Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

Hey All,

I hope this News Burst finds you well!

Not to beat a dead horse (although I fucking love beating horses), but I’m headed to the airport in about an hour from now, and will be “on vacation” until I return to Santa Monica a week from today.

Tomorrow’s episode is slotted and ready to go. If all goes according to plan, the video will auto-publish at 9a PT on YouTube, per usual, and threads will automatically pop here on Patreon with the video (in the morning) and the audio (at night) for your convenience.

This will be the final News Burst until Thursday, July 27th. However, thanks to your friends at the $10+/month level, who pretty much universally gave their blessing, I’ll be posting March’s, April’s, and May’s Patreon-exclusive Q&As for all Patrons to hold you over. (Just don’t spoil the surprise for your $1/month and $2/month brethren!) Keep an eye out for those over the next week.

Okay, that’s all. Thanks, as always, for your support. I hope you all have a really fantastic next seven days, and I’ll see you upon my return. Onto the news!

Health Care Reform Dies: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-idUSKBN1A40UX

My Take: Not for nothing, but I called this months ago. Then again, other folks did, too. After trying to ram through a “repeal-and-replace” health care initiative that would have undone Obamacare in lieu of something new, the Congress tried to simply repeal Obamacare, and then give themselves two years to get a replacement in place. Obviously, that was going to be an even bigger non-starter, not only because straight-up repeal would require 60 votes in the Senate, but because no one should trust the House and Senate to do their work properly. Repealing Obamacare with nothing else in place would have been one of the most predictable political disasters in modern American history.

Here’s the thing about health care reform: It’s absolutely, positively necessary. Obamacare has some really nice ideas, in my opinion, including allowing 20-somethings to stay on their parents’ insurance, capping yearly cumulative payments, and eliminating the rigmarole for pre-existing conditions. That’s all really, really good stuff, and even as a small government guy, I think that level of regulation on the insurance industry is necessary, and benefits all. But Obamacare needs heavy tweaking. It’s massively spiking deductibles and premiums, insurers and doctors alike are ducking in and out of the exchanges, and while Obamacare has solved many problems, it’s created a whole host of new ones, including ones that Republicans predicted back when Obama and the Democratic Congress rammed Obamacare through.

What bothers me about this entire issue is that, like everything else, it gets reduced to politics. Moreover, it exposes the inherent weaknesses in the Republican structure. The GOP controls the entire federal apparatus, and they can’t get a single thing done. It’s absolutely embarrassing, and raises questions on if the Republican party is dying, even as it’s in power. I want to do a video on this issue (the GOP, not health care) when I get back, because it’s insane to see the people at the levers of power so incredibly inept and ineffective. Doing things just to do them makes no sense. Keeping promises is important, but scorching the Earth in the process seems counterproductive.

(Related Story | Trump v. GOP Tensions Running High: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/342650-tensions-reach-new-high-between-trump-gop)

SCOTUS Sides With Trump on Travel Ban: https://www.apnews.com/79d90882a9ee4f5ba3e2f1150ae218ee/Justices-allow-strict-enforcement-of-Trump-refugee-ban

My Take: This is a bit of an ongoing saga, as we all know, and I feel like it was only a week or two ago that I wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision, which -- surprisingly or not (depending on your outlook) -- overturned many objections from various lower courts in allowing the Trump administration to execute on their so-called “travel ban” while the appeals process takes its course. As I said at that time, the strangest thing about this ordeal is that if the ban had just been allowed to go into effect, it would have lapsed already. The courts’ involvement in the ban has elongated it and kept it on the books. It’s ironic, to be sure, but the people have the right to protest and the courts have a right to rule, so, that’s neither here nor there.

The interesting thing about this particular order, which is mixed in its delivery and intent, is that it leaves in limbo some 24,000 Middle Eastern refugees who were on the verge of getting into the United States. Then again, those seeking asylum (or simply a new life) in the United States from the targeted countries will have a wider swath of people that they can reach out to for tangible US-based connections that will allow them entry, including brothers-and-sisters-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, and more. The court is calling this a “bona fide relationship.”

As time has gone on, the most glaring omission from the travel ban hit me in the face: Saudi Arabia. While I don’t disagree that we have to better vet people that are coming into the United States, and that we have an absolute, sovereign right to dictate who comes in, when, from where, and for how long, the “travel ban” doesn’t target a few countries with connections to terrorism, archaic societal rules, and oppressive regimes. Politics, as usual, gets in the way of policy.

