Letter to a Trump Supporter #9: Donald Trump’s Character

This is the ninth and last in my series of “Letters to a Trump Supporter,” from correspondence with a family friend who supports Mr. Trump.

Yesterday, I addressed Hillary Clinton’s character. Today, I will address Donald Trump’s.

It’s hard to know where to begin. I have received so many defenses of Mr. Trump’s character, and not one of them makes a bit of sense.

Below is a compilation of my responses.

~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. ——,

There are so many negative stories about Donald Trump that it’s mind-boggling how such a person could be allowed to reach a position of importance in our society. Here are just a few of these stories:

Importantly, we knew all of these horrible things long before over a dozen women accused him of sexual assault and rape.

And, contrary to what Trump supporters have told me, this isn’t just about his private morality. It’s about his public morality. He doesn’t just say vulgar things behind the scenes. He says them on the national stage, and he doesn’t regret it. He insults millions of Americans everyday. He’s not fit to be the leader of our people, and we’ve known it from the very beginning. Hillary Clinton would never, ever have implied that most Mexican immigrants were rapists and murderers. Donald Trump did it on day one of his campaign. That’s the difference.

Consider the following public utterances:

  1. He called one woman “a disgusting person inside and out” and a “slob” with a “fat, ugly face,” and he called her “a big, fat pig” and a “disgusting pig.”
  2. He called another woman “a dog.”
  3. He said another woman had the “face of a dog.”
  4. On national television, he told a woman it would be a “pretty picture” to see her on her knees.
  5. He called another woman “grotesque.”
  6. He said it was “disgusting” that a mother had to breastfeed her child.
  7. He said, referring to one specific woman, that he likes “girls that are 5-foot-1” because they “come up to you know where.”
  8. He said one woman’s breasts looked “like two lightbulbs coming out of her body.”
  9. He said it doesn’t matter “if a girl can play a violin like the greatest violinist in the world. You want to know what does she look like.”
  10. And of course, there was the moment when he implied, with absolutely zero evidence, that Ted Cruz’s wife was cheating on him.

Now, the thing I have trouble understanding is why Trump supporters are more appalled by anything Hillary Clinton has said than they are by these comments. More specifically, should you and I allow Donald Trump to talk to women that way? Should we support him calling our mothers and daughters and wives and girlfriends slobs and pigs and dogs and fat and disgusting?

What would you do if a man said that to your mother? What if he said it to your wife?

You wouldn’t want that man to be your friend. That’s for damn sure. And you wouldn’t want him to be president either.

But that doesn’t seem to matter. Because you think the country is falling apart, and he’s the only one who can save us. “It’s Trump, or it’s the end of America.“ That’s what you’ve told me.

Well, I’m not sure what America you’re living in. Because it doesn’t sound anything like the America I know.

The America I know has the highest economic output of any country in the world, 70 percent more than the next largest economy.

The America I know has over 40 percent of the world’s wealth, four times the next richest country.

The America I know has outpaced the rest of the developed world in economic growth and job growth since Barack Obama took office in the depths of the Great Recession.

The America I know has historically low inflationlow unemployment, and stable growth.

The America I know has cut violent crime and murder rates in half since the early 1990s.

The America I know has the world’s largest military, equivalent to the next seven largest countries combined.

The America I know is widely viewed more positively overseas than it was eight years ago.

The America I know exists in a world where violence has been declining dramatically for centuries.

The America I know is doing so well that over half of its citizens approve of their current president’s job performance, higher than Ronald Reagan’s approval at the end of his presidency.

The bottom line is that we live in the safest, richest, most powerful country in the history of the world. It would be unfathomably irresponsible to overthrow a system that has worked so well for so many for so long.

What should concern you is the fact that Trump supporters are now saying that they’re going to intimidate voters the way white Americans used to intimidate black voters in the South during the Jim Crow era. They’re saying they’re going to start a violent revolution.

They’re calling for Hillary Clinton to be murdered.

This is literally what they’ve been saying at Trump rallies.

And that’s because they’ve been told, by Donald Trump, that minority voters are “rigging the election” (which is basically impossible, by the way).

This is dangerous.

This is anti-democratic.

This is un-American.

