Politics – Page 9 – Pat the Expat

AMLO: A primer

By now you have no doubt heard about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO (“ahm-low”) the President-elect of Mexico who will take office on December 1st. He is an interesting character, and worth getting to know better, as he portends major changes in Mexico.

AMLO came from a middle class Mexican background. Like any politician in Mexico, he began as a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled the country as a single party state for most of the 20th century. In 1988 he left the PRI for a left-wing splinter party which became the PRD, and it was as a PRD candidate he rose to national prominence as the ‘mayor’ of the federal district, Mexico City. He won in the 2000 wave election that turned out the PRI for the first time. Then called the Distrito Federal or DF, the Mexico City region (now CDMX) is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere and dominates Mexican politics. For comparison, Mexico City has 21 million inhabitants; Guadalajara is the second city with about 4 million. While AMLO espoused many socialist programs, he governed as a pragmatic leader. He was budget conscious, increased social spending for the most vulnerable, partnered with business leaders to renovate major areas of the city, and reduced crime.

Coming off a successful audition in Mexico City and a 70% approval rate, AMLO ran for the federal presidency in 2006 as a coalition PRD candidate; he received about 35% of the vote but lost by one-half of one percent to the PAN candidate, in an election many thought was manipulated to defeat him. He subsequently protested the result, and lost much of his popularity for appearing to be a sore loser.

AMLO ran again in the 2012 Presidential election and finished second, as Enrique Peña Nieto brought the PRI back to power. Sensing that party politics was part of the problem, AMLO split from the PRD and formed MORENA, a non-party Movement for National Regeneration. MORENA swept to power on a populist wave in the recently completed 2018 election, leaving all other parties in tatters.

López Obrador moderated some of his earlier positions, supporting NAFTA, allowing for some de-nationalization of the oil monopoly (PEMEX), while continuing to argue for higher minimum wages, increased social spending, an end to the war on drugs, and an end to endemic corruption. He remains a fiery orator, easily offended, and enjoys staking out maximalist positions without explaining how he will implement them. For instance, he suggests that corruption will end based on his personal example as a man of modest means (he will not live in the presidential palace, flies commercial, and declined police protection as a candidate).

Many have speculated on how the populist leaders north and south of the Río Grande will get along. President Trump has used Mexico and Mexicans as a handy foil to blame. Surprisingly, his attacks made little difference down here, and the historic election results were mainly due to popular discontent over drug violence, political corruption, and the main parties inability to do anything about either. Presidente López Obrador will have his hands full with his mandates on corruption and violence. There is actually much the two leaders can agree on, if they can look past the need to play to nationalist memes (easier south of the border than north).

There will be tough language and occasional flare-ups, for sure. However, there are important areas where the two Presidents’ interests coincide. Presidente López Obrador wants a stronger Mexican economy that keeps Mexicans home, which would be good news to President Trump, who also argued that Mexican auto workers get paid too little, which fits neatly with Presidente López Obrador’s support for higher domestic wages. Both men want stronger national economies and may be more willing to cut a bilateral trade deal as a result. If they can rise above “the wall” rhetoric, US approval for a guest worker program might be a good quid pro quo for better Mexican control of its southern border.

The last time US- Mexican relations seemed headed for a major positive change was when President George W. Bush (former Texas Governor) teamed up with newly elected Presidente Vincente Fox (conservative PAN party leader and former Governor of Guanajuato). That progress was sidetracked within a year by the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001.

Perhaps the time is ripe now: stranger things have happened!

The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker

While we were on pilgrimage, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held forth its opinion in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), popularly known as the “anti-gay bakery case.” I would like to revisit it now, because the popular views of the court’s ruling (both for and against) were so misinformed as to be unintelligible, and to consider what this case portends with respect to the ongoing crisis of incivility.

