#poll roll out started a week prior the closer we get to that week the better | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

livinginlandmarketing · 4 years

Link

Debbie Reaves had settled in for a routine viewing of “The Daily Show” at her Trabuco Canyon home several months ago when she heard host Trevor Noah voice concern about whether there would be enough polling place workers come Election Day.

The fear was that seniors, who historically have often volunteered to work the polls, wouldn’t be comfortable coming out due to the coronavirus pandemic, which poses a greater risk for anyone 65 or older. Combine that with the distrust President Donald Trump and others on the right have sown about mail-in voting, plus expected record-breaking turnout, and the situation appeared ripe for potential voter suppression in the form of long lines to cast in-person ballots.

She’d never been politically active before. But Reaves, who’s 62 and healthy, decided to request for time off from her job as a project manager for a healthcare company and sign up for what she thought would be one day of volunteer work.

“Our voices need to be heard,” Reaves said, “and a safe, convenient voting environment is essential.”

Looking back, Reaves acknowledges she had no idea what she was getting herself into.

Forget tiny designated polling places in someone’s garage or a local church, monitored for a day largely by retired volunteers. In-person voting in Orange County is now a multiday event overseen at large vote centers by some 1,500 paid staffers who go through a thorough vetting process and extensive training.

This cycle, OC Registrar Neal Kelley said that includes additional training on pandemic safety measures and conflict management, such as how to handle people refusing to wear masks or otherwise disrupting the democratic process.

OC and a handful of other California counties had already moved to the vote center model and to professionalize election workers before the March primary. Since the pandemic struck, other Southern California counties have been forced to go that route because they quickly discovered the old model wasn’t going to work this fall.

Still, there are significant differences in how election worker programs are run from one county to the next.

In prior election cycles, Riverside County Registrar Rebecca Spencer said her office would recruit 3,500 people to staff 600 polling places across the county. They’d receive a stipend for one day of work plus another small payment for one three-hour in-person training.

But when they went to start putting that plan together for this cycle, Spencer said they discovered many seniors on their volunteer list weren’t comfortable working a polling place this cycle. Locations that had hosted polling stations in the past also were backing out.

Now Riverside County has hired 600 election workers to staff 130 voter assistance centers that are open for four days, Saturday, Oct. 31 through Election Day. Most of those workers are paid $15 an hour and go through two hours of virtual training. There also is one lead and one assistant lead worker assigned to each vote center.

Those workers have spent 40 hours a week for the past four weeks attending an “election officer academy” that takes them through everything from how to set up the voting equipment to how to guard against COVID-19 to how to de-escalate difficult situations.

Under this model, Spencer said they’ve had no trouble filling all 600 election worker slots, with a waiting list ready to go in case anyone drops out last minute.

San Bernardino County also moved to the vote center model for the same reason, county spokesman David Wert said. After initially having trouble recruiting from the usual pool of volunteers to staff those centers, he said they’re now relying largely on existing county workers who’ve been trained to work elections.

Two San Bernardino County workers tested positive for the coronavirus after a week-long training at the National Orange Show Event Center. But Wert said county health experts don’t believe those workers contracted the virus at the event because organizers had taken precautions such as requiring all of the roughly 400 workers to wear masks and face shields, frequent sanitization and temperature checks each day.

San Bernardino County did virtual trainings whenever possible, Wert said. But he said they needed to do some in-person training to show supervisors how to use new equipment and to do a dress rehearsal for a system that’s being rolled out locally for the first time this cycle.

Wert said they notified everyone who’d been at the training about the two positive cases, encouraging them all to get tested and telling them not to report to work if they had any symptoms. So far, Wert said no other election workers have reported feeling sick.

Orange County didn’t have any trouble with initial recruitment for its 1,500 election workers to staff 168 vote centers, Kelley said. “But as we get closer to the election,” he said, “more people cancel each day. It’s a challenge but we have been keeping up.”

The training process was a bit daunting, and the pandemic and heightened worries of violence did cause some additional concern for Linda Chezar, a Newport Beach resident who’s serving as a lead election worker at a vote center in Orange County. But at 61, Chezar said she doesn’t scare easily. And she didn’t want to let fear hold her back from participating in what she feels is the most important presidential election in her lifetime.

Chezar said seeing the process up close for the first time – with precautions such as computers that aren’t connected to the internet, to prevent any chance of hacking, and completed ballots always monitored by at least two people – has made her more confident in the security of our election systems.