And it should scare us all that Mr. Trump is threatening our lives with this rhetoric.

Donald Trump is playing a word association game designed to make you scared and angry, and he’s hoping you won’t notice that he’s completely full of crap. He regularly changes his policy positions, even on the issues that seem to be most important to him. Here’s a list to give you a sense of how often he goes back on his word.

Even by the typical standards of American politics, this is extreme. I don’t know of any politician who changes their policy positions this often. It’s literally impossible to know what, if anything, Donald Trump actually believes.

But when you read all those stories about his character and his behavior, it makes complete sense that he doesn’t have any policy positions that he really believes in. After all, he doesn’t actually know much about public policy, and he doesn’t seem to care about anything but his own ego. He just says whatever gets him attention.

As someone who’s dedicated his career to public policy, I am continually astonished that voters are willing to elect people with little, if any, understanding of public policy. We wouldn’t want a brain surgeon operating on us if they don’t know anything about medicine, and we shouldn’t elect a policymaker who doesn’t know anything about public policy.

Our government is full of smart, kind, brave men and women who have dedicated their lives to making this country a better place, and I am tired of ignorant malcontents like Donald Trump treating them with such petty, unsubstantiated, arrogant disrespect.

We have real problems in this country, and Donald Trump hasn’t proposed a workable solution to any of them. Hillary Clinton has offered long, detailed, well-researched, carefully-considered plans to address the challenges we face, and Donald Trump has replied with mocking, belittling, rambling, and zero concrete, politically feasible ideas.

If you were an investor and you were considering their “business plans” side-by-side, there wouldn’t even be a contest. As a businessman, you know that you would never bet on someone with no experience and no plan. As a voter, I beg you to apply the same standard.

Best regards,
Anthony

Our Kids Aren’t the Only Ones Suffering From Inequality. We’re Failing Our Parents Too!

You wouldn’t know it to read the news these days, but the Baby Boomers are in trouble.

Rarely does a day go by that the Baby Boomers aren’t blamed for something. They’re bankrupting Social Security. They caused the Great Recession. They’re hogging all the money.

Well, I’m here to tell you that you’ve got the wrong culprit. Most Baby Boomers don’t have nearly as much money as you think they do. You’re rounding up the many to prosecute the few. That’s just bad police work.

This is a plea for the parents out there. They raised us and fed us, they taught us and nursed us, they brought us into this world, and for the most part, they tried to make it better for us. And we are failing them.

We are failing our parents.

We have a strange sense of obligation in this country. We talk a lot about what we owe our children but very little about what we owe our parents. The future is sacrosanct; the past quickly forgotten.

And we should talk about our children. Because we’re failing them too.

Pick up a copy of Robert Putnam’s new book Our Kids, and you’ll see all the ways we’re failing them:

  • More and more kids are growing up with one parent instead of two. The single parent is less likely to find a job. They have less time to spend with their kids. As a result, their children perform worse in school, exhibit more behavioral problems, and experience more anxiety and depression.
  • More and more kids aren’t eating dinner with their family. They aren’t having conversations with their parents. They don’t know the alphabet when they start school. And they never catch up!
  • More and more kids are living below or near the poverty line, where they “experience severe or chronic stress,” making it harder to concentrate, “cope with adversity, and organize their lives.” They are more likely to be neglected, discouraged, abused, and traumatized. And they have permanent brain damage!
  • More and more families can’t keep up with the rising cost of childcare. They send their kids to low-quality daycare. They have less time available to spend with their kids. And when they do spend time with them, their financial worries make it harder for them to be patient, focus, and nurture.
  • More and more students are falling behind their peers in school. Their parents don’t have the time or knowledge to help them. Their schools don’t have the fundraising capability to make up the difference. Their teachers are demoralized. Their classmates are disruptive, discouraging, and even violent. Extracurricular activities are either unavailable or too expensive to participate in. College is even more expensive. And if they do make it to college, it’s one with lower graduation rates and a future of higher unemployment and lower earnings.
  • More and more kids don’t trust people. They don’t have mentors to teach them about life. They don’t have youth organizations to keep them safe and healthy. They don’t have programs to show them how to apply for college or budget their money. They don’t have contacts to help them find a job. And they think their vote doesn’t matter, so the problem just keeps getting worse!

