In his important year-end post for his site PressThink, New York University journalism professor and critic Jay Rosen warned, "the world has changed and journalists are in the fight of their lives." Rosen's point is that the way for journalism to earn trust has changed because users now have more choices and more control. He then provides a thoughtful list of ways is which journalists can win trust through transparency.
But how does one win the trust of everyone in the era of Trump, who now is a bully with the White House pulpit? The president proudly claimed in an interview with the Fox Business Channel last October that he "started this whole fake news thing." Of course, that is not true. In fact, according to the Washington Post, "President Trump has made 1,950 false or misleading claims over 347 days."
That the president frequently lies is not fake news, and it is not new news. A Morning Consult/Political poll last December found that only 36% of those sampled thought the president is honest. In fact, 51% of those polled believe he is dishonest, while 60% think he is reckless. Yet his almost daily attacks against the press, mostly false or misleading, have staggered many members of the press.
The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. Freedom House reports that freedom of the press is in decline around the world, including here in the United States. A record number of journalists have been imprisoned worldwide, including twenty-one on "fake news" charges. Senator John McCain issued this warning to President Trump in December on Twitter, "@POTUS must understand his harmful rhetoric only empowers repressive regimes to jail reporters and silence the truth."
Soon after his return to the White House, following a holiday break in Florida, the president launched another fusillade on Twitter against one of his favorite targets, The New York Times. "The failing New York Times has a new publisher, A.G. Sulzberger. Congratulations! Here is a last chance for the Times to fulfill the vision of its Founder, Adolph Ochs, "to give the news impartially, without fear of FAVOR, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved," his first tweet read. It continued on a second, "Get impartial journalists of a much higher standard, lose all your phony and non-existent "sources," and treat the President FAIRLY, so that the next time I (and the people) win, you won't have to write and apology to your readers for a job poorly done!"
Clearly the president's claims of fake news and his attacks on news organizations are all a tactic. If he was innocent of sin, if his White House was free of scandal, if his agenda was popular with the masses, he wouldn't have to protest too much. But he doth protest an awful lot! He loves to spin his own alternate reality and lash out at the press. His communications' staff, assorted acolytes and members of Congress echo his attacks because it is in their own personal interest, and the mainstream media is an easy target. Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron stoically observed last year, "We are not at war with the administration, we are at work."
But for more news channels, more news sites online, and the growing amount of users who get their news from social media, opinion is now the currency of the realm. An enormous amount of Americans get their information from sources they feel agree with their views, i.e., one's that are consistent with their core beliefs. And some news outlets carefully craft their content to appeal to their likely viewers, and to advance a political agenda. This has left America so politically divided it is hard for people from different regions or ideologies to agree on basic facts, let alone have an rational and calm discussion.
More transparency is important, absolutely, but do Sean Hannity's 3.2 million viewers care if he is transparent? Few of his viewers check around with different sources to get the other side of the argument. And they don't care that Hannity regularly consults with President Trump, who is a big fan of his program. Sure, Hannity is not a journalist, but he is on the Fox News Channel.
The big question is at what point will Americans say enough is enough with the attacks on the press. At what point will Americans be motivated enough to devote time to study all sides of the issues. At what point will Americans take the time to be well informed before making decisions about elected officials, as our Founding Fathers had intended when they wrote the First Amendment. The Fathers wanted to assure that America would not be ruled by a despot, rather that it would always be ruled by the people.
The press is not perfect, but most major news organizations have a process to assure that all of the facts are fully vetted before they are published, and to assure fairness, impartiality, independence and accountability. On the other hand, the administration, the Congress, and government agencies are not always transparent and accountable to the people. That will only happen with a strong and vibrant press.
Journalists may be in a fight for their lives, due to evolving business models and rapid changes in technology, but their survival is essential for the maintenance of this great democracy.
Republicans have long coveted deep cuts in federal entitlement programs. Up to now Democrats have thwarted their attempts to slash America's social safety net. But that may change in the coming year.