“I’m really proud of what Orange County has done,” she said. “I think they have done everything humanely possible to make it easy to vote, to secure your vote and to minimize any kind of hassle.”

Just to get the OC job, Reaves said she invested four hours of her time. That included a full job application and an hour-long online test, which Reaves equated to a “mini-SAT.” She did a Zoom interview with two people and a Live Scan background check. Then she attended an on-site onboarding in Santa Ana, where she had to sign forms attesting she’d read 200-plus pages of documents and would read a 150-page Vote Center Handbook.

Once they’re hired, Reaves said election workers in Orange County have to commit to 10 days of work. That includes two days of online training, one day of on-site training, one day of set up at the voting center, five days of live voting for up to 13-plus hours and one day of helping tear down the voting center.

Given the pandemic and the commitment now involved, Kelley said OC has seen the average age of its election workers drop substantially. Some younger workers told Reaves they had been out of work due to the pandemic, so they jumped at the chance to work for a week making $19 to $21 an hour, plus some overtime until the last voter clears out on election night.

In the first hour her vote center was open Friday morning, Chezar said they processed 60 ballots without problems.

If anything does go sideways, Chezar said the county provided solid training and has good systems in place for backup. And if all else fails, she said, “I know how to dial 911.”

While Chezar knows everyone is fired up right now, she said she plans to channel her dad, who had strong political beliefs but could have respectful debates with anyone and still remain friends.

“I’m going to try to dial down the rhetoric and the fear, be reassuring and make it more of a celebration of who we are as Americans,” she said.

“We’re not red, we’re not blue – we’re American at voting time.”

Poll workers Debbie Reaves attaches a security tab—one of three—on a piece of voting equipment to ensure the machine is not tampered with. “People don’t know about all the security measures that are in place,” she said while preparing for Friday’s vote center opening at Lake Forest Sports Park on Wednesday, October 28, 2020. (Photo by Mindy Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Poll workers prepare the voting center at Lake Forest Sports Park for Friday’s opening on Wednesday, October 28, 2020. (Photo by Mindy Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Overwhelmed computers cause hours-long delays at some Riverside County voting sites

Proposition 25: Future of cash bail system in voters’ hands

Who’s knocking on my door? Coronavirus changes Inland candidates’ campaign tactics

42,000 Inland voters got more than one ballot for November election

Voters undaunted by 3-hour wait, power outage as San Bernardino County begins early voting

-on November 01, 2020 at 12:00AM by Brooke Staggs

#riversidenews

0 notes

megacircuit9universe · 4 years

Text

Shades of 2008

FRI MAR 13 2020

So, today Trump declared a national emergency... which is quite warranted under the circumstances, but also kinda scary... as that’s a technical step closer to martial law, god forbid.*

Meanwhile, today was another historical first for the markets... the first time ever that all US bonds, regardless of their length, fell below 1%. It makes that inverted yield curve from last year look like a little walk in the park.**

At his press conference today, Trump had on hand, not only health officials, but leaders of different corporations... attempting to convince them, and get them to convince us, that the economy’s gonna be just fine.

But it also broke today that the reason why Covid19 testing is so scarce and so impossible to get is... by Presidential order. No testing... no rise in the number of infections. And while this is still hearsay... it’s perfectly in character for this callous criminal President, and we all know it’s true.

...which is why the markets aren’t gonna rally back, no matter how many speeches he makes, or what governmental levers he pulls to try and stimulate the markets.

I normally go shopping for groceries every two weeks, and I go after work, which is midnight, to a 24 hour grocery store which is normally nearly empty except for stockers hard at work in the aisles.

I’d been hearing about people making runs on the supermarkets this week, hoarding toilet paper, and other paper products, thanks to a rumor that we may run out of such stuff because it all comes from China.

But I didn’t think I’d actually see it here, where I live. That kinda stuff only happens in big cities far away, but not around these parts.

Yet, lo and behold, when I got to my store tonight, at midnight, the parking lot was full, and a long train of people were rolling out the front doors with shopping carts overfilled with food and... bulk paper products.

They were being forced out of the store and nobody else, including me, was being allowed in. This 24 hour supermarket, that I’ve been shopping at for twelve years, was closed.

The guy at the door told me they still had plenty of product in the stock room but had to close in order to actually restock the shelves overnight.

I asked him if it tomorrow night would be better.

With a bit of a laugh, he said, “Tomorrow night? Right now, we’re just taking it hour by hour.”