First, to the facts of the case. It is important to understand that what I write in this paragraph is not an opinion of mine or anyone else. The facts of this case were never in dispute: neither the plaintiff nor the defendant disagreed about them. Those facts were: Mr. Phillips was a Colorado baker who makes both normal, daily bakery items and custom-ordered designs. Mssrs. Craig and Mullins were a homosexual couple living in Colorado and planning to get married in Massachusetts, and they went to Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a custom cake to celebrate their impending nuptials. Phillips refused to create such a cake, due to his religious beliefs that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Phillips admitted he had no religious obligation to refuse them normal service, and offered any off-the-shelf product to his customers. Mssrs. Craig and Mullins filed a civil complaint before the CCRC contending that Phillips violated Colorado’s law against discrimination. The CCRC held Phillips in violation of the statute and fined him.

SCOTUS held for Phillips, the plaintiff, voiding the penalties applied to him by the CCRC under Colorado law. Conservatives of various stripes hailed this as a victory for personal religious liberty; progressives cited it as a legitimization of hate. Most news coverage highlighted these viewpoints, even though both views were wrong. Let me explain.

The plaintiff’s case relied heavily upon freedom of speech, and only secondarily on freedom of religion. Phillips’ argument was that making a custom cake was artistic expression (already held to be freedom of speech by SCOTUS), and he could not be compelled to express a belief (gay marriage) he did not hold simply because his services were for sale. While all the opinions discussed this issue, it was not the basis of the decision. Writing for the 7-2 majority (an important point, that), Justice Kennedy never resolved the discrimination vs. religious liberty issue, although he did concede that freedom of speech was at risk. What he focused on was the CCRC ruling, or more specifically, what the CCRC did and said in making that ruling. This is where it gets very interesting.

Citing the transcripts of the CCRC hearings, Kennedy found that the commission–which is responsible for protecting against all unjust discrimination, including anti-religious discrimination–had in fact engaged in anti-religious hostility. Commissioners “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” One commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

I mentioned the outcome was 7-2. Unlike some of the controversial 5-4 SCOTUS decisions recently announced, Masterpiece Cake shop’s majority included Justice Kennedy (who established Gay rights in his former majority opinions) along with Justices Breyer and Kagan! The last two published a concurring opinion which emphasized that it would be ok for a state to punish the baker’s refusal, but in this case the state had engaged in religious hostility. Thus this aspect was not narrow, and the outcome even more striking.

Contra much public reporting, this case neither established a religious exemption for behavior nor legalized hate. What it did do was more important, in my opinion. SCOTUS held that suggesting religious believers, even individual ones, cannot express and act on their views in public is a form of anti-religious bigotry. Further, suggesting “religious people” are inherently no different than Nazis or slave holders is inappropriate. One can hear these arguments made regularly on social media. It is heartening to know that in the United States, such views are beyond the pale, and subject to civil sanction.

Civility demands we not question each other’s motives. Everyone is free to bring ideas forward for consideration, and those ideas will fail or succeed based on the merit in them. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., hoped for a nation where one was not judged by the color of one’s skin, but on the content of one’s character. It goes without saying our ideas should not be judged by the religion (or irreligion) of whoever proposes them, but by the quality the ideas possess.

Unspeakable, not Unsolvable

Those who regularly follow my blog know I rarely venture into political commentary, as that field is overgrown with poisonous weeds and nasty critters. Sometimes, stuff happens that you just can’t ignore; this is one of those times.

The current US administration policy requiring the separation of illegal migrant children from their parents–for whatever reason–is an abomination. The DHS Secretary and others claim that this is simply the inevitable result of a series of court findings and laws passed under previous administrations. That is a technicality, and irrelevant. If it were the case, the separations would have commenced back in January 2017. Attorney General Sessions has admitted part of the reason is ‘to send a signal’ to deter further illegal immigration. You do not send a signal by mistreating children, unless you are the Mob, or MS-13.

This is an administration choice: a conscious policy decision. It must be reversed.

Why is the administration doing this? I contend that President Trump is irritated that he cannot get his border wall funded by Congress. Further, the policies of President Obama set a precedent that children illegally entering the country would be treated more favorably, and this predictably caused the latest immigration challenge of minors (with or without parents) arriving at our borders. It was a crisis in 2014; it is less so today, but still a challenge. We must be honest about the conditions that created the opportunity for this vile policy.