For Putnam, this is where the story ends. And who can blame him? Kids are an easy sell. No one can blame them for their lot in life.

But what happens when they become adults? We don’t like to talk about that part. Affordable housing, food stamps, incarceration, labor unions, mandated health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the minimum wage, paid leave, progressive taxation, public jobs, Social Security, unemployment insurance, welfare — that’s the controversial stuff. Better not to touch those subjects. Kids deserve a helping hand, but adults? We’re not so sure.

The problem is, those adults were kids once upon a time too, and when they were, many of them had it just as bad. And now, after heaping disadvantage upon disadvantage on them for twenty years, they’re expected to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. It’s as if they were running a race, and their peers were given a twenty-year head start — and we criticize them for not catching up!

These adults deserve equalizing policies every bit as much as their kids.

Long-Term Unemployment by AgeThe young and the old aren’t so different after all. It’s the wrong contrast. Even if we wanted to take money from the old and give it to the young, it wouldn’t work because they don’t have it!

The Baby Boomers are trillions of dollars short of the wealth they need to retire without a “drastic lifestyle change.” Over half of them will get most of their income from Social Security, and one in four will have nothing but Social Security. For those who got laid off during the Great Recession, they’re having a much harder time getting rehired than younger generations. And because they were the ones who were holding mortgages when the bubble popped, their homeownership rate has nosedived so badly that Trulia’s chief economist Jed Kolko calls them “the lost generation of homeowners.”

Clearly, inequality affects Americans of every age — and that is why you cannot cure what ails the children without treating the parents, for the ailment is not generational. It is economic, and it perpetuates itself down through the generations.

So, yes, by all means, let’s talk about inequality of opportunity for our kids because that’s where it all starts. But let’s also remember that those kids grow up, and when they do, it doesn’t get easier. The scars of childhood last a lifetime.

We tend to overlook those scars and place blame on those who have fallen behind in the race. But for those of us who have been given a head start and don’t reach back to offer them a hand, the real failure rests with us.

==========

This op-ed was originally published on the Huffington Post.

The Minimum Wage Shows Why (and How) We Should Vote Today

It is time for the states to lead.

Every once in awhile in the history of this great country of ours, the federal government just can’t get the job done. Partisan gridlock, constitutional uncertainty, public distrust all play a role. But one of the great strengths of the American system is that the states — those laboratories of democracy, as Louis Brandeis called them — can act when Washington will not. Abolitionism, women’s suffrage, health care reform, gay rights: All started at the state level.

This is one of those times. Our national system is inert. Our national leaders are mired in the muck of inaction.

And yet there is hope. For today is Election Day, and on this day, we will elect 36 governors. This is no time to stay home when the polling places are open. This is a time to choose leaders who will act where Washington has not.

I can think of no better example of the choice we face as a country today than the minimum wage.

After World War II, Congress set the minimum wage at approximately half the average wage in the country. In today’s dollars, it was over $10 an hour. Earning the minimum wage, one full-time worker could support a family of three above the poverty line.

Today, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, less than 36 percent of the average wage. It’s so low that it can’t even keep a family of two out of poverty.

Unlike Social Security or Medicare payments, the minimum wage is not indexed to the cost of living. Only Congress can raise it. The last time they did so was 2009. Democrats proposed raising it again earlier this year, but the majority of senators opposed it.

The feds have failed to act. It’s time for the states to lead.

And we have ample evidence that they can. Twenty-three states already have minimum wages higher than $7.25. Five states — Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota — have an initiative on today’s ballot to increase theirs.

But not everyone is onboard.

“I don’t think it serves a purpose,” said Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker last month.

“I don’t think as governor I want to be the cause of someone losing their job,” said Greg Abbott, the Republican candidate for governor in Texas, in explaining his opposition to raising the minimum wage. Pennsylvania’s Republican governor Tom Corbett made a similar argument when stating his opposition last year.

At least they pretended to know what they were talking about. When Republican Governor Rick Scott was asked what Florida’s minimum wage should be, he said, “How would I know?”

These men are on today’s ballot in four of our nation’s largest and most influential states.