I drove to the only other 24 hour store in town... the big chain drug store on the main strip. They have a small section for groceries. They were open, thank goodness, but their toilet paper section was stripped bare. Nothing at all... just like all the pictures I’d seen online today from other parts of the country.

Thankfully, I wasn’t here for toilet paper... my main concern was cat food... and thankfully they did have a 12 pack of Fancy feast, cat litter, and milk. As far as paper products, they still had facial tissue, so I bought three boxes of that, just in case there’s still no toilet paper next week.

I said a few entries ago that the panic was worse than the virus, and this was firsthand evidence of how true that is.

I’ve only seen this kind of thing a couple other times, when a big blizzard is approaching... the old bread and milk thing... when people panic about being stuck at home for several days. But that’s always a local thing.

This is a nationwide panic, that isn’t just clearing the supermarket shelves of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, but crashing the stock and bond markets.

It’s difficult to imagine how such a visceral experience, for every citizen on the ground this week... does not affect the voting on Tuesday.

Last Tuesday, the fear of the virus was there, but daily life was going on as usual. There were groceries on the shelves. The President hadn’t declared a state of emergency. Schools were in session. TV shows had studio audiences. Sports were doing their normal thing.

Last Tuesday it was, “wash your hands, everybody, and... by the way, Biden’s the guy for the job, so vote Biden.”

It’s only three days later (!) and the fucking world is ending because of a public health crisis.

Now it’s two days until the debate between, “Good Time’s Joe,” and “FDR of Health Care.” What do you think the focus of that debate is gonna be about on Sunday night? And who do you think is gonna have better answers about how to deal with a global pandemic?

My guess is that Bernie is gonna crush Joe in such a debate, no matter how early in the morning they do it, and no matter how many uppers they give Biden beforehand to keep him lucid enough to speak in full, connected sentences.

The asshole already said if a Medicare for All bill ever came across his desk as President, he’d veto it. How’s he gonna backpedal on that when half the viewers at home are down to their last roll of toilet paper, terrified to go out in public for fear of Covid19?

Then it’s gonna be two more long days of pandemic hysteria before we actually go to the polls... so... as I said in the last entry... if this does not turn the tide to Bernie... nothing ever will.

That said, It’s worth reviewing that all of this panic not only stems from Trump’s fundamental inability to deal with a global pandemic... but also the terrifying realization that Biden may be even LESS competent to deal with it, or any other existential threat that may be waiting in the wings for us.

The latter, as evidenced by the market’s downturn beginning immediately after Super Tuesday... when the media was attempting to coronate Biden as the Democratic nominee.

Rich people and Corporations may not like the idea of having to pay their fair share of taxes, but they are a little bit more allergic to the specter of a global economic collapse... which last reared it’s ghoulish face into the skies back in 2008.

This does, to me... now feel more like 2008, than any other Presidential election in modern history.

That time around, it began with the housing bust in early 2007, which brought on a recession, and inevitably lead to the near banking collapse of 2008.

That year, Hillary Clinton was, around this time in March, presumed to be the Democratic nominee, with her only opponent, Barack Obama, starting to be treated as an, “also ran,” in the mainstream media.

But the scarier things got, the better Obama did... not only winning the nomination... but then going on to win the Presidency... taking over from GWB in one of the darkest hours this country has seen since 1929.

Rich people and Corporations knew then, what they must still know now... Republican governments are great for letting everybody have fun on the playground, amassing mountains of wealth at the expense of the lower classes...

...but, when they break the game... as they always do... Democrats must be called in to fix it, before all of civilization collapses. And in such a case, the more progressive the better... hence, Barack over Hillary.

And fix things, Obama did, over his eight years.

Fixed the economy so good, it was now a self driving money machine that could not be crashed even if you had the worst, most drunken driver at the wheel.

That meant a big green light for Republican government! And this time... permanently! No more Democrats necessary ever again! Trump 2016. Trump 2020. Trump 2024, 28, 32, 36... impeachment means nothing. Senators can be bought. DOJ can be fixed. No more regulations. Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

And then a pandemic plague came out of China... like they always do. Like they’ve been doing since the Black Plague of old.

And this one just happens to be hitting the upper class the hardest... because it’s hardest on the elderly, in this historical moment of peak elderly power. And it’s hardest on those who travel the world, and love to hang out in huge crowds... as the powerful elderly love to do...

...cruise ships... jet setting... political rallies... awards events... back room meetings... shaking hands with every motherfucker they see all day long.