House Speaker Paul Ryan is openly making the case, and he has robust support from the Republican controlled Congress. On Wednesday, Ryan said, "We have a welfare system that's trapping people in poverty and effectively paying people not to work. We've got to work on that." Ryan added, in an interview on Ross Kaminsky's radio show, "We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and deficit."
Ironically, Ryan's bold pronouncement comes as Republicans in Congress work to reconcile their so-called tax reform legislation. The hastily crafted bill, when enacted, will disproportionately benefit high-income earners and large corporations while adding up to $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Their justification is that the measure will increase economic activity, which will add jobs and grow wages. But few economists agree with this misguided premise. In fact, this tax bill is merely a sop to wealthy Republican donors who threatened to cut off their donations to the party unless taxes are cut.
With even larger deficit spending as a result of the tax cuts, Republicans can turn their attention to reducing federal expenditures. The largest drivers of federal spending are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending and interest on the debt. Defense and interest payments will not be cut. That pretty much leaves the entitlement programs.
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy conservatives developed decades ago for reducing government spending. In 1978, economist and future Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told a congressional committee, "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending." Liberal economist Paul Krugman later observed, "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could be sold as a necessity rather than a choice." Speaker Ryan and Republicans are doing just that.
Once the Republican tax proposal is passed and signed by President Donald Trump, there will be no going back. Most Republicans in Congress have signed on to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The pledge, authored by political activist Grover Norquist, states that the signatories will never vote to raise taxes under any circumstances or they will be challenged in their next Republican primary election.
A possible hurdle to entitlement cuts could be President Trump, who as a candidate tweeted in 2015, "I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid." But the president, who is obsessed with winning political victories, will likely endorse any GOP initiative, proclaiming that proposed changes to entitlements are meant to save the programs.
The federal government and the states currently jointly fund Medicaid. Medicaid provides health coverage to millions of Americans, including the elderly, low-income adults, children and people with disabilities. Speaker Ryan favors converting Medicaid into a block grant program for states and then capping the grants. But historical data on grants indicates that over time this will result in a decline in Medicaid funding. And the nation's neediest citizens will feel the impact.
Nonetheless, there is broad support among congressional Republicans and their wealthy donors for reducing the cost of entitlements. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who is the Republican Senate Finance Committee Chair, summarized the sentiment of his colleagues last week in a speech on the Senate floor. "I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won't help themselves, won't lift a finger, and expect the federal government to do everything."
Sadly, the Republican dream of undoing entitlement programs established by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society may finally be within their reach.
Senate Republicans are pushing hard for a vote this week on their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, aka the ACA. But the Senate plan takes coverage away from 22 million Americans, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office released on Monday. The CBO also projects the plan will reduce the deficit by $321 billion over the next decade. And the bill's authors utilized some trickery to get their bill scored slightly better than its House counterpart proposal, which President Donald Trump called "mean."
The Senate GOP proposal will phase out Medicaid's expansion, it will cap Medicaid spending to the states, it will repeal Obamacare taxes used to fund the program, and it will restructure subsidies to insurance customers. The federal government currently picks up between 50 and 100 percent of the states' healthcare costs. The Republicans want to reduce these costs through block grants that are capped to slow growth. This will leave it to the states to cover any difference and administer healthcare. But the effect will be to reduce federal Medicaid spending over time, leaving millions of those who need support most without health insurance.
In January President Donald Trump told The Washington Post, "We are going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us." The House GOP earlier had passed their version of health care, which President Trump feted at a White House ceremony with Congressional Republicans. But later he turned on them by describing the bill as "mean." Now he is pushing for passage of the Senate Republican bill, which is not dissimilar to the House version.
Health care represents one sixth of the U.S. gross domestic product, or more than $2.6 trillion. Medicaid spending has reached $575 billion annually. The Health Insurance Association of America defines Medicaid as a "government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care." Republicans have long strived to cut Medicaid costs in an effort to reduce the U.S. deficit. They believe that block granting it to the states will make it more efficient.