And they are tragically out-of-step with the lessons of economic history. In a recent study, the economists Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley survey the vast research that economists have done measuring the impact of the minimum wage in recent decades — 64 papers in total — and they find “little or no evidence” that minimum wage increases caused job losses.

On the contrary, raising the minimum wage is a clear boost to the economy. In another recent paper, the economist Arindrajit Dube found that raising the minimum wage significantly reduces the poverty rate, a finding that is consistent with the other 12 studies economists have published in recent years measuring the same effect in different ways.

Only a politician severely out-of-touch with the modern economy could think otherwise. Today’s corporations don’t have to cut back jobs when wages rise. They have to cut back profits, which are at an all-time high. In the long run, they might not have to cut back anything. Higher wages lead to higher productivity, better health, fewer strikes, lower turnover, and higher consumption, which in turn leads to more demand for their products and therefore higher profits.

Individual companies may not want to raise wages if their competitors won’t, but when everyone does it, everyone benefits.

Trying to save money by keeping the minimum wage low is like trying to improve your health by starving yourself. It’s classic shortsighted behavior, hardly the visionary leadership that we’d like to see in the governor’s mansion.

That’s why today’s election matters. In this age of do-nothing politics, it’s easy to despair, but we must remember the intent behind the design. The same founding fathers who created a federal system that resists radical change also created a state system that encourages experimentation. Today we celebrate their creation, and we direct its attention to the challenges of our time.

If the feds do not act, the states will. We the voters will make sure of it.

==========

This op-ed was originally published in the Huffington Post.

The Ryan Budget Is an Affront to Economics and American History

A few years ago, when the unemployment rate was near its peak, two Swedish economists, Stefan Eriksson and Dan-Olof Rooth, conducted an experiment. They wanted to find out just how hard it was to get a job if you’d been unemployed for a long time. They sent 8,466 fictitious job applications to employers across Sweden. They varied the number of months that each “applicant” had been unemployed. For some, it was a matter of days. For others, several months. Then they waited for the employers to call them back for interviews.

Overall, one out of every four job “applicants” received an interview. Unsurprisingly, it was higher for high-skill jobs and lower for low-skill jobs. What was more significant was the effect of unemployment on the fictitious resumes.

Eriksson and Rooth found that unemployment didn’t matter if it lasted less than six months. Applicants who had been unemployed for the past six months were just as likely to receive an interview as applicants who just quit their job yesterday. If they had been unemployed for nine months or more, however, they were 20 percent less likely to get an interview, even if they had the same work experience, education, and other qualifications as everyone else.

In the United States right now, over 3 million people have been looking for work for nine months or more — and that doesn’t include the millions more who gave up searching because they couldn’t find anything.

Eriksson and Rooth have mostly confirmed what we already knew, but their experiment adds more specific and more reliable evidence to the overwhelming conclusion that these people need our help. Fortunately, another paper, published alongside Eriksson and Rooth’s, proves that we can help them.

While Eriksson and Rooth were sending out job applications, Emi Nakamura and Jón Steinsson were reading military procurement forms.

Both economists at Columbia University, Nakamura and Steinsson were trying to figure out what effect the federal government has on the economy when it increases its spending. They found a database at the Pentagon that summed up all large military purchases in every state in the U.S. from 1966 to 2006. It wasn’t exactly an experiment, but it was close enough.

The danger in estimating the effects of government spending is that it’s hard to tell whether states had faster economic growth because they received more funding — or whether they received more funding because they happened to enjoy faster economic growth. With military purchases, Nakamura and Steinsson knew they didn’t have that problem. States don’t receive military contracts based on the state of their economy. The two are usually independent.

Nakamura and Steinsson compared military spending in each state with subsequent economic growth over the course of four decades, and they found that a 1 percent increase in government purchases resulted in a 1.5 percent increase in income per person in that state.

Then they calculated the effect on the national economy. When the Federal Reserve couldn’t lower interest rates any further — the situation we’re in now, known as the “zero lower bound” — Nakamura and Steinsson found that a 1 percent increase in government purchases resulted in at least a 1.7 percent increase in national income per person.

In other words, the federal government can stimulate the economy and create jobs, and the resulting increase in income will far exceed any cost to the taxpayers.

