Technical problems on posting

Friends, all day my computer has been  fickle and unreliable about staying connected to the Wi-Fi.    So I'm going to take that as a sign that ShrinkRap needs another day of rest.

Ralph

NYT : "Fear and Disdain Grip Tump's EPA"

Scott Pruitt, Trump's administrator/destroyer of the Environmental Protection Agency and Jeff Sessions at the Justice Department are perhaps Trump's most effective cabinet secretaries -- at least in terms of carrying out Trump's policies.   Sessions, of course, with one glaring exception:   he recused himself and wound up with Mueller investigating the Russia collusion question.

But over at EPA, there's Scott Pruitt, who as Oklahoma's Attorney General the EPA somewhere up in double digits of times.   Now he's in charge of the EPA and is undoing almost everything that Barack Obama accomplished.     The latest, yesterday, is that he's rolling back the increase in emissions standards for automobiles -- even more than the auto manufacturers themselves want.

Let's look at the larger picture, as penned in a New York Times editorial on Sunday, excerpted and edited for brevity:

*     *     *     *     *

"The other day, Scott Pruitt . . . took yet another step to muzzle the scientific inquiry . . . he seems determined to destroy.   He told his subordinates that they could no longer make policy on the basis of studies that included data from participants who were guaranteed confidentiality. . . .Limiting policy makers  to  only those studies with publicly available health data greatly narrows the field of research."

[It's also totally nuts, obviously just a ploy to severely limit available research data.   Who's going to participate in a study if your whole medical history, including your identifying data, can be published along with the study?   And, with rare exceptions, there almost no scientific reason to require it. - RR]

". . . The word that best describes the Trump administration's hostility to scientific inquiry:  'Disdain' jumps to mind. . . .  There's another word:  Fear.  From the top down, the people who run this government seem absolutely terrified of scientific inquiry and the ways in which it could threaten Mr. Trump's promise to ease regulations on fossil fuel companies and increase their profits, no matter the cost to public health and the planet. .

"Why would he want a scientific adviser telling him that the link between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels is incontrovertible, that he should  stick with the Paris agreement on climate change, that it's a grave mistake to repudiate every one of President Obama's efforts to slow the dangerous warming of the earth's atmosphere? . . .  "

*     *     *     *     *

The editorial goes on to reveal more shocking antics that Pruitt has taken.   One was to announce that no one could serve on the nearly two dozen scientific advisory committees who had received federal research grants in the past.   The stated reason was to avoid conflict of interests;  but the real reason was to create multiple vacancies, which Pruitt then proceeded to fill with "industry experts and state officials pushing for lax regulations" -- as if none of them had conflicts of interest -- and it eliminates most of the ranking scientific experts in the field.   

The editorial ends with a warning about Mr. Pruitt's political ambitions,  It's been widely speculated that he might be picked by Trump to replace Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.   Pruitt is also rumored to be considering a bid for governor of Oklahoma next year.   And then there's always 2024 and the Oval Office.

Beware of the science deniers.

Ralph

It will only get worse in this White House

Here's why.   So far we've been seeing a president Trump relatively restrained by his own ignorance of how to get things done and by the restraining forces of the four adults in his cabinet:  Tillerson, McMaster, Kelly, and Maddis.  Tillerson and McMaster are gone.

Kelly, as Chief of Staff, has tried to restrain some of Trump's worst instinctive inclinations.   But even a four-star Marine general cannot always perform miracles.   For example, he has said that he can't control his tweeting or what Trump watches on TV when he's not there . . . and doesn't try.

That leaves Gen. Mattis, who is not actually in the White House with daily proximity.  He's over running the vast Pentagon and our massive Defense Department.

All replacement appointments seems even less likely to even try to modulate Trump's conviction that his own gut feelings and instinctual inclinations are the best.   And Trump says quite freely that he's tired of being restrained.   He has declared himself "unleashed."

Add to this the tension growing daily in Mueller's investigative operation as it closes in on the Trump organization itself.  If Trump won't even listen to his lawyers about what might sink him in court, why would we expect him to listen to advisers about what's good for the country?

So now we have Trump saying that the DACA deal is dead, and it's the Democrats' fault.  Because Congress wouldn't give him the billions he wanted to build his wall ("It's not a 'fence,' it's a WALL."), he's not going to go along with a compromise for the Dreamers.   But the truth is that the Democrats did offer him a bipartisan compromise, several times -- and he refused every one.

As was mentioned on MSNBC yesterday, Trump's is on pretty safe ground here.   There are two cases in court now, in which judges have issued injunctions against deportation action against these young people pending the court decisions.  After all, our government made promises to these young people, and they've done their part.    To deport them would be to go back on our government's word.   So Trump can rev up his base for the midterms by saying he will, but then the court won't allow it . . . and he's got another issue for his base:   the courts are against him, and the country needs to him to appoint more conservative judges.

Do we have to worry about Trump firing Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller?   Yes.  Do we have to worry about pardons for Manafort and Flynn?    But Flynn has already talked to Mueller's team, as has Gates, and the Dutch guy, and the Lebanese guy.   Mueller's got an awful lot.