All that said, nothing justifies the current policy: it is abhorrent. We have to come to grips with several real issues.

First, the Unites States cannot accept all families and children who are threatened by violence in their native lands. It sounds sweet, but it cannot be. Thus we have to give our immigration officials guidance to determine who does qualify for asylum under such circumstances, and who does not. This will be hard, and will result in some sad cases. Anybody who wants to join the argument must answer the question “where would you draw the line?” If you just want to post pictures of children crying, you disqualify yourself from the debate. Posit a solution.

Second, we need to clearly publicize our policies in those countries which are the primary source of such immigration, mostly in Central America, and we need the cooperation of local governments with our policy. We also need to improve our relationship with Mexico, as this is the means for such migration and when we have poor relations, the Mexican government feels no need to assist us in reducing it.

Third, we probably need to fund President Trump’s wall. Notice I didn’t say “build it,” just fund it. It won’t work; I explained why here. But as long as it remains unfunded, he will continue to search for ways to leverage any issue into a trade for funding. That is what is happening now, in my opinion. It is a huge infrastructure project, it won’t get done anytime soon, and we can pull the funding as soon as the chief proponent is gone.

Fourth, we need a rational policy for temporary workers from Mexico. We had a good guest worker program (Bracero) for years until President Kennedy went along with spiking it in the 1960s. Re-institute it, which will immediately improve the US- Mexico relationship, help ICE re-direct to more important matters (like violent criminal aliens), and provide needed workers in agriculture (we are approaching full employment, meaning soon there will be more jobs than people to do them).

Fifth, whatever rules we come up with for families with asylum requests, or for entering illegally, we will need to have some way to detain them. Anyone arguing to resume the failed “catch-and-release” policy of past administrations is being irresponsible. While there is no immigrant crisis, the notion that we can simply detain such people then release them in the country until they eventually (could be years!) get a hearing is unworkable. Think it doesn’t cost us much? It led to the Trump phenomenon. Ponder that for a moment. Therefore, detaining families or unaccompanied minors is going to mean some type of camps, and we need to be clear-eyed about the conditions. They need to be safe, secure, and comfortable (remembering the standard of comfort migrants expect). The camps we have now are pretty good; don’t believe me, read this from the Washington Post. When we compare them to the Holocaust we undermine the case. The camps are not the problem; the stupid, immoral policy is the problem.

I will not apportion blame in this case; there is plenty to go around. Both sides are playing to their bases, using images and sound-bites to fire up the crowd. Since Mr. Trump is President and the Republicans are in control of both houses, it is incumbent on them to lead. The Democrats must stop using this issue as a tool for the mid-term elections. If anyone really cares about the people, the children, they will stop scoring political points and act, by compromising.

This is difficult, not impossible. This is unspeakable, not unsolvable.

A video with a side of politics

While we continue our travels across the US (currently in New Hampshire), we try to keep up with news from back home in Mexico. Judy found this embedded video on FaceBook. It is from some media source called CGTN America, of which I have never heard, but it captures some of the different aspects of life around Lake Chapala. It is 16 minutes long, but worth the watch.

What I think is unfair in the video are the several mentions of Americans arriving in Mexico because they disagree with the state of politics in the States. I don’t doubt some expats move abroad for such reasons, but if you are running from something rather than toward something, your expat experience is far likelier to fail.

The bottom line is there are, according to the US government, 10,000 baby-boomers retiring every day for the next 20 years! Most real estate markets in the States have recovered from the real estate bubble many years back, so retirees who need to sell their homes to pay for a retirement place can now do so. Mexico remains close at hand, inexpensive, and fairly welcoming. Thus we’ll see a continuing stream of newbies trying out the expat lifestyle.

Some Thoughts on Health Care

Everyone had a good laugh when President Trump suddenly announced that “no one knew how difficult health care was going to be” but it may be (unintentionally) the most truthful thing he ever said. Obamacare was a partial solution that reduced the rolls of the uninsured by raising the numbers in Medicaid, creating state exchanges for some, and requiring health insurance for young, healthy individuals who did not want it (or “taxing” them, per the Supreme Court). The Republican’s AHCA is so full of holes in barely merits consideration.