For them, Covid19 doesn’t just threaten their lives directly... but their huge piles of money, if it triggers the collapse of the dreaded, “everything bubble,” economists have been warning us about for a few years now... in the few venues where their voices have not been stifled completely.

This week, they are beginning to realize... they’ve crashed the self driving economy. And they did it in only four years of Republican government.

Only an FDR can save this.

Only an FDR can halt the collapse of the everything bubble, and save them from dying of a pandemic disease for which there is currently no cure.

I’m sure they’re not happy about that.

But... as the TikTok meme goes... “it is what it is.”

I’m going to bed.

* I’ve learned the day after writing that marital law is not on the table here because it can only happen in a time of war.. and only when the judicial branch no longer exists?

Neither of those scenarios are coming down as the result of this current pandemic... which is no threat to babies, children, teens, or young adults at all.

Yes, it may be a threat to the boomer voter base... but they do not have the power to enforce anything close to martial law.

**Let us not forget the Pronunciation Book warning about Dalton (Donal T):

“...He is rich. He is strong. And he is going to crash the stock market. Sidewalks crack, and streets go dark. Ten Thousand bankers shake and scream for Dalton’s pyramid.”

The last video on the channel, published on September 24th, 2013... six years prior to the date that Pelosi would announce formal impeachment hearings.

And even though he made it through that... boasting about the great economy the whole time... here we are.

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years

Text

Democrats want to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. It’s not that simple.

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/democrats-want-to-rejoin-the-iran-nuclear-deal-its-not-that-simple/

Democrats want to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. It’s not that simple.

Former Vice President Joe Biden discusses his foreign policy in New York. The 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful said he would return to the Iran nuclear agreement only if the Islamic Republic is back in compliance. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

foreign policy

Even if Trump loses, political and logistical hurdles could make it impossible to rejoin the 2015 agreement.

Most of the Democrats running for president have promised to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal if they win the Oval Office.

It won’t be that easy.

Story Continued Below

By the time Inauguration Day rolls around in 2021, there might not even be a deal left — it has been hanging on by a thread since President Donald Trump pulled out last year. Even if it still exists, sections of the 2015 agreement are set to expire in the coming years, Trump’s punishing sanctions on Iran will be hard to fully unwind, Iran has elections that could put more anti-deal hardliners in power and Tehran has already threatened to unwind itself from the deal in the months ahead. Then, there’s the possibility that Iran and the U.S. could be in a full-blown military conflict.

Democratic campaign aides acknowledge these challenges. But they insist that the smartest move, politically and policy-wise, is for White House hopefuls to promise a return to the 2015 agreement. It’s a way, they said, for candidates to link themselves to a popular Barack Obama legacy, distinguish themselves from Trump and send a signal to the world — including Iran — that the U.S. will once again be a reliable partner.

“It’s moving away from this hysterical way that Washington talks about Iran, as this uniquely problematic actor that exists outside the realm of normal diplomacy,” said Matt Duss, an adviser to Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination.

Former President Barack Obama’s administration spent years negotiating the nuclear agreement with Iran’s Islamist government and global partners. The deal removed numerous international sanctions on Iran in exchange for severe restrictions on its nuclear program.

Trump quit the agreement last year, arguing that it was too narrow and time-limited and that it should have covered Iran’s non-nuclear activities, too, such as its support for terrorist groups. But despite using sanctions and other pressure, Trump has been unable to lure Iran into crafting a new deal. If anything, the two countries have been moving closer to a military confrontation, with each side shooting down the other’s drones, among other face-offs.

The nuclear deal is one of the few foreign policy issues that comes up with any regularity for the two dozen Democrats striving for the White House.

In February, the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution calling on the U.S. to rejoin the agreement. In debates and other forums since, most of the Democratic contenders have taken essentially the same position.

“Whatever its imperfections, this was perhaps as close to a true ‘art of the deal’ as it gets,” candidate Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., said in a foreign policy speech last month.

The only serious exception so far has been Cory Booker, the New Jersey senator, who declined during a debate to “unilaterally” promise a return. “If I have an opportunity to leverage a better deal, then I’m going to do it,” said Booker, who is close to pro-Israel activists who oppose the current agreement.

Either way, former U.S. officials and Iran analysts say a reality check is in order.

After adhering to the deal for a year following Trump’s abandonment, Iran’s Islamist leaders have in recent weeks started to retaliate, taking small — albeit reversible — steps that put them out of compliance. They’ve promised more violations every 60 days going forward, unless somehow the U.S. lifts its sanctions or other parties to the deal help Iran get economic relief.

