Listen to this short piece and you realize what’s missing from our reporting.
Frank Bruni/NY Times:
Why Does Donald Trump Keep Dissing Jews?
I’m not convinced that Trump is much of an anti-Semite, any more than I’m convinced that he’s much of a homophobe. (Racism and sexism are another matter.) But I think he’s so thirsty for, and intoxicated by, whatever love comes his way that he’s loath to rebuff the sources of it.
A prominent Jewish Republican put it well. “I think Trump is such a pathological narcissist that the act of telling people who love you that you reject them — he can’t get around that,” he told me, interpreting Trump’s reasoning this way: “What can be wrong with them? They’re for me!”
Trump is disinclined to denounce any constituency or tactics that elevate him to the throne, where he’s sure that he belongs. The outcome validates even the ugliest and most divisive ascent.
“I don’t think he’s goading these people or associating with them because he shares their views,” the Republican added. “I do think that he’s so insensitive about the presidency — about the responsibilities of the leader of the free world — that he doesn’t realize it’s not enough to say, once or twice, ‘I don’t agree with them.’ He doesn’t realize that you have to be very clear.” And he doesn’t realize — or care — that he’s validating and encouraging them.
Yeah, Russian collusion to screw the US. But the story is still ripening. Jr’s defense is they lied to him and didn’t have the goods. But, by the way, everything we said about Trump is true. From the nepotism to the narcissism to the corruption to the part about casual treason.
NY Times:
Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton
And while President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and the Russians, the episode at Trump Tower is the first such confirmed private meeting involving members of his inner circle during the campaign — as well as the first one known to have included his eldest son. It came at an inflection point in the campaign, when Donald Trump Jr., who served as an adviser and a surrogate, was ascendant and Mr. Manafort was consolidating power.
It is unclear whether the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually produced the promised compromising information about Mrs. Clinton. But the people interviewed by The Times about the meeting said the expectation was that she would do so.
Josh Marshall has the most coherent explainer:
Taking Stock of the Times Blockbuster
More to come.
Good thread here.
Context:
Paul Waldman/The Week:
Liberals, get your story straight on single payer
But everyone who cares about it needs a very specific and clear answer to this question: When you say "single payer," what exactly do you mean?
I suspect that many people don't actually mean single payer when they say "single payer." Liberals like myself have long lamented the fact that alone among the world's advanced industrialized democracies, the United States doesn't have a system that provides universal health coverage. We look around with jealousy at other systems that manage to cover everyone and produce health results that are equal to or better than what we get, all at dramatically lower cost. But those systems vary widely in design, and none of them are truly single payer.
In a true single-payer system, there is only one insurer, the government. It pays for all health care, and is able to use its regulatory and market power to hold prices down and take advantage of bureaucratic efficiencies. The country that comes closest to single payer is Great Britain, with its National Health Service. You might recall that Britons are so proud of the NHS that the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics included a tribute to it.
But even the British system has some private elements to it. And moving to a completely public system from our current mishmash of public and private insurance (and mostly private health providers) would require an extraordinarily costly, complex, and lengthy transition. But maybe that's fine with you — you can argue that in the long run, that maximizes the benefits.
This is posted because the topic comes up more and more:
FactCheck.org (2009):
Public Option Vs. Single Payer
Q: What is the difference between a "public option" and a single-payer plan?
A: Single-payer is a complete government-run health insurance system under which everyone is covered, e.g., Canada’s system. The "public option" is a single federal insurance plan that would compete with private insurance companies.
A public option would be: you’re allowed to buy in to Medicare or Medicaid. Single payer would be that everyone is on Medicare or Medicaid, no more insurance companies. None of the options are universal coverage, though they could be. Immigrants and non US citizens are generally excluded.
For the political ramifications, consider whether the more expensive Medicare or cheaper Medicaid public option is what you want, how you pay for it, and what needs to be done to put in the infrastructure for it. Does it include permanent non citizen residents who could pay in? Does your proposal have a CBO score?
If you are, say, a Senator, or a Democratic Representative from MO, do you vote for that or an ACA fix? Assume you want to get reelected. Assume entrenched interests are monied and run ads against you. What will you do? You have 30 seconds to answer.
My point isn’t that single payer is impossible (note other countries have a universal coverage public-private mix, and here in the US Medicare and Medicaid use private providers, while the VA hires its docs and uses its hospitals). My point is that it’s extremely complicated (short hand is “unworkable”) and that, like it or not, it will likely have to evolve, or at least have more foundational work done. If you push it too soon and too fast you will not get elected/re-elected.
So here’s some of the work that needs to be done re education (and what to emphasize):
Consider the CA experience (see also Waldman’s article above), where the “technocratic expertise to design it” hasn’t had a full accounting for Prop 98. It’s just one example of Health Care Is really Complicated 101.
Bigger, readable chart above at top of post (or click tweet).
WaPo:
Republicans increasingly uncertain of a legislative victory before August
The Republican Congress returns to Capitol Hill this week increasingly uncertain that a major legislative victory is achievable in the three weeks before lawmakers leave town for their month-long summer recess.