The federal government's options for reducing Medicaid costs are limited. It can reduce the number of people covered, it can reduce the benefit coverage, it can pay less for benefits, it can get doctors and hospitals to accept less in reimbursement, or it can ask beneficiaries to pay more. Both the House and Senate bills would have a devastating impact millions of Americans by throwing the problem to the states and cutting the growth of Medicaid subsidies over time through a cap on spending. While the CBO shows that healthcare price increases will in a couple years be less under the Senate version than Obamacare, those covered will get less for their money.
For more than seven years Republicans have railed against Obamacare. President Trump campaigned heavily against Obamacare, pledging at a Florida rally in October to repeal and replace it. "That begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare," he promised. "You're going to have such great health care, at a tiny fraction of the cost--and it's going to be so easy." Four months later a frustrated President Trump told reporters, "It's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
Senate Republican leadership turned this complicated task over to thirteen of its members, all men, who then crafted its health care bill behind closed doors. The measure was released to the public last Thursday, leaving little time for public scrutiny. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, was debated over months of hearings and Republicans added more than one hundred amendments to the legislation. Clearly Senate Leader Mitch McConnell knew his caucus's bill would be unpopular. But now President Trump is championing the Senate bill, even though it will adversely impact millions of his own supporters while giving tax breaks to the rich, like the Trump family. All Trump, a self-proclaimed dealmaker, cares about is making a deal.
Ultimately, someone has to pay if health care is to cover those who can least afford it. The American Medical Association sent a letter to Leader McConnell warning that the Senate's Obamacare repeal plan could hurt America's "most vulnerable citizens." The key to covering more Americans while lowering health insurance costs is risk sharing, where the healthy contribute to pay the costs. But Congressional Republicans are more focused on fulfilling their campaign promise to repeal Obamacare, even at the risk of losing Congressional seats in the 2018 Midterm elections, especially in those states that have already accepted Medicaid coverage.
Yet President Trump is exhorting Republicans on Twitter--driving them to close the deal and perhaps off the cliff in 2018. "Republican Senators are working very hard to get there, with no help from the Democrats. Not easy! Perhaps just let OCare crash & burn!" he tweeted Monday. Of course it would be easier to fix Obamacare, and former House Speaker John Boehner warned Republicans that once you give people and entitlement you can't take it away.
So Republicans have replaced a "mean" proposal with a less mean proposal. Now passage rests in the hands of a handful of uncommitted Senate Republicans. Were Hippocrates, the father of medicine in Western Culture, alive today he would give each of them this advice: "Do no harm."
But this is politics, and nobody knew it could be so complicated.
President Elect Donald Trump will be sworn in to office Friday as America's 45th president on the west front of the U.S. Capitol before thousands of supporters and millions watching on television around the world. The peaceful transition of power will symbolize the strength of the American democracy.
Perhaps equally important will be what President Trump has to say in his inaugural address. The nation has been deeply divided for decades by partisan politics; the world has been roiled with regional conflicts and the growing threat of terrorism. Will the newly sworn-in president speak of his genuine interest of uniting the country, which is rich with diverse cultures and beliefs? Will he clearly identify the threats, foreign and domestic, facing the nation, and assure even his most strident opponents that he has the temperament and character to lead the country?
Many of his predecessors used their inaugural address to set a tone for their presidency. In his first address, President Thomas Jefferson said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have been called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
Following a great Civil War President Lincoln sought to heal the nation's wounds in his second inaugural address. "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds," he said. "To do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
In his first inaugural address, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to a nation crippled by the Great Depression. "This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Roosevelt intoned. "In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with the understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
As the nation was still recovering from World War II, it elected a war hero as its president. In his first inaugural address President Dwight Eisenhower said, "We are summoned to act in wisdom and in conscience, to work with industry, to teach with persuasion, to preach with conviction, to weigh every deed with care and compassion. For this truth must be clear before us: whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America."