The way things are going, Tehran may be significantly out of compliance with the deal by the 2020 election, or it may have just walked away completely.

That poses a dilemma for Democrats, some of whom have hedged their pledge to return to the deal by saying Iran has to be complying with it. A paralyzing “chicken and egg” scenario could result, with Iran refusing to return to compliance until the U.S. lifts sanctions and the U.S. refusing to lift sanctions until Iran is back in compliance.

Even if that was resolved, other challenges loom.

Some hardliners in Iran have suggested that the country should not return to the agreement until the United States pays it reparations for the economic damage Trump’s snap back of sanctions has caused. That is likely to be a non-starter in Washington, with plenty of members of Congress, including some Democrats, sure to be dead set against such a payout.

“The assumption in Washington is we have gained leverage by stepping away from the deal — that we might get concessions from Iran,” said Ariane Tabatabai, an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation. “Iranians think the same thing — that they have leverage now and will be able to get concessions from us.”

The United States isn’t the only one having an election that could determine the future of American-Iranian relations. Iran holds parliamentary elections in 2020, and anti-American sentiment stirred by Trump and his sanctions could give an advantage to Iranian hardliners who oppose talks with the United States.

Iran also holds its presidential election in 2021, and it’s anyone’s guess who will triumph.

President Hassan Rouhani, whose administration negotiated the 2015 deal, is ineligible to run again. On Iran’s political spectrum, Rouhani is considered a moderate. He took over from the more conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2013.

Ultimately, though, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has the final word on matters of state. The cleric has dismissed the idea of negotiating with Trump, and he appeared hesitant even to agree to the deal struck under Obama. If a Democrat becomes president in 2021, Khamenei may still find it politically challenging to talk. But Iran’s economy may be so damaged by then that he may have no choice but to negotiate — even if Trump is reelected.

Another inconvenient fact: Elements of the 2015 nuclear deal, as well as other international limits on Iran, are going to start expiring in the coming years.

A United Nations-backed ban on conventional arms sales to Iran is due to expire in 2020. By 2023, a U.N. measure that calls on Iran to constrain its ballistic missile program also sunsets. In the decade afterwards, pieces of the deal will expire, allowing Iran to use advanced centrifuges and enrich uranium above current limits, among other moves.

Under the deal, Iran has agreed to allow on a permanent basis enhanced international inspections and monitoring of its nuclear activities. Iran also is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which took effect in 1970, meaning it has committed to the international community that it will not seek nuclear weapons. Still, critics of Iran will point to its past nuclear subterfuge and the looming expiration dates on elements of the 2015 deal as reasons not to return to the existing agreement.

“It’s a really good talking point to say ‘Trump got out of the deal. I’m going to get back in,’ but reentering an agreement when the clock is already ticking is a fool’s errand,” said Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the conservative American Foreign Policy Council. ”The message needs to be that any framework the U.S. agrees to has to be longer and better than the one before.”

Rejoining the original deal would require a new U.S. president to lift the nuclear-related sanctions that Trump has slapped on Iran. That alone is a complicated task.

And it might not be enough for Iran, because Trump has gone beyond the sanctions that were on Iran prior to the nuclear deal. The Republican president has imposed a wide array of new penalties on Iranian individuals and entities as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign, and Iranian leaders might insist that all of those sanctions get rolled back. That could be logistically, as well as politically, challenging.

For instance, Trump has designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, the first time the U.S. has placed such a label on a foreign state institution. Even Democrats say the IRGC is a malign actor, and it could cause serious domestic political blowback if a Democratic president decided to cancel that designation.

Indeed, some Iran hawks havepushedTrump to impose such complex and heavy sanctions precisely to complicate a future president’s return to the 2015 nuclear agreement. And in a general election, Trump is sure to accuse his Democratic opponent of endangering America by promising to lift sanctions on Iran and rejoin the deal.

Democratic campaign aides note that, when given the chance, their candidates offer caveats to their baseline position of reentering the deal.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, for one, has said he will return to the agreement only once Iran is in compliance. But he’s also pledged to find a way to “strengthen and extend it.”

A senior Biden campaign adviser said the former vice president knows a lot can change by 2021, but he sees pledging a return to the 2015 agreement as, among other things, an important signal to send to U.S. allies in Europe who are furious over Trump’s abandonment.

“It’s a down payment on our credibility,” the aide said. “An incoming administration will have to do something to reestablish the good word of the United States.”

