if you can't pass a law that specific, then pass a law instructing and giving funds to the President to use whatever means other than a wall he deems necessary to stop people from crossing the southern border illegally. Short of that sort of action it's just the same old political baloney.

You see it's not really a wall that the millions of ordinary Americans are interested in, it's stopping once and for all illegal entry over our southern border. Mr. Trump proposed a wall as an efficacious means to this end and that seems sensible. If there is some equally efficient way that really and truly does the job that's fine with me, but it seems that the President is saying that the time for the political song and dance is over. Sounds good to me.

Solution to the Immigration Problem.

Addressing the illegal immigration problem seems to be pretty straightforward to me. Here's what I think it would involve:

 

1. Prevent people of unknown identity or purpose from sneaking into the country. This should be done in the most efficient and cost effective way. It seems to me that a physical barrier, such as is working well in Israel, is in that category rather than staffing the whole border with razor wire, guard stations and robots, but, hey, whatever works. I would put this as the key item, without which anything else you do falls apart.
2. Have a good guest worker program with regulations that would protect the interests of present American citizens as well as the workers themselves. Any employers found skirting the system would be subject to a very substantial penalty fine.
3. Intensify our visa reporting system. Visa holders should be accounted for. Anyone given a visa would be obliged to report his or her whereabouts periodically and those continuing to stay beyond its limits would be sent home with severe restrictions on any consideration of return. In the digital age there is no excuse for our present laxity.
4. Have a complete review of the criteria for legal entry to the country outside of the guest worker program. We need to have decisions on who and how many immigrants are desirable. I think generosity would be advantageous but there are limits. We already take in a million legal immigrants a year who now make up 1/10 of our population. Except in unusual circumstances it makes no sense to take in those who would immediately be dependent on our public support systems or would simply undercut the welfare of our present citizens. It goes without saying that our regulations regarding political and religious asylum need revision. Asylum is being used as a substitute for economically motivated immigration and everyone knows it.
5. The hard part after this is deciding on the status of those here illegally. Allowing individuals simply to remain here in a limbo status seems to be an absurdity, neither good for the country or for the individuals involved; although I suppose that if all the above criteria were carried out those here illegally would eventually leave or die out, eliminating the issue. The "dreamer" group would be an easy one, but then for the others there should be a mechanism for declaring oneself after rules on how one's case would be handled are clearly spelled out. I think that if illegal entry were actually stopped the American people would prove very generous in this regard, to the chagrin of those who have patiently been waiting in line.
6. For those who claim the solution is to help the Latin American countries become more stable and prosperous I absolutely concur. Just tell us how to do it.

 

I welcome any discussion on these ideas, preferably not that I am stupid, or hard hearted or don't have the right "values". As logical as it seems to me, I'm afraid our dysfunctional congress is going to prefer the kabuki dance over whether we should authorize $5 billion for the wall or shut down the government.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Government Follies

 

Interesting story in the paper this morning about some spinoffs from the Mueller investigation. Mueller hasn't come up with anything against Trump as far as we know but now they're finding, in addition to Paul Manafort, a bunch of other Washington insiders, from both parties, making big money from secret lobbying deals with various foreign countries.

 

No surprise folks. The place is a money and power magnet, not really a good place in which to put our confidence. It's why our founders were so skittish about the idea of a strong central government, devising a balance of powers, three separate and equal branches, each with designated oversight over the other two. They balanced the States off against the feds, giving each one two senators and setting up the electoral college. And then they topped it off with the Bill of Rights, just to make double sure they got the point of who was boss. They tried their best but, with all that money and influence funneling in to DC it's not at all a sure thing that their strategy worked. It's a constant battle requiring an informed and educated citizenry. Given the present state of our media and education establishment it's hard not to be pessimistic.

 

But, hey, the feds aren't alone. On another page there was another article about New York State considering the funding of badly needed NYC subway repairs by legalizing and taxing pot. It seems inevitable since New Jersey has done it. No doubt some day soon we'll be hearing radio adds to smoke a little dope to keep New Yorkers riding. Sort of like the adds to help the old folks by playing the lottery, otherwise previously known as the numbers racket. No wonder you don't hear much about the mafia anymore.

 

In another part of the article one transportation expert opined that another benefit of legalizing pot would be that it would help keep people more relaxed when the subway was late.

 

Who needs the funny papers?

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10