President John F. Kennedy, who was elected in 1960 in a close election, sought to mobilize young idealistic citizens with his stirring oration. "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans," he declared. "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."
President Ronald Reagan was elected in a landslide in 1980 as the country was reeling from inflation, high unemployment and gasoline prices, and a crisis of confidence. "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem," he maintained in his first inaugural address. "We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the earth. Our government has no power except that granted by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."
President Barack Obama was the first African American elected to the nation's highest office. The deeply divided country was mired in two costly wars, was experiencing its worst economic recession in nearly one hundred years, and was split along party lines. A massive crowd of 1.8 million people attended his swearing in, which was watched by a record audience around the globe. "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." He continued, "On this day, we come to proclaim and end to petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for too long have strangled our politics."
Despite the soaring rhetoric, many presidents were not able to achieve all of their goals. But President Trump's inaugural speech comes at an important time in this nation's history. He will face enormous challenges, domestic and foreign. The election is over, and while he finished second in the popular vote, he won the presidency. And while the Russians meddled in the election, he was the winner.
The American presidency is the most powerful office in the world. Now it is time for President Trump to actually govern. Now it is time for him to end his personal insults, his impulsive and boorish behavior. Now it is the time for an end to his Twitter rants, or tirades against the press. Now it is time for him to praise U.S. intelligent agencies and their courageous employees, and to praise America's allies and support its alliances.
Now it is time for President Trump to act presidential. Too much is a stake.
President elect Donald Trump is a loggerheads with the U.S. intelligence community just weeks before he is to be sworn into office. The Washington Post reported that the C.I.A. had determined that Russia had interfered with last month’s presidential election in an effort to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. The Russians broke into Democratic National Committee computer networks and released embarrassing documents and emails in the weeks prior to the election. The New York Times reported the Russians had also hacked Republican National Committee computers but did not release any of those documents.
The Post quoted a senior U.S. official as saying, “It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help get Trump elected.” The Trump transition team responded with a snarky statement, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” In an interview released Wednesday, Trump told Timemagazine, “I don’t believe it. I don’t believe (Russia) interfered.” But President Obama has now ordered a full review “of what happened during the 2016 election process” to be completed before he leaves office.
While there is no evidence yet that the Russians or President Vladimir Putin did anything that would alter the outcome of the election, Trump supporters are concerned that these reports may be an effort to delegitimize his presidency. Trump praised Putin as a strong leader during the presidential campaign. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Twitter Saturday, “I’m not challenging the outcome of the election, but very concerned about Russian interference/actions at home & throughout the world.”
President Putin has been waging a multi-front campaign for years to destabilize Western democracies and undermine NATO. Trump was critical of NATO during his campaign. Russia has endured tough sanctions as a result of its invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions have added to the severe economic problems the country is facing. While Russia has been a partner of the U.S. in the Iranian nuclear deal, it has been at odds with the West over its military support of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, which has only intensified that country’s civil war and compounded the human tragedy currently taking place.
Putin is a master manipulator, and he may be betting that businessman Donald Trump would be easier to deal with on several fronts. Trump’s imminent announcement of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State nominee is an added plus for Putin. Tillerson and Putin are friends and have done business together. The ExxonMobil website claims that the company “has had a continuous business presence in Russia for more than 20 years.” No project is more important than a joint venture between Exxon and the Russian state owned company Rosneft to drill oil in the Arctic’s Kara Sea. That project had been halted due to the
sanctions, but Tillerson has said he does not believe the Russian sanctions work. This week it was announced that Russia sold a 20% stake in Rosneft for $11.7 billion based on expectations that sanctions would be eased under a Trump presidency.