Variouspollshave shown that most Americans opposed Trump’s decision to quit the 2015 agreement.

For now, as they compete against each other for their party’s nomination, promising a return to the deal is a politically safe space for Democrats in part because of Obama’s continued popularity, one Democratic operative said.

“The Iran deal is popular with Democrats for the very reason that Donald Trump left it,” the operative said. “It was negotiated by Barack Obama.”

#Foreign #nuclear #Politics #simple

0 notes

isaacscrawford · 7 years

Text

The Trump Health Policy Train Wreck

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

For the second time in just four months, President Trump finds himself standing on the sidewalk reeling and looking for the license number of the health policy truck that hit him. In the wake of Senator John McCain’s unexpected vote last week killing the “skinny” version of ACA repeal, Republicans abandoned their efforts to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare.

Though the process may not be “over” as of this writing, this has been the most catastrophically mismanaged federal health policy cycle we’ve seen in our lifetimes. In this post, I turn to Blumenthal and Morone’s 2009 analysis, The Heart of Power: Health and Politics in the Oval Office” for help in deconstructing the Trump Presidency’s politically costly health policy adventure.

Blumenthal and Morone distilled eight key lessons about how to manage the health care issue from the records of the post-Roosevelt Presidents’ health policy efforts. Attached to each lesson is a letter grade for Trump’s performance.

To succeed in health reform, President must be “care deeply” about the issue. Candidate Trump did not pretend to be a health policy expert, but the most potent applause line in his campaign speeches was his promise to the Republican base to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare. Trump complicated his task, perhaps without fully realizing it, by running way to the left of his base in promising not to cut Medicare and Medicaid and to give people better coverage for less money.

The challenge of rearranging federal involvement in healthcare financing within the “repeal and replace” promise was clearly a good deal more complex than candidate Trump expected, and he candidly admitted as much. One can criticize the Clintons for many aspects of their 1993-94 failed health reform effort, but their substantive grasp of the policy choices involved was truly impressive. Either Clinton could have commanded the stage in a graduate seminar on health policy at Harvard or Hopkins.

Trump, not so much. His repeated references to “the healthcare” as his shorthand on the issue were not an encouraging sign of his immersion in the issue, but the following verbatim excerpt from his July 19, 2017 interview with the New York Times was a masterpiece:

“So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, ‘I want my insurance.’ It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.”

This was despite multiple earnest efforts by numerous outside parties -Zeke Emanuel (in person) and Avik Roy, James Capretta, Joe Antos and Gail Wilensky (in editorial venues ) to educate him on the knotty substantive problem with repealing ObamaCare’s coverage guarantees, and a host of other issues. At its root, the TrumpCare debacle can be laid at the feet of Presidential disengagement. Trump’s grade: F.

The need for speed. Blumenthal and Morone wrote; “The day after the presidential election, the savvy health policy analyst will slip his or her president-elect a message: ‘Hurry up- you’re running out of time.’ The window of opportunity always slams shut quickly.” In former Senator Alan Simpson’s immortal words: “Healthcare is like bear meat. The longer you chew it, the bigger it gets.” Presidents do not always control their agendas (see Obama/World Financial Crisis), but early is good., as public passion for the issue cools with each passing month as complexities and industry reaction grow.

The practical reality: the closer one gets to mid-term elections, the less willing vulnerable Congress people are to risk political capital on healthcare legislation that may not help them. Despite the commitment to “repeal and replace” on Day 1, the lengthening delay in dealing with the rest of the Trump agenda (tax reform, infrastructure) plus budget and debt ceiling weighs heavily. Trump’s Grade on Speed: D, so far.

Bring a Plan with You. Blumenthal and Morone stressed the importance of “coming into office with a legislative proposal in hand”. In Trump’s case, this was deceptive, because actual legislation was passed by previous Republican Congresses to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare, albeit with full confidence of a Presidential veto. But in the real world of 2017, the political and health system consequences of repeal were untested. The prior legislation was, in other words, completely and blissfully reactionary: symbolically repealing the “Obama” part of ObamaCare, without contending with the messy realities of 20 + million dispossessed individuals, or the stability of the partially federalized individual insurance market. The bill the House passed in May could easily have been titled The Political Revenge and Upward Redistribution Act of 2017, mainly a huge tax cut for corporations and high income individuals, which bore no relation whatsoever to Trump’s campaign promises. Thus, Trump rates an exculpatory C on Bring a Plan, but an F for situational awareness and an F- for fidelity to his campaign platform.