Most immediately, GOP leaders and President Trump are under enormous pressure to approve health-care legislation — but that is only the beginning. Virtually every piece of their ambitious legislative agenda is stalled, according to multiple Republicans inside and outside of Congress.
They have made no serious progress on a budget despite looming fall deadlines to extend spending authorization and raise the debt ceiling. Promises to launch an ambitious infrastructure-building program have faded away. And the single issue with the most potential to unite Republicans — tax reform — has yet to progress beyond speeches and broad-strokes outlines.
The fallout, according to these Republicans, could be devastating in next year’s midterm elections. A demoralized GOP electorate could fail to turn out in support of lawmakers they perceive as having failed to fulfill their promises, allowing Democrats to sweep back into the House majority propelled by their own energized base.
This is the reality. “Moderates always fold” is a slogan. Yes, I, like you, won’t fully trust the reports (see the House AHCA votes) unless a vote fails to happen, or doesn’t pass (look for a motion to proceed, the vote that counts). But the GOP agenda is in big trouble. Let’s recognize it instead of denying it.
WaPo:
Republicans thought they could force 2018 Democrats to cut deals, but Trump keeps sliding in polls
Senate Republicans began this year thinking that they had leverage over some Democrats, particularly the 10 up for reelection next year in states that President Trump won in the fall.
Those Democrats, some GOP strategists believed, would want to work with the president to appeal to enough Trump voters to win their states in November 2018.
That didn’t happen. Instead, Trump’s standing has slipped in many of these states. The president has faced legislative gridlock and a deepening investigation of his campaign’s connections to Russia. His focus, in public appearances and on social media, has regularly drifted away from the policy agenda on Capitol Hill.
That’s left Senate Democrats feeling stronger than they expected to be eight months after their highly disappointing showing in 2016, which left them in the minority and heading into 2018 defending 25 seats compared with Republicans’ eight.
D moderates face the same pressure as R so-called moderates (really, just pragmatists as Rs have no moderates). And Trump’s low standing is why they are not folding like an old bridge table.
Politico:
Time away from Washington deepens GOP misgivings about health plan
Corralling 50 votes looks even more daunting in the run-up to August recess.
At a Rotary Club meeting in Glasgow,Kentucky, McConnell opened the door a bit further to the possibility that the GOP repeal effort might fail, forcing him to turn to Democrats for a bipartisan effort to boost the health insurance markets — a warning he first issued last week after a meeting with President Donald Trump.
Implicit in those remarks was a recognition that letting Obamacare fail and blaming the fallout on Democrats — an idea Trump has floated — is not an option, particularly now that Republicans have spent more than six months debating health care.
"McConnell is now really in a position in which there are two constituencies out there: conservatives who have been told we need to repeal this and the broader rank and file who see it’s not working as well as it should," said Rodney Whitlock, vice president of health policy at ML Strategies. McConnell's remarks "recognize the political reality that Republicans have to pick one and satisfy them."
Gee, it’s almost like there’s a theme here.
Derek Thompson/Atlantic:
What on Earth Is Wrong With Connecticut?
Conservatives say the state has a tax problem. Liberals say it has an inequality problem. What it really has is a city problem
The rise and fall of Connecticut fits into the story of American cities. In the 1970s, American metros were suffering a terrible crime wave, and New York was dropping dead. That meant boom times for New York’s suburbs and southwestern Connecticut.* Headquarters or major offices from more than 100 Fortune 500 companies fled New York City for leafy suburban campuses, according Aaron M. Renn, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. But now many of those companies are moving back, lured by newly lower-crime cities and the hip urban neighborhoods where the most educated young workers increasingly want to live. At the end of the 20th century, New York City’s pain was Connecticut’s gain. Now, New York City’s (and Boston’s) gain is Connecticut’s pain.
The people that can afford to move to Connecticut are from NY and Boston. A modest raised ranch is 300K in my area. For that price in KY, e.g., you can get a lot more house. Just sayin’.
From the guy who gave us a heads up about big James Comey news pieces about to break:
Kyle Pope/CJR:
Our response to each of Trump’s media-bashing episodes comes off as if we’re hearing them for the first time. Can you believe he said that? Could this be the thing that finally does him in? Does he have no respect for the First Amendment?
The answer, of course, is that he doesn’t respect the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. The media’s impulse, which is understandable, is to keep the focus on his threats to the press, and not to let them become normalized. But we have reached the point at which the media response has become counterproductive and even beneficial to the president and his lackeys in the White House, who have turned the West Wing into a megaphone for Trump’s faux media war and reporters in the White House briefing room into photo-op foils. It’s amazing, and absurd, that we turn over live television to the press secretary to air the administration’s latest broadside against the press, and let senior administration officials go off the record to attack our own outlets.
What we’re missing–as I pointed out in an open letter to Trump on the eve of his inauguration–is that we aren’t obligated to cede the media agenda to this or any other administration. We control the airtime, we decide who gets quoted and how, we set the rules of engagement. The daily White House press briefings outlived their usefulness months ago. Now it’s time to reassess how we cover Trump and ourselves.