Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016 Worst Case Scenario

Trump’s Kleptocracy Is So Astounding It Already Feels Like Old News; related, The Constitution (Probably) Won’t Save Us If Trump Becomes a Kleptocrat.
I have urged that we reject the impulse to "normalize" Trump and his incoming administration. It is not, in any way, shape, or form "normal." My fear is that we become inured to the incredibly bad, bad habits and forms of this man and his minions. The ineffably short-sighted habits of our Congress is extended to the electorate who cannot remember who was responsible for the economic collapse, and the disaster of the Middle East, which occurred less than a decade ago.

There are two inevitable paths that I see us proceeding down in the next 1-4 years: First, is an immediate Constitutional crisis (which presumes that Congress might actually get its act together); the second is an economic and political disaster of astounding proportions, followed by a Constitutional crisis. Both of those scenarios, however, are predicated on the optimistic view that we survive a Trump presidency as a Nation, a conclusion which is far from foregone. We thought Reagan was Teflon? The dozens of astounding, unprecedented views and lack of qualifications of Trump are only exceeded by the demonstrable lies that he told throughout his campaign. How can that be acceptable? What can possibly follow?

The President (and Vice President) have been exempted from the literal application of executive ethics rules because of the perception that the Legislative Branch imposing such rules on the Executive Branch would violate the principle of "Separation of Powers." If Trump continues down the path he has already outlined, at some point Congress may step in and pass new laws to curb his avarice and self-dealing. The ever-litigious Trump would, of course, bring suit to stop any such laws. He might even (have to) self-fund the litigation. The courts, of course, are not likely to step in - but either way they rule is likely to create a crisis. If Congress fails to act, the norms of the office will be so thoroughly trashed that Jerry Springer will look like a paragon of virtue by comparison.

It is possible that laws will be/have been broken, and an impeachment could follow (after all, Nixon was impeached by a Republican Congress). But, it truly is hard to imagine such a partisan body allowing that process to go forward (unless the situation were already so bad that their party would be thrust into obscurity). In that circumstance, I can see such a nihilistic creature as Trump orchestrating international crises (plural) to try to stay in power. They may be inevitable anyway. Syria may have already been lost to Russian adventurism; Ukraine or Georgia may yet be swallowed whole; China is likely to be emboldened to crack down in Hong Kong, expand its holdings in the South China Sea, and even invade Taiwan (directly or indirectly). Would the nation's citizenry be willing to "change horses" in the middle of crises of such proportion if they didn't after the Iraq disasters?

It is time to think seriously about the unthinkable.

Perhaps not surprisingly, after posting the above, I came across another article that made the same point, if maybe a little more succinctly. The point is that there exist in the Constitution "Emoluments" clauses - which prohibits any US officer (including the President) from accepting emoluments (money or gifts) from foreign nations, or the United States, above his/her salary. Trump is already doing so, and has explicitly stated an intent to continue to do so. Former Bush ethics lawyer: The elec...f he’s violating the Emoluments Clause

There's a hole in that Emoluments Clause a mile wide.


They haven't exactly given him blanket consent to do whatever he damn well pleases yet.
But they also haven't made any moves to deny that consent up front.

So far I'm hearing nothing about "conflicts of interest" from the Republican side of the aisle, but if he doesn't toe the line and sign their legislation he's certainly in line for a dose of reality.

Donald Trump promised to "repeal and replace Obamacare". Congress has promised only to repeal it.
I don't even need to drag out my dusty failure of a crystal ball to tell you what's going to happen on this front.

This is liable to be the first test of Donald Trump's resolve to help the working class voters who elected him and the first look at how the next four years are going to play out.

