News Burst: July 15, 2017 (Patreon)

Hello!

Happy weekend to you all! I hope today’s News Burst finds you very well.

Before we get into today’s three stories, I wanted to gently remind you that this coming week (along with Episode 30 on Monday and Episode 31 on Thursday) will be the last week (and episodes) before my one week vacation. I’m looking forward to getting away for a little while! More to the point, though, I’m really looking forward to spending time with my brother and dad. The three of us haven’t spent multiple days together -- just the three of us -- in many years.

I’m also here to let you know that Monday’s video is one many of you asked for, and that I promised I’d deliver. I hope you like it.

Okay… to the news!

Drip, Drip, Drip…?: https://www.apnews.com/76d24067c53d42298b85d214a23ee608/Analysis:-Slow-leak-of-Russia-news-flooding-White-House

My Take: For some time, I’ve maintained that President Trump has no tangible or actual connection to the Russian government, Russian spies, or whatever else. I always left the door open that his associates may have wittingly or unwittingly found themselves in the Russian vortex, however. I’m confident that all of that is still true today, with Trump’s favorite son in the crosshairs in a way that perhaps only Flynn was (or is). I said it earlier in the week, and I’ll say it again: There may be something here with Trump Jr, specifically because his story (and the stories of related actors) seems to have changed several times.

This story is complicated, though. One of the Related Stories below is an overview of the so-called “cast” of this fiasco, which is a great read. But it’s not essential to read in order to have even a basic understanding of what seems to have gone down. The two big, overarching questions here are: 1.) What was the intention of the meeting from Trump Jr.’s point of view?, and, 2.) What was the intention of the meeting from the Russians’ point of view? This is where there seems to be some sort of separation, and where even revelations of an ex-Soviet agent being at the meeting seems to be perhaps nothing. (Although, why would Jr. leave that out...?)

Here’s a theory, although not one I necessarily know or think is true. But just a thought. The American music agent with a connection to both Trump and the Russians, knowing that the Russians would covet a meeting with someone in Trump’s orbit who could affect change if they were to win, and knowing that the Trumps would love dirt on the DNC and/or Clinton, promised a meeting between the parties promising Trump Jr. the latter. The Russians, who may have tenuous (or concrete) connections to the Kremlin, no less went to the meeting because they wanted to talk about the issue of Russian adoptions. So, Jr. wanted dirt, and they had no idea they were even promised to have the dirt, which is reflected in the comments of both the attorney and the ex-Soviet agent. I dunno. When I’ve sat and thought about it, that seems to at least be a plausible -- albeit generous -- conclusion. We shall see!

(Related Story | The Cast of Characters: https://www.apnews.com/2e4ff5fd2f524a5ab295cc1d8244cad3/Pop-star,-lobbyist:-The-cast-of-Trump's-Russian-connections)

(Related Story | Former Soviet Agent Blows Jr.’s Story Up: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851)

(Related Story | Trump’s Team Becoming Frustrated: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342130-the-memo-team-trump-frustrated-by-russia-cloud)

Will GOP Health Care Reform Happen?: http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-mcconnell-obamacare-trumpcare-repeal/

My Take: I doubt it, although it seems like they may be able to get the bill through the Senate on an absolute razor’s edge. The Politico story linked above is a great starting point in wrapping one’s head around these issues, however, because it shows the so-called “twisting path” that Leader McConnell needs to take just to get to the 50 vote threshold to begin floor debate. This isn’t even for the actual vote. So, from my perspective, this bill, as-is, is completely and utterly dead, and even if it’s amended half-to-death, they’re going to shed and gain people along the way. And, no matter what, they can count on precisely zero Democratic votes. So… all uphill.

Meanwhile, some Republican governors -- many of whom have no relationship whatsoever with Trump or federal Republicanism, and remain popular in their own states -- seem hesitant about the bill, if not outright resistant to it, primarily because of proposed Medicaid cuts and how that can really torpedo a state’s budget. The level of politics at play here in this fight is particularly interesting to me, because, as always, things are politically charged, but it’s more complicated than that. Governors (as well as House and Senate members) are going to have to seriously start thinking about the proximity, nature, and seriousness of their relationship with Trump, his administration, and his policy prescriptions. 2018 is right around the corner.

But more practically, I’ve never quite seen the point of this healthcare bill, apart from three obvious GOP agenda-driven points: 1.) The monetary savings from Trumpcare are needed for the current tax reform plan, 2.) The GOP promised it would repeal Obamacare, has all of the power, and needs to act, and , 3.) Some staunch conservatives simply remain opposed to government interference with or involvement in the healthcare industry. To me, none of those reasons are good enough for the stalemate, or for the poor standing (and content) of the bill. If an overhaul of Obamacare is to happen, it needs to be done right. It should be bipartisan, and actually do something positive for those affected. Obamacare is obviously pretty terrible, but the solution seems even worse.

(Related Story | GOP Can Afford No More Defections on Health Care: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-idUSKBN19Z1BX)

(Related Story | Governors Don’t Want Obamacare Repeal: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/342167-governors-resistant-to-senate-health-bill)

(Related Story | GOP Rushes Bill Forward, Exempting Themselves: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/republicans-exempted-insurance-obamacare-rollback)

Is Amazon a Monopoly?: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/u-s-congressman-calls-for-hearings-on-amazon-s-whole-foods-bid

My Take: I’ve been having a lot of interesting conversations about this issue with Erin and others, particularly since Amazon announced its (seemingly successful) bid to buy Whole Foods some weeks ago. It’s actually that particular deal -- reportedly worth $13.7 billion -- that’s really starting to make people curious. As the story above notes, it’s not only Washington D.C. (and some foreign capitals) that are concerned about Amazon’s ballooning growth, but Wall Street as well, which could make a healthy living supporting a “monopoly” like Amazon, but would more likely find success with a vibrant and competitive market.

The United States does have antitrust rules and laws on the books, as do many countries, but the language could be vague, and the lobbying and commercial power of an entity could overwhelm any attempt to stop a possible monopoly from growing in size. The reality is -- and this is what my conversations with others about this revolve around -- Amazon is an incredibly efficient, well-run, and likeable company that millions and millions and millions of people absolutely adore. It is the epitome of convenient and affordable. The sad reality is, outside of the people who work there and its suppliers, no one wants Amazon to stumble. Too many of us rely on it. (I think I’ve bought like seven things from Amazon in the last five days.)

I think what scares people about the Whole Foods acquisition in particular is that Amazon is getting into an employee-rich, low-margin segment of the American economy, and the disruption caused by the acquisition could have far-reaching consequences into that once largely-siloed vertical of the economy. Here’s a chilling (yet fascinating) statistic to keep in mind: For every $20 American consumers spent in 2016, $1 went to Amazon (so long as Amazon sold the good in question). For every $3 spent online, $1 goes to Amazon. I don’t know that Amazon’s growing monopoly hurts consumers (although it probably hurts workers and definitely hurts manufacturers and suppliers), but either way, it doesn’t hurt to look into it. In the meantime, I expect Amazon will acquire Whole Foods with little fight.

(Related Story | Congress Wants Hearings on Amazon: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wholefoods-m-a-amazon-com-idUSKBN19Z1LI)

(Related Story | The Long Amazon Monopoly Game: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wholefoods-m-a-breakingviews-idUSKBN19Z22Q)