And then there is the meeting with Kim Jong-un.   Yes, we have a lot to worry about.  If we thought a "restrained" Trump was bad, now we're going to have an "unleashed" Trump.

Ralph

Weekend break

Taking another weekend break from posting on ShrinkRap.

Invite you to check back on Monday.

Ralph

Another view of Bolton's influence as NSA

Vox.com's Sean Illing interviewed Tom Nichols, a professor of national security studies at Harvard and the Naval War College.  Nichols also authored the book The Death of Expertise:  The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters.   Here is reporter Illing speaking:

*     *     *     *     *

"Liberals and Democrats do not like Bolton, and for rather obvious reasons.   Among other things, he has advocated for preventive war with Iran and North Korea, championed -- and still defends -- the disastrous war in Iraq, wrote the foreword to a book by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, two prominent counter-jihadists, and has generally become the most hardline defender of military force on the American right.

"But how is Bolton viewed in conservative circles?   Is he aligned with mainstream Republicans, or is he too extreme?

"I reached out to Tom Nichols . . . to find out.  [He] is a conservative who previously advised Republican Sen. John Heinz (who died in 1991) on defense and security affairs.   I wanted to know what he thought of Bolton, and if he's as worried as people on the left are.   A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows."

Sean Illing

"What was your initial reaction to Bolton's appointment?"

Tom Nichols

"I don't think anyone can be surprised.   This is one of the few moves that Trump has been telegraphing for months.  I've been dreading it, but I figured it was going to happen sooner or later, and not because of who Bolton is or what he believes but because he's on television a lot, and the president appears to watch a lot of television.

"To be clear, what Bolton believes and what the president ran on are diametrically opposed.  So it's not like Trump has found his soulmate in Bolton.  At some point, you run out of options and serious people willing to take the job, so, naturally Trump turns to someone on TV."

Illing

"It may strike some readers as odd to hear that Trump's campaign vision and Bolton's worldview are diametrically opposed."

Nichols

"Bolton's philosophy is to extinguish all threats to the US by extending military force at will.  Trump ran on 'America First' and called the Iraq War stupid, whereas Bolton continues to defend the Iraq War and believes that we should stomp out danger wherever we think it will appear.   So you're either an isolationist guy or you're an elephant roaming the field stomping on every mouse that scares you;  and Bolton is the latter."

Illing

"The word neocon is being tossed about a lot, but Bolton isn't really a neocon because he doesn't seem to care about promoting democracy abroad;  he just wants to use American power to advance American interests, including waging preventive wars."

Nichols

"You've got it exactly right.  Neocons are about using American force not just for interests, but to establish certain values and changes around the world.

"I don't think Bolton is a neocon because he doesn't seem to care about democracy promotion;  he's an advocate of preventive war, which means acting way in advance to stomp out a perceived threat -- that's significantly different than preemptive war, which is about neutralizing an imminent threat.

"Bolton's approach to war is preventive, and I think it's extremely dangerous."

Illing

"How is Bolton viewed in conservative foreign policy circles?"

Nichols

"The hard right doesn't like him because he's not really an isolationist.   The Bush-era people thought highly enough of him to make him UN ambassador, but nothing else.   He's developed this reputation as a master in-fighter, someone who can navigate the bureaucracy.   But for a master in-fighter, he sure has been kept out of power for the last 20 years.

"As far as I can tell, his reputation is that he's a brilliant guy, but very strange in his views and more extreme than most conservatives.   His threshold for going to war is much much lower than most people on the right."

Illing

"The national security adviser's job is to ensure that the president hears the views of the entire national security establishment, in order to help him or her make the best decision.  An ideologue like Bolton seems like the worst person to have in that role, mostly because he's likely to filter out facts and views that don't align with his worldview."

Nichols

"In fairness, the NSA is almost always someone with an agenda.  We've had very few truly honest brokers in this position in part because the job is so loosely defined.  Basically, the NSA position is whatever the president wants it to be.  But if part of the job is to be the gatekeeper among all the competing institutional interests around the president, then Bolton is a terrible choice."

Illing

"Does Bolton's appointment make war with North Korea or Iran more likely?"

Nichols

"I think he'll want to go to war, but I'm not convinced that he'll succeed.  Washington's a big place with a pretty strong bureaucracy, and there's an entire defense department that Bolton won't control.   Also the Trump White House is chaotic.  My biggest fear in the early days of the Trump administration was, 'What would happen if all these people were competent?  What happens if Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon turn out to be smart and effective?'

"But they were all swallowed by the chaos of the administration and got very little done.   So I'm not convinced that Bolton is going to magically bring all this coherence to the West Wing.   What he will be able to do is snuff out a lot of dissenting voices because of his proximity to the president, and that is certainly a concern."

Illing

"I guess the major worry is that nearly all of the so-called 'adults in the room' have been purged.   Defense Secretary James Mattis is the only man left standing at this point.  That might increase Bolton's influence."