Will Trump and Congress Botch Tax Reform, Too?: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/19/tax-reform-becomes-must-win-for-trump-240691

My Take: If I were a betting man, my answer would be a hearty “yes!” Neither Trump nor Congress has shown any propensity whatsoever in getting things done these last six months. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that that’s suddenly going to change now that the issues have pivoted away from health care and other non-starters to something as deep, complicated, and frankly in need of massive reform as the American tax structure. Why would anyone believe anyone in charge can get any of this done? I’d love for them to pass comprehensive tax reform, but I simply don’t believe it’s going to happen.

You’ll remember that tax reform at one point hinged on health care reform, specifically because money from health care reform would be used to pay for tax cuts, negating their budgetary effects. Alas, that never happened, and now you have to wonder if that’s simply another domino in a series of dominoes that will tip the next over, as complete paralysis overtakes the federal government, with the people in power either unwilling or unable to do the people’s work. The fact is, Americans across the board pay too much in taxes. Everyone. Businesses, too. This should be easy to fix. But the political experience of 2017 proves that nothing is as easy as it should be.

The common theme with a lot of commentators is true, though: Should the GOP fail to pass tax reform just as it has failed to pass health care reform, the Republican party should hold on tight for a very rough 2018, and a really terrible rest of Trump’s (first?) term. Those two issues have been perpetual pillars of the conservative platform since Obama took office (and for tax reform, it’s been a conservative pillar for decades). Rarely is a party in the position to exact whatever changes it wants like the Republicans are right now. What you’re seeing with your own two eyes, in complete slow motion, is an epic dropping of the ball.

(Related Story | The House Holds the Keys: http://www.recorder.com/House-budget-blueprint-key-to-success-of-Trump-tax-agenda-11357282)

Comments

BettyAnn Moriarty

Thanks and have a wonderful, peaceful vacation, Col. ❤️😘

Evan Bederman

As a $10/month Patron, I don't know what you mean when you say we supported the idea of making the Q&As available. I have no problem at all with doing so, just curious if there was a post/poll I missed somewhere?

Fred Bence

Enjoy beating that horse...? And vacation!

Christopher Lee

Have a great vacation!!! As for the news burst, I think the real issue is that trump being labeled a "republican" and then the assumption that he is the leader of a "republican majority" is misleading. Sure those are the proper labels, they're all considered "republicans" on paper. BUT, of the "republicans" in majority MANY of them were adamant "never trumpers". I don't think that many republicans want to ACTUALLY do anything that trump is asking them to do. Sure they'll come out and say stuff that sounds like they agree with him and then shake their heads and be like "man I just don't know why we can't figure this out" when the reality is they just don't WANT to do any of trumps stuff, they hate him and they hate his ideas and they don't want to go down with him in what they believe is a sinking ship. Time will tell if this is the right move or if it is political suicide in the 2018 midterms, I personally think it's political suicide but we shall see. This brings me to a realization and a question, curious if anyone knows the answer because I definitely do not. IF a 3rd party candidate ACTUALLY won an election... how does government work? We just have republicans and democrats... would the 3rd party candidate start pushing for their new 3rd party to get Congressional positions? Because if not they could end up completely paralyzed like trump is right now with NEITHER the republicans or the democrats willing to support his agenda. Just as trump needs a majority of trump supporting congress people to move legislation, a 3rd party candidate would need a 3rd party majority to move legislation... right? Would love to hear the history of this sometime, how we got here and what it would take for a 3rd party candidate not only to be elected but to actually get something done. In a lot of ways trump kind of is a 3rd party candidate in that neither of the two main parties really support the guy, regardless of what they say.