Putin is a trained KGB officer and he runs his country with a ruthless hand. He has cracked down on civil society, the media, he has intensified persecution of his critics, and he has fanned anti-Western sentiment in Russia. Two weeks ago Republican Senator John McCain warned Trump against another reset with Putin. “At the very least, the price of another “reset” would be complicity in Putin and Assad’s butchery of the Syrian people,” he said. “When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side of those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again.”
A Russian friend of mine recently asked me if I heard the latest joke from his homeland. “President Putin has appointed Donald Trump as the head of America,” he said with a chuckle. This may be funny to Russians, but it is a scary thought to any American. President elect Trump should be treating all U.S. national security agencies with the highest respect. To attack them will only weaken and discourage their efforts at a critical time. Further, he must treat Putin as a serious threat to this nation. The future of freedom and democracy is at stake.
As billionaire Donald Trump unleashes his barrage of sharp attacks on Fox News and its anchor Megyn Kelly, other Republican candidates have improved their chances to gain their party's presidential nomination over the past few days. Yet, as each of the seventeen announced candidates jockeys for position, Trump still continues to be the center of attention.
Thursday's prime time debate on Fox News drew a record 24 million viewers, and they saw quite a show. Fox News anchors Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace asked tough questions and skillfully managed the time among the ten candidates on stage. While all of their questions were fair, many important subjects were not raised, like climate change, gun violence and voting rights.
Trump attempted to lower expectations for his performance in advance of the debate. Many pundits predicted he would not attack his opponents as he has done regularly in his campaign. Yet, Trump found himself on the defensive from the opening question.
Bret Baier began the debate by asking if all of the candidates would promise not to run as an independent candidate and support the party's nominee. Trump would not, saying, “I will not make that pledge at this time… I have to respect the person.” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul chimed in, “This is what’s wrong. He buys
and sells politicians of all stripes…He’s already hedging his bet on
the Clintons … He’s already hedging his bets because he’s used to buying
politicians.” Trump smugly responded to Paul, “Well, I’ve given him plenty of money.”
Later, moderator Megyn Kelly grilled Trump on his comments about women.
“You’ve called women you don’t like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,'” she said.
“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump interrupted.
“For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell,” Kelly retorted.
“Yes, I’m sure it was,” Trump said dismissively.
Kelly continued, “Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about
women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it
would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to
you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how
will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be
the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
Trump answered, “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.”
Following the debate Trump went to the airwaves and Twitter to attack Kelly's questions as "ridiculous" and "off base." He told CNN, "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes...Blood coming out of her wherever." But the comment drew the ire of conservatives, even though Trump later said he meant blood coming out of her nose or ears and nothing more. Trump added, "Only a deviant would think anything else." But the conservative group RedState.com withdrew its invitation for Trump to appear at its weekend gathering.
Trump's attacks on Megyn Kelly only diminish him and makes him look overly defensive. Meanwhile, he found himself aggressively reassuring his supporters in a round of interviews on the Sunday public affairs shows. On CBS's Face the Nation, he said, "I will be phenomenal to women." On ABC's This Week he said, "I have many executives that are women." And on NBC's Meet the Press he said it would be difficult for women to criticize him, "It's very hard for them to attack me on looks because I'm so good looking."
As Trump struggles to contain the damage from his remarks, several other candidates have made headway in their campaign among conservative Republicans. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina was the big winner Thursday even though she appeared in the afternoon debate. She showed she is ready for prime time and might make a strong vice presidential candidate.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Ohio Governor John Kasich both did well in Thursday night's debate, and their performances could build real momentum for their campaigns. Meanwhile, one-time front-runner Jeb Bush did not hurt himself among likely Republican voters with his debate performance, which may be viewed as a victory by those who are supporting him.
The Republican Party conducted an "autopsy" following Governor Mitt Romney's loss to President Barack Obama in 2012. Its report said, “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become
expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded
people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive
with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.”
Thursday night's dissonant debate once again shows that the Republican party has not changed.