Nichols

"Yes, that worries me.  But I think a lot depends on who would replace Mattis in the event that he leaves.  Historically when there's a clash between the defense secretary and the NSA, the defense secretary wins.   The NSA is not in anyone's chain of command, so he can't start a war or order a strike.   He's merely an adviser to the president, and so his influence is constrained at an institutional level.

"So people don't need to panic right now.   There might come a time when we should panic over what Bolton is telling the president but I think it's too early for that now.   Concerned?   Yes.  Panicked?   No.

"Let's wait and see if Bolton is actually able to accomplish anything."

*     *     *     *     *

That's a little bit reassuring, certainly less panic than some of the early predictions that said things like:   "If Bolton becomes NSA,  we're all  dead."   Now, apparently, we can wait and see whether we need to panic.

Ralph

How to choose a chief of the Veterans Administration

The United States Veterans Administration is a huge, sprawling organization that has defied easy management.  In fact, mismanagement of some of its hospitals was a source of minor scandal -- practically the only scandal -- during the Obama administration.

President Trump has just replaced the holdover Obama head of the VA, David Shulkin.   It may be a good choice -- or not.   It's the way he went about making the choice that I'm critical of.

As usual, he was given a list of qualified people as suggestions, along with their credentials.   But instead he chose the White House physician, Admiral Ronny Jackson, who made quite a splash in January in reporting to the media about the president's annual physical exam.

He reported on the president's pysical and mental health in glowing terms, even saying playfully that, if the president had eaten a better diet for the past 20 years, he would probably live to be 200.  Asked to what he attributed such good health, given his diet and weight, he replied that "it's in the genes." 

And he specifically mentioned that the president had passed the cognitive mental status exam with  a perfect score.   (That's so Trumpy.)   And misleading.   Unimpaired cognition is an important factor in mental health -- but only one small aspect.   It says nothing about depression, stability, resilience, judgment, good relationships, etc. that we usually think of as signs of mental health.

But that's beyond what I want to go into here.  The point is that Dr Jackson performed well on TV, and he further praised the president's mental health based  on the almost daily hours he spends with him, given that he routinely travels with the president.  The president likes him.

Now to the point.   I have no reason to question Dr.  Jackson's medical expertise nor his credentials.  He could be the best in the world at that.  He's an experienced combat surgeon as well, and he has served as White House physician under three presidents before Trump.

But what are his qualifications as an administrator to take over one of the largest, most difficult administrative jobs in the government?  The Veterans Administration is the second largest bureaucray in the federal system, with 231 hospitals, 350,000 employees, and a budget of  $200 billion.  For all his medical and battlefront experience, has he ever been in charge of a large organization?   Trump doesn't seem to think that's important.

Here's the point.   Dr. Jackson's #1 quality that got him this appointment as head of the VA may very well be that he knows how to flatter the boss by praising him in Trumpian language.   And his #2 quality is likely being good enough on TV -- but not too good.   It's not good to be too good -- not good enough to overshadow the boss, anyway.

I hope that Dr, Jackson actually does have hidden talents as an administrator.   But I worry that Trump's "gut" decision is based on hearing what he wants to hear, not considering his administrative qualifications.

The other worry is that Dr. Shulkin was let go because he does not favor privatization of VA health care.   At least he's been very vocal about that since his days were numbered.    What's Jackson's position on that?  My guess is that he at least has not said he opposes it.

Ralph

PS:  After writing the above, I saw an interview with Dr. Shulkin on "All In With Chris Hayes."   He is very open and frank in saying that he was systematically undermined by political appointees installed in his department who wanted him out because he opposes privatization.   He's says the Koch brothers are behind it, as they are pushing to privatize Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- solely in order to make money out of it for themselves.    All the criticism about his spending on a trip to Europe was trumped up and distorted in order to smear him.

I found him quite credible, and Chris was astonished at some of the blatant abuses he related.   According to his story, this was pure and simple a political effort to  get rid of him because of his stance against going private.  He says that, overwhelmingly, the veterans want the VA to be improved, not  dismantled.

What tax cut? Poll shows . . . not so much

Helene Olen, reporting for the Washington Post, quotes from a poll by CNBC's All America Economic Survey and by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies.

Only a third of Americans have noticed more money in their paychecks from the $1.5 trillion Trump tax cuts.   More than half -- 52% -- say they've seen no change at all.   And a majority of those who have noticed extra funds say it "either helps a small amount or not at all."

An estimate by the Tax Policy Center figured that the average family would get about $18 per week extra.   But of course some of that winds up going for higher medical insurance premiums.

In other words, much ado about not much -- at least for ordinary Americans.   Now with wealthy Americans, it's a different story;  but the polls didn't quantify their reactions.   When you're dealing with the upper, uppers -- the top 1% and less -- statistics don't mean a lot unless you're looking at dollar amounts.

Is anybody who knows anything about finances and tax policy at all surprised?   Of course not.   This is exactly what was predicted.   Trump and Mnuchin and Ryan and all the Republican tax cutters knew what they were doing.

It's part of the scam they've been running for decades.   Give the tax cuts to the rich and watch it trickle down.

Except that it never does.  I'm just gratified to know that people are beginning to notice it this far ahead of the November midterm elections.

Ralph