Atlas522

Regarding healthcare, I think we really need to remove insurance from the question. Colin talks about covering preexisting conditions as a good thing, which obviously it is a good thing for people with preexisting conditions to receive affordable health care, but it's simply not possible for an insurance company to stay profitable (ie still existing and not bankrupt) and insure against something that's already happened. It would be like saying you could get car insurance after your car just got totaled. It's important to remember health insurance isn't a medical product rather it's a financial product. I think that's the main reason why you hear about the "death spirals" of the Obamacare exchanges, it just doesn't add up financially for these companies to offer insurance in them anymore. Health care is a scarce resource, which people tend to forget. We can't simply declare health care a right and magically people will have it. At the end of the day it comes down to a question of mathematics, can these companies afford to comply with the law or not? It doesn't matter how many people think it ought to be the other way based on feelings. Based on all of that I think we really need to move to something where the government directly pays for the health care of people that can't otherwise afford it through some sort of subsidy rather than paying for health insurance, which is a very important distinction to make. Even for small government types (which I am) I think there's a place for a well-run and efficient welfare program for people that can't afford insurance (or have preexisting conditions that under the old rules would exclude them from purchasing insurance) where the government simply pays directly for the health care. I'd much rather have that then have the government try to completely overhaul the health care and health insurance markets, which is what they did with Obamacare and what they're trying to do with whatever plan the Republicans come up with next. Ideally I'd like to see most ordinary non-emergency medical care treated like an ordinary product that people directly pay what it costs, when you need it. I think that would create much more of an incentive to drive costs down than the current status quo where the insurance companies act as the middle man and prices aren't nearly as reactive as they could or should be. But I doubt this could feasibly happen unfortunately.

Dylan Manuszak

Vita game: Play Rogue Legacy again!

Mike Smith

Straight up repeal was never proposed by McConnell. He proposed reviving the 2015 bill which repealed most of Obamacare, with a 2 year sunset period. That was a reconciliation bill that passed with 51 votes. Not sure why the inaccurate 60 vote talking point keeps getting repeated.

Jason Kelley

Healthcare sure isn't stopping Republicans from raising tons of money. Jeez. <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342795-rnc-raises-134m-in-record-setting-june-haul" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342795-rnc-raises-134m-in-record-setting-june-haul</a>

Josh Squires

<a href="http://wapo.st/2uxloUw" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://wapo.st/2uxloUw</a> Thought this was an interesting, more personal take on the eroding confidence within the party. And oh man, I've been waiting for you to do a video on the current state of the GOP.

Michael Bruchsaler

What's frustrating about the healthcare/tax reform is that there just isn't a strong leader or voice in the Republican Party that can convince the people of this country that we can lower our taxes, but we will have to sacrifice what the federal government in certain areas. I watched the White House daily press briefing a while back when Nick Mulvaney was out on the podium, poorly defending his budget cuts. Like if I was going to cut government programs, I would target specific overlapping programs. I would also make sure that when I do such a thing, make my message clear at the press briefing to say "Hey yeah, we have to cut Meals on Wheels, because guess what? We already have X program that does the same or similar thing. We will supplement that program with a few more resources." Instead you have Nick Mulvaney out there knowing his budget sucks, so he has to dodge questions. And why not cut our defense spending instead of increasing it 10%... Makes you want to drop your job, run as a conservative to help make change in this Republican Party. It's a shame what has become of it.

LastStandMedia

Yes. The question was posed in the last Q&amp;A thread, I believe. Do you have a problem with the decision? Let me know, if so.

LastStandMedia

To your second paragraph, my assumption is (and has long been) that coalitions would need to be built on issues as opposed to parties, which would be such a massive improvement over the current situation, in my estimation. Imagine the power of a governing apparatus where people crossed the aisle to support things that made sense. I dunno... seems so positive to me.

LastStandMedia

Because they keep talking about repeal, but aren't actually posing repeal? Words matter. And the procedural nonsense is getting out of control.

LastStandMedia

That was gonna be the last episode before I went on vacation, but I pivoted. Expect me to cover it soon (maybe very soon).

LastStandMedia

There's a goldmine wrapped up in the defense budget, and it's time to stop acting like it's this sacred thing that can never be touched. I'd cut that shit in half, at least.

Evan Bederman

No problem at all, I simply missed the question. I don't see it in the thread so I suspect you mean it was in the Q&amp;A video itself (which I haven't been able to watch yet)? Either way no worries, but I thought I'd point out that I missed the question and possibly other Patrons at my level did too. Just something to consider going forward!

LastStandMedia

This is where I stand: I have a principled stand against the government taking over health care. But if someone can show me how it works, how medical care is as good (if not better), how people can keep their doctors, and how people can have reasonable wait times, I'll put my principles aside for the whole. I don't think anyone can make any of those promises, though. And even if they could, how much is it going to cost?