Hush the Economists. Blumenthal and Morone believed that “expanding health coverage requires presidents who are able and willing to overrule their economic advisors”. This is presumably because at any given moment in any health reform debate, someone in the administration will ask “can we afford to expand coverage?”, and deficit hawk economists will answer “not now.”

Here, I disagree with the substance of Blumenthal and Morone’s analysis: health policy cannot exist in a fiscal vacuum; financing must be sustainable for the coverage expansion to last. Part of ObamaCare’s problem was that the unrealistic White House policy requirements that ObamaCare reduce the deficit and that capped the cost at under $1 trillion-both imposed by the President’s political advisors. These economic constraints resulted in inadequate subsidies, mediocre actual dollar coverage and tepid public reaction to the reforms.

However, the Trump process was not driven by policy, economic or otherwise. It was completely political. Since economists played zero role in the TrumpCare debacle, Trump gets an A for ignoring their input.

Go Public. “There is only one job the president can do: create popular momentum for reform”. Here, Trump’s disengagement played a crucial role. Public support for ObamaCare was always lukewarm, rising above 50% exactly one month and languishing in the 40’s in the Kaiser tracking polls for most of the ensuing seven years. Yet, with a vulnerable target, , Trump continuing to pound on the one note “ObamaCare is a disaster” as evidence mounted of the potential harm done to specific individuals, including Trump’s own electoral base http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2017/03/08/the-rust-belt-is-burning-republicans-lay-waste-to-their-base-on-health-reform/ from repealing it. His surrogates didn’t help much, either. Sec. Tom Price was caught claiming that the House bill would not result in Medicaid patients losing coverage , despite multiple Congressional Budget Office findings of eight-figure enrollment declines. The result was a steady increase in the popularity of the law. Trump gets a D- on Going Public.

Manage Congress. “The successful president must be nimble at making our convoluted legislative machinery work.” Trump’s job here was made difficult not only by his campaign promises discussed above, but also by profound divisions in his own party. There were at least three distinct Congressional factions (and therefore agendas): the hardcore Freedom Caucus folks (“Repeal” is fine. Screw “Replace”), the Deficit Hawks (Must Shrink Federal Fiscal commitment to Medicaid AND Medicare, not just roll back the coverage expansion) and the Repeal and Replace (but Leave Medicaid Expansion alone)- the twenty Republican Senators whose states expanded coverage. Similar intraparty divisions cratered the Clinton reforms and nearly killed ObamaCare.

Even a skilled legislative tactician would have struggled to craft a working Senate majority from this divided Republican troop configuration, with only two votes to lose. In retrospect, McConnell came remarkably close, but Trump made his job much harder with huge relationship damage from gratuitous public bullying of Mark Meadows, Lisa Murkowski, Dean Heller, and others. Trump oscillated between complete disengagement and unhelpful and ill-timed interventions. Between clumsy public cajoling, private threats, and constant Twitter driven tactical second guessing, Trump earns an F for capricious and inconstant management of Congress.

Forget the PSROs. This was Blumenthal and Morone’s injunction to Presidents not to get caught up in health policy minutiae. Per #1 above, not a problem for Trump. Grade: A.

Learn How to Lose. Blumenthal and Morone’s message: Given the historical record of the past eighty plus years, the odds are that a given President will be unsuccessful in accomplishing major health reforms. By “learning how to lose”, they meant disengaging gracefully, leaving the door open not only to dissident members of his own party, but collaboration with the other political party to enable incremental progress in the rest of the Presidential term. The Clintons did this, and achieved significant administrative progress with HIPAA in 1996, and a significant coverage expansion with S-CHIP in 1998, both bipartisan bills.

So far, Trump seems not to grasp the “disengage with grace” logic. His recent tweets on the subject show a pronounced disinclination to move on. They have been angry, petulant and insulting (“fools”, “total quitters”, threatening their health coverage) not only to his shaken majorities but to the Democrats who might be future partners in insurance market reforms.  Jimmy Carter once said, “Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser”, but this is a pretty impressive case of sore loser-ism. Grade so far, F.

As Blumenthal and Morone made abundantly clear in their book, health reform is a devilishly difficult policy and political challenge for any President, even for those who prepared for it years in advance. Lacking a White House health policy presence, and strong White House issue and legislative management, Trump managed to squander a boatload of political capital on his thusfar unsuccessful ObamaCare initiative. Perhaps with a new White House chief of staff, and candid conversation with his Congressional Republican leadership, the President can minimize the negative impact of the TrumpCare debacle on the rest of his domestic policy agenda.