Budget ProposalsLike Eriksson and Rooth, Nakamura and Steinsson aren’t telling us something we don’t know, but they are giving us another valuable piece of evidence that our government is headed in the wrong direction.

At a time when the long-term unemployed need more support, our government is giving them less. The leadership of both parties have agreed to shrink the federal budget drastically over the coming decade, and now Paul Ryan, the Republican chair of the House Budget Committee, has issued a new proposal that will cut the budget even further, to the point where most programs that support the unemployed will be half the size that they were during the Reagan administration, relative to the size of the economy.

This is a cruel, counterproductive path we are on, and that is not a statement of mere opinion. It is the inescapable conclusion of data-driven, cutting-edge economic research based on real-world evidence and the accumulated lessons of American history.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Huffington Post.

Do the Math: People Don’t Choose to Be Poor or Unemployed

Long-Term Unemployment HistoryGod, I wish I were poor.

And unemployed. That’s the good life. Poor and unemployed.

I mean, just look at all the cool stuff you get. Medicaid and welfare. Food stamps and unemployment insurance. And don’t forget public housing.

This stuff is so awesome that it’s like a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” That’s what Paul Ryan says, at least, and as the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he’s supposed to know these things, right?

According to Ryan and his fellow Republicans, if I have unemployment insurance, I’ll never want to work again. Senator Rand Paul says it will cause me “to become part of this perpetual unemployed group.” With an average benefit of $269 per week, I’ll be living on Easy Street.

This is a common belief. There’s an email making the rounds from a 54-year-old consulting engineer who makes $60,000 a year and has to pay $482 a month for health insurance under Obamacare, but that’s not his biggest complaint. He’s really upset that his 61-year-old girlfriend who makes $18,000 a year only has to pay $1 a month for health insurance.

He thinks she has it so easy that she can afford to pay more, but he’s wrong.

On average, Americans earning $18,000 a year pay more than $3,000 in taxes, so she really only has $15,000 leftover to pay her expenses. She lives in Monterey, CA, where the average rent and utilities add up to $15,000 a year. So, after paying taxes, rent, and utilities, she’s completely broke. She doesn’t have money for food, let alone health insurance.

The consulting engineer thinks people will choose her lifestyle over his. “Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year?” he asks. (Nice way to talk about your girlfriend, by the way.) To which I’d like to reply: If being a “schlub” is so attractive, why don’t you do it? Why don’t you quit your engineering job and join the “$20K per year” club?

For that matter, why don’t we all quit our jobs right now and start collecting unemployment insurance? How far do you honestly think we can stretch $269 a week?

I’ll tell you how far: It would cover less than half of the basic necessities for the average American family.

That’s why unemployment makes you more likely to have to borrow money from a friend, withdraw money from your retirement savings, and have trouble paying your medical bills, rent, and mortgage. It makes you more likely to have a stroke or heart attack, lose self-respect, have difficulty sleeping, and seek professional help for anxiety and depression. It makes you more likely to kill yourself, kill others, and drink yourself to death.

And if you’ve been unemployed for more than a few months, most employers won’t even look at your résumé. It doesn’t matter how qualified you are. It’s like you don’t exist anymore.

The last time it was this bad, with long-term unemployment close to 3 percent of the workforce, was the peak of the 1980-81 recession. Back then, the federal government kept extended unemployment insurance in place for almost two more years, until the long-term unemployment rate fell close to 1 percent. In fact, that’s been standard operating procedure for every recession in the modern era, including 1990-91 and 2001. But now, with long-term unemployment as high as it’s been since World War II, Republicans have killed the emergency unemployment insurance program, and they’re fighting Democrats’ efforts to restore it.

They don’t seem to care that there are 2.9 applicants for every job opening. They don’t seem to care that people on unemployment insurance actually spend more time searching for work than their fellow unemployed who are ineligible for benefits. They’re sticking to their story.

On the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, many Americans are still operating under the assumption that people choose to be poor and unemployed, that they’d rather be lazy than rich, that they can afford the basic necessities of life. But the numbers tell a different story.

I don’t wish I were poor. Or unemployed. And I sure don’t wish it on anyone else. If you did the math, neither would you.

==========

This op-ed was recently published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Huffington Post.