The problems of Obamacare are obvious. Greatly increasing the number of people on Medicaid without increasing the number of doctors accepting Medicaid reimbursement meant theoretical health care, if at all, for many of the poor and sick. State exchanges turned out to be successful as long as federal reinsurance for providers and federal subsidies for consumers were guaranteed to continue to increase indefinitely. And counting young, healthy people as “insured” with a product they never wanted is a unique approach to accounting. So if all this was pretty predictable, why did the Obama administration try it? Why didn’t they go for a single payer option? Federalize healthcare? And why are the Republicans so unprepared to replace Obamacare, if they knew it wouldn’t work and had seven years to prepare to replace it?

“Facts are stubborn things,” as John Adams once said, and here are several facts about health care in America that must be faced directly if we are ever to make any real progress.

Insurance is not health care. Offering insurance where no health care providers participate is a sick joke. This is the challenge of enlarging Medicaid any further. It was also the challenge undermining the state exchanges, where health care providers are leaving because they can’t make enough profit to justify being in the market. Unless you are willing to “draft” our existing health infrastructure into federal service, you have to address the profit motive, and health care supply and demand. Doctors and hospitals (even non-profits) are a limited resource. Those who still desire to federalize health care need look no further than the VA for a probable outcome, and the TSA for a worst case scenario.
More Americans get their health care through their work…still. Many policy types hate this fact, and it does cause the complication that those who lose their jobs also lose their health care. But it is a stubborn fact that can not be ignored, and should not be changed just because it is inconvenient to the good ideas of policy makers. Health care has been, and remains, one of the various benefits employers use to attract employees.
Appeals for empathy are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Attempts to portray any new idea or policy as “killing grandma” simply ensure nothing will change. Hard cases like the “Jimmy Kimmel” challenge are a case in point. To remind, Kimmel’s newborn son had a congenital heart condition who required emergency surgery to survive. He cited this case as an example of the horror awaiting the poor who don’t have their children born at expensive, private hospitals. Perhaps he is unaware of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA) of 1986, which requires public hospitals to provide life-saving emergency medical care without payment/insurance. So his hard case is already covered in law. Such appeals only provide more smoke and heat, but rarely shed any light.
Americans are unwilling to adopt healthy lifestyles, and unwilling to accept anything that smacks of health care rationing. This is my most debatable “fact,” but one I think most would admit. Too many American’s approach to health seems to be “leave me alone to eat and drink as I like and do no exercise, but be there with a wonder drug when something goes wrong. If things get worse, continue trying to make me better or just keep me alive no matter what.” In some respects, this is like the economic concept of inelastic demand, in that the health consumer wants the best regardless of cost. Unfortunately, this results in poor health outcomes, elevated costs, and a miracle pill mentality.
Insurance is a tool that covers catastrophe, period. The concept is you get insurance to cover unforeseen costs which would otherwise be unpayable. If you try to use insurance for more than that, you are misusing the tool, which will backfire. Car insurance covers your catastrophic loss, or repairs if your car is damaged and unusable. It does not cover fuel, or oil changes, or new tires. These are all good things to have for your car, but not for insurance to cover. Why should health insurance cover routine or non-emergency health care issues?

Here is where those facts lead, pointing to the beginning of a solution:

Accept that many Americans will work, and most will get their health care through their jobs. Do not fight this legacy: treat it as a feature, not a bug. Plug the gap that exists when people leave a job by allowing them to continue their previous insurance at a greatly reduced rate for a period of one year (maximum, not extendable), with the government picking up most of the insurance tab, like a low-cost version of COBRA. This would also facilitate workers changing jobs and careers, which would enhance mobility. The federal government should also establish certain minimum standards for work-provided health insurance, so it does not turn into a bare bones offering which ends up sending workers to emergency rooms for treatment.
Promote policies which increase access to health care. Remove limitations on health care provided across state lines. Enhance tuition assistance for medical professionals, including reimbursing student debt for those who agree to work in high-need areas or accept Medicaid reimbursement. Provide tax breaks to groups sponsoring wellness and walk-in clinics addressing preventive medicine and routine care. None of these is a panacea, but they are a start at getting more points-of-service for more people.
Establish a national, catastrophic health insurance program. Everyone is automatically enrolled, but this is the ultimate safety net for those who are one day healthy and the next day near death, as well as those with lingering, debilitating conditions. If you have private insurance or can afford to cover your own costs, you are welcome to do so. Run it as an offshoot of Medicaid, with strict rules on what is covered and how service is rationed. Yes, I said it, rationed. Even those who laud health care in Canada or the UK must admit they ration care.
Attack health care cost inflation. Limit the opportunity to sue for medical malpractice and the potential damages, perhaps by direct legislation or placing a significant tax on law firms which profit from the same. Slap a windfall tax on excessive profits for health care providers, medical professionals, or pharmaceutical companies; they can avoid this tax by providing low- or no-cost goods/services to poor Americans. Incentivize average Americans to make full use of preventive care by offering a generous tax credit to those who complete a set of routine tests/services (blood test, flu shots/immunizations, blood pressure, physical, etc.,) annually. Consider additional incentives in the form of government payments into health savings accounts for those who address significant health issues (lose 40 lbs, get $ in your HSA). Empower hospital emergency room physicians to reject non-emergency cases; penalize Americans who use emergency rooms for such care by withdrawing their HSA incentives. The emphasis here is to get Americans to try to stay healthy, mitigating future costs for treatment/prescriptions.
Incentivize states to be the laboratories for new health care policies. Given all the preceding recommendations, there are still gaps for people out of work with health care issues that are neither life-threatening or debilitating. Different states may want to address that gap in different ways. Provide states with block grants that reward programs which identifiable health outcomes (not outputs). Encourage other states to copy successful programs, and defund programs which do not produce such outcomes. If California wants to provide single-payer for its residents, good for them; maybe we can all learn something from that.
Bury, once and for all, the notion of a US-wide single payer system. Countries which have such systems are struggling to pay for them, they ration care, and they have poor deployment of innovative medicine. While the existing US system is sometimes described as heartless and Darwinian, it still produces the greatest array of medical and pharmaceutical innovation in the world. The trick is to retain the benefit of such innovation, while finding a way to reduce the uneven access to good health care at a reasonable cost. Single payer is not the way there.

I have not submitted these concepts to the CBO for a cost estimate, but there is much here to chew on, and I believe it could be tweaked to come in at a reasonable cost. The status quo pre-Obamacare was morally unacceptable; the status quo today with Obamacare is financially unacceptable. The Republicans attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare is DOA mostly because they tried to do it through an obscure Congressional process known as “reconciliation” which limits what could be in the legislation. You can not fix a comprehensive issue with a limited tool kit. The Republicans need to leave Obamacare alone, fully funded as-is for the next two years, and start over with a complete re-work. During those two years, the successes and problems of Obamacare will be evident to even the most ardent partisan, and can inform the development of a bipartisan way forward.

All in all, you’re just another brick in the Wall

Pink Floyd’s The Wall album and movie are about as surreal and over-the-top as one can get, so this is probably the right intro to my first political post. About that Wall.

Let me begin with an admission: I am a conservative and a Catholic. So I hew to many straight line conservative positions (pro defense, pro law-n-order, pro free enterprise) but I have several significant deviations (anti death penalty, pro social services). I am pro legal immigration, and I strongly hold that the first obligation of any state, if it wishes to be recognized as a state, is to control its territory and the flow of goods and people across its borders.