There are actually three "emoluments" clauses: One for Congress, one for "officers" (Article I, Section 9), and one explicitly for the President (Article II, Section 7)
The second one is the one most often cited as "the Emoluments clause" - as it is fairly broad, but the third is both a blessing and a curse. Since it is explicit to the President, it has separate implications (and creates an argument that Article I, Section 9 doesn't apply to the President), and its wording is ambiguous enough that the entire Seventh Fleet can cruise through it. But the principle is pretty straightforward and can be synthesized by a willing court: You can't make outside money from being in office. There is a direct and interesting issue regarding the Trump International in the Old Post Office - that is an emolument coming directly from the United States government.

Donald Trump gives up a $400K salary as President only to get $1.5m worth of protection services for his family plus $1.5m in revenue to Trump Organization, LLC in return.

Double-dipping. Wow. Just wow. Can you imagine how ape-sh!t ballistic the wingnuts would be if Obama had done that?!?

'
I dread the appearance of descending into numerological fantasy, but there is a curious repetition to US history. At almost exact periods of eighty years the USA goes through a crisis and re-emerges as a completely different country. Just before the transformation, there is a four to six year period when the old country appears to be unsustainable.

1780 -- The colonial administration is on the point of collapse, preceded by four years of insurrection.

1860 -- The country is about to be torn apart, preceded by the four years of the ineffectual Buchanan administration, which witnessed Bloody Kansas, the Dred Scot decision, Harper's Ferry, etc. The USA was about to change from a country of agriculture and small-scale industry to one of buccaneer capitalism and monopoly.

1940 -- An isolationist and unmilitaristic America rushes into world war and hegemonic world domination; it becomes a hyper-militaristic national security state, evermore obsessed with maintaining and extending its empire.

2020 -- ??? In the present period of storm and stress, with an evermore divided country, with corruption rampant in almost every institution and aspect of society, this strange fatality seems about to be repeated.
.

If it gets repealed and little or nothing gets put in its place, the math tells me that the health care industry AND the insurance industry that serves it will take a massive hit.

Remember about two or three years ago when I presented a scenario in which the nation's health insurance CEO's would stand up before Congress in a pose like this?



I was saying that they would have their right hands raised and their left palms extended outward, demanding BAILOUTS.

Their hit won't be nearly as massive as the one taken by millions of uninsured Americans. In their effort to reduce taxes and cut government spending Republicans are going to unleash a shyte storm of unintended consequences.

Replacing it with something better is going to cost people more. Making it cheaper is going to make it worse or leave some people uncovered that have coverage now. ACA was made with the cooperation of the insurers, big medical providers, and big drug companies, all agreeing on a plan they could support.

Who will they screw? Because any change will screw somebody. I have a very strong feeling it's not going to be drug companies, doctors, or insurers.

I guess the best thing they could do is to repeal the mandate and the laws that require free treatment for the uninsured. That way the idiots who don't get insurance die off eventually. Natural selection improves the population.

I thought we were all smart enough that we didn't need to discuss the glaringly obvious. Of COURSE millions of uninsured Americans will take the larger hit but that is not what will trigger the demand for a bailout.

Along with the sick people, the insurers also took on millions of relatively healthy people who are paying for insurance.
This is the hit I am talking about.
My son is sick, my daughter is healthy.
Both are paying for insurance. Only one actually uses any of it.
As you said, this was developed with the support of the insurance companies, and they were willing to support it because they knew that they would get an increase in market.

If the ACA is unplugged, that's a cash hit.
It's a cash hit even if you take the very sick into account.
Both sick and health policyholders who previously were not customers will disappear from their revenue stream.

Even if you take into account the insurers who were pulling out of unprofitable markets, let's assume that they at least know enough about their business to prop up what is profitable, even if it is minimal. Businesses, especially health insurers, do not want one thing in particular...massive and sudden changes to their revenue stream. They don't want that, and they don't want uncertainty, and my money says that their response to those things will be to stick their hands out to Congress or to sue.
Private prisons regularly sue states when they don't see full capacity. If they aren't 90% full with inmates or better, they sue to make up for lost revenue.

My money says health insurers are going to want to claw back whatever is taken from them, either by demanding money from Congress or by suing state and federal governments.