Article source:The Health Care Blog

0 notes

topinforma · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on Mortgage News

New Post has been published on http://bit.ly/2rXzJG5

mortgage-rates-drop-ahead-of-comey-testimony

Freddie Mac: Mortgage Rates Sink To 3.89%

Mortgage rates are on a roll.

Freddie Mac, in its weekly survey of more than 100 lenders nationwide, reported the average thirty-year rate fell 5 basis points (0.05%) to 3.89% this week.

It’s the third week in a row that rates have hit a fresh 2017 low. Markets are jittery, and all eyes are on former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to the Senate today.

In times of uncertainty, mortgage rates drop.

We could see a replay of the drama that played out on May 17. That’s when Comey first released a memo saying Trump attempted to halt the investigation against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

That day, the stock market fell nearly 400 points and mortgage rates improved big time.

If you’re looking to lock your rate, today could be your day.

Click to see today’s rates (Jun 10th, 2017)

How Will The Comey Testimony Change Mortgage Rates?

Mortgage rates could swing big today as former FBI director James Comey testifies before the Senate.

It could be a watershed moment in American politics — or amount to nothing.

Markets would be rattled and mortgage rates better if more comes out of the testimony than expected. Remember that mortgage rates are higher than they were last year for one reason: Mr. Trump got elected.

Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and an economy-first perspective were supposed to kick inflation into high gear. Inflation is bad for mortgage rates.

If President Trump’s political wings are clipped, though, markets will wonder if campaign promises can gain traction. The mortgage rate clock might be turned back to 2016 when rates were in the mid-3s.

Markets are tuning in, no doubt, to Comey’s testimony. Any revelations about inappropriate actions by the president could send mortgage rates lower.

However, don’t expect Watergate here. Analysts don’t believe there was criminal intent in Trump’s actions.

The focus for markets will be around whether Trump can, in fact, boost the economy, or if he will be embroiled in controversies that put a lid on his agenda.

Mortgage Applications Soar On Low Rates

The Mortgage Banker’s Association (MBA) reported Wednesday that home purchase mortgage applications jumped 10% from the prior week.

Mortgage rates hit their lowest levels since November, by MBA’s calculation, spurring home buyers to lock in. It’s a second chance to take a rate near 4% after rates soared closer to 4.25% late last year.

Apparently, it’s a new day for mortgage rates.

The anticipated “downward drift” is in full effect, and rates could dive even deeper into sub-4% territory as 2017 marches on.

Even refinancing homeowners are finding deals, especially those ditching FHA mortgage insurance with a conventional loan. Those who had lost hope of getting a good rate are not only finding one but locking it in.

If you’ve been shopping for a mortgage, now could be the time to apply.

Click to see today’s rates (Jun 10th, 2017)

The Making Of Freddie Mac’s Average Rate

Each week, mortgage agency Freddie Mac surveys 125 lenders nationwide for its Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS), a snapshot of current mortgage interest rates.

It asks mortgage companies, banks, and credit unions, and other lenders their current rate for a well-qualified borrower putting 20% down, and paying “discount points,” or extra fees that directly reduce the rate.

The weekly Freddie Mac report is great for watching mortgage rate trends. The organization has been conducting the survey for 45 years. So, the weekly average rate is a good measure of historical movement.

But as a mortgage rate consumer who needs a truly current rate, Freddie Mac’s survey isn’t very useful. The agency polls lenders early in the week for its Thursday release. By publish time, their rate is already outdated.

Mortgage rates change by the minute.

Plus, Freddie’s rates are based on the quote for a mythical homeowner: one with great credit, 20% down, and a short closing time frame.

Your rate might be higher or lower. The only way to know is to contact a reputable lender and request a rate quote.

What Are Today’s Mortgage Rates?

Today’s interest rates are low. Historically any rate in the 4% range was considered “too good to be true.” Rates have averaged more than 8% over the 45 years Freddie Mac has been tracking them.

Get today’s live mortgage rates now. Your social security number is not required to get started, and all quotes come with access to your live mortgage credit scores.

Click to see today’s rates (Jun 10th, 2017)

The information contained on The Mortgage Reports website is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for products offered by Full Beaker. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the policy or position of Full Beaker, its officers, parent, or affiliates.

Try the Mortgage Calculator

0 notes