All that said, I am against the Wall. Here’s why:

First off, it addresses an imaginary problem. I hate policies (left or right) that make you feel good but have no other useful effect: they are the auto-erotica of politics. The flow of illegal immigrants across the US border with Mexico is at a four decade low (check the CBP data here). All those jobs NAFTA created in Mexico means more and more Mexicans are staying at home, which believe it or not, they prefer to do. Since 2009, more Mexicans left the US then entered. The illegal immigrants still coming across the border are from Central America. They are fleeing violence and poor economic conditions in the region, transiting Mexico, and then entering the United States. If we want to stop them, we need the Mexican government’s help. When the Obama administration faced an earlier flood of such refugees, it arranged with the Mexican leadership to staunch the flow, which worked for a time.

Second, any military officer will tell you that a wall is just an obstacle, and unless it is manned and covered by fire (weapons) it is ineffective. The only walls I have seen which were effective were the Berlin Wall and the Israeli West Bank barrier. In the first case (Berlin and the old Inner German Border), the Soviets stationed armed guards every 100 meters or so with shoot-to-kill orders…and still hundreds got through. The Israeli barrier is mostly fence, with the high wall only for those populated areas where they want to ensure no one can shoot through it. It is effective because it is closely monitored with an immediate military response. No one is emigrating or doing much trade across that barrier. That is, they just don’t care about trade with the Palestinians. Are we willing to station border personnel with free-fire authorizations from Texas to California? No. Are we willing to endure the complete cessation of goods and trade between Mexico and the US? No.

Third, some folks think the Wall will assist in preventing the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico to the United States. Let’s put this line of reasoning to rest forever: as long as there is an insatiable demand for illegal narcotics in the States, drug cartels in Mexico will find a way to supply it. You can’t escape the economics. Here are examples: Build a high wall, and it still pays for the cartels to dig an even more expensive tunnel under it. Build a deep and high wall, and the cartels will build slingshots to throw drugs over it, or use drones to fly over it. Build an airborne barrier, and they will build submersibles and submarines to go around it. Yes, they make so much money off illegal narcotics they can afford to build disposable submarines…if only one gets through, it pays for twenty more. So please, leave drugs out of the Wall discussion.

Fourth, its expensive. Current estimates for construction alone are running over $21 billion dollars. And that does NOT inlcude all those armed guards on 24 hour watch, along with dogs, SUVs, blimps, ground penetrating radar, and surveillance drones. Some of those guard towers will be in US cities and in (what was formerly) American citizens’ backyards. And even if it works, just how efficient can it ever be? A one way airfare from Mexico City to Toronto is under $350 dollars. While that may be beyond the reach of the poorest immigrants, many could afford it…so our vaunted Wall is also dependent upon the goodwill of both our neighbors. Or are we going to build two walls?

Fifth, and this is strictly an emotional point, the Wall is pathetic policy. Building such a wall makes the US that crappy neighbor on your block who has overly high fences and signs that say “trespassers will be shot on sight.” Big Walls are what history’s losers have built: See China, The Great Wall, France’s Maginot Line, or the aforementioned Iron Curtain. The jury is still out on Israel. Building such a wall is the foreign policy equivalent of a teenager stomping off to a bedroom and slamming the door. We get it, people are angry, but what did that *BANG* accomplish?

There are many legitimate grievances which lead average Americans to conclude we need a Wall. We need to spend the money we would waste on building the Wall to address those grievances. We need a guest worker program so industries which rely on cheaper immigrant labor don’t collapse. We need job re-training and vocational education for those Americans most at risk from competition from immigrants. We do need to develop the legal ways-and-means to deport illegal immigrants convicted of a felony. And we have to conclude some final legal status for the millions of illegal immigrants already here, probably in exchange for better cooperation from Mexico and other concerned governments.

This problem did not happen overnight. It goes all the way back to the World War II Bracero program, where we invited Mexicans to come to the States and work. For my liberal friends who think the current President is an outlier on this issue, I invite you to look at the policies of Jack Kennedy, who encouraged efforts to kill the Bracero program and FDR, who tacitly condoned the repatriation of more than a million Mexican-American citizens during the Great Depression. Immigrants have always been a whipping boy for both parties, when expedient. So climb down off that high horse.

We can’t solve this issue overnight, and we can’t solve it at all with a Wall. But we can solve it, if we want too.