Letter to a Trump Supporter #1: Undocumented Immigration

We will all remember this election. Our children and grandchildren will read about it. They will ask us what it was like to live through it. They will want to know what we did, where we stood, how we voted.

This is the record I will leave behind.

Throughout this election season, I have been corresponding with a family friend who supports Donald Trump. I have explained, point by point, why I oppose Mr. Trump and why I see the country so differently than he does. In this final month leading up to Election Day, I will publish these “Letters to a Trump Supporter” on this blog.

I will begin with the issue that started it all: undocumented immigration.

He sent me this video as an argument in favor of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on this issue. Below is my response.

~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. ——,

Thank you for sending this video. It’s interesting to see the fears that people have about undocumented immigration.

Hopefully, it’ll comfort you to learn that most of those fears are unwarranted.

First and most importantly, the undocumented immigrant population is shrinking. It peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million people. Now, there are only 11.1 million. So, contrary to all the accusations in this video, undocumented immigrants have been leaving more than they’ve been coming here during the Obama administration.

Contrast that with the Bush administration, during which the population grew from 8 to 12 million…a 50 percent increase!

Second, President Obama never said that he welcomed undocumented immigrants to cross the border. Notice that they never show him saying such a thing. That’s because such a video doesn’t exist. He never said it.

Third, immigrants actually commit fewer crimes than native-born American citizens. This shouldn’t be surprising, when you consider the fact that violent crime rates have plummeted nationally over the past couple decades when undocumented immigration has been rising. What this video is doing is pure racism, assuming that foreigners are more “dangerous” when the facts say the exact opposite.

They’re trying to scare you. Don’t be fooled.

Fourth, there are very, very few undocumented immigrants who are granted asylum on the border. In 2013, for example, only 155 Mexican immigrants were granted “defensive asylum.” The numbers from other Central American countries are even lower.

That shouldn’t be surprising, since it’s not nearly as easy as this video alleges. The Border Patrol has no control over it, and neither does the President. The asylum-seeker has to prove their case before an immigration judge.

Fifth, it is not true that immigrants run to the Border Patrol. On the contrary, the Border Patrol is regularly accused of using excessive force, to the point that it “has normalized policing practices that would be considered patently unconstitutional if carried out by local police.”

Sixth, undocumented immigrants cannot receive “free heart surgery.” The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) explicitly prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving subsidized health insurance. Some community clinics provide charity care, but they do not do expensive operations. Even those options are few, however, and too underfunded to serve most of the undocumented population.

Finally, I want to point out how this is a classic case of biased, unprofessional journalism. Notice that he only presents one side of the case: He only interviews Border Patrol workers. He never interviews a single undocumented immigrant!

This presentation would fail even the most basic journalism class. It’s not news. It’s propaganda.

Best regards,
Anthony

Listen to Me Discuss Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Immigration, and More!

Earlier this week, I was a guest on The Adam Thompson Show, a political talk show on KKRP 1610 AM radio. We covered the events of the day: Ferguson, the “chokehold” verdict (which had just been announced an hour before we taped the show), President Obama’s executive actions, and even Ebola and ISIS. It’s a jam-packed show, and my segment begins around the 12-minute mark:

You can also download it on iTunes!

How Obama Cut the Deficit in Half — and Made Us Pay the Price

U.S. Budget Deficit Over Time

Remember when everybody was talking about the budget deficit?

It wasn’t that long ago. In fact, it was one of the biggest factors in the 2012 presidential election. After all, it was over $1 trillion at the time.

Today, it’s $500 billion. And falling.

This, of course, is one of Barack Obama’s legacies. He raised taxes on the rich and cut spending across the board. Even with strong growth in mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare this year, the federal government is going to spend about the same amount of money it spent in 2012 — and less than it spent in 2011. Adjusted for inflation, the government has shrunk.

But it has come at a cost.

Case in point: We have run out of money to fight wildfires.

A couple decades ago, wildfires in the western United States typically consumed 2 to 4 million acres in a year. Nowadays, they consume 6 to 8 million acres. As a result, the cost of wildfire suppression has more than tripled in that amount of time. And yet, Congress continues to allocate funding based on what it cost a decade ago, instead of what it costs today.

So it’s not surprising that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack ran out of money to fight wildfires this year, forcing him to divert money away from programs that preventwildfires — magnifying the problem in years to come.

Traveling to the other side of the country, a Pennsylvania official testified in court earlier this week that he and his fellow regulators didn’t investigate chemical leaks that were allegedly poisoning citizens’ drinking water near natural gas wells.

But this shouldn’t surprise us either. After all, the Associated Press recently discovered that 40 percent of new oil and gas wells haven’t been inspected in this country. The report described the regulators as “so overwhelmed by a boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that [they have] been unable to keep up with inspections of some of the highest priority wells.”

It’s not like those investigations really matter, right? The Pennsylvania trial revealed that landowners were drinking water with “explosive levels of methane.” Meanwhile, a new paper published this week by researchers at Stanford and Duke showed that even tiny amounts of fracking wastewater can contaminate drinking water with toxic compounds.

So I guess it’s no big deal that regulators are so underfunded that they’re neglecting almost half the country’s drilling wells.

You’d think we would’ve learned this lesson last year when the IRS scandal revealed that auditors were singling out political groups — conservative and liberal, by the way — for investigation without any apparent probable cause.

For years, the IRS has been underfunded. The National Taxpayer Advocate said so. A Boston Globe investigation said so. The Government Accountability Office said so. And they all predicted that underfunding would result in less enforcement and more cutting corners. In fact, they said taxpayers would lose money because every dollar in budget cuts led to seven dollars in lost tax revenue that they would’ve collected if they’d had the manpower to do so.

Then the scandal hit, revealing that IRS officials were so “overworked” that they felt they had no choice but to take shortcuts through the “flood of applications” on their desks.

These are only a few examples of the price we have paid for a smaller deficit.

Barack Obama deserves credit for delivering on his promise to shrink the deficit — a promise that Mitt Romney and his tax cuts would surely have violated — but Americans have to ask themselves whether they really want a smaller government. Do we really want millions of acres destroyed by fire, and drinking water contaminated with toxic chemicals, and government officials harassing the innocent? I know I don’t.

And I also know there’s a better way. It begins with the understanding that, for all its faults and inefficiencies, our government does many good, essential things in our society. And yes, those things come at a price. But that is a price worth paying.

==========

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

Guess Who Tried to Prevent the VA Crisis — and Who Stood in Their Way!

The Three Trillion Dollar War

Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz predicted the VA scandal.

Back in 2008, the eminent researchers — one a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, the other a Nobel laureate in economics — published a book called The Three Trillion Dollar War, where they argued that most Americans were drastically underestimating the cost of the Iraq War. They didn’t specifically describe the events that have unfolded in recent weeks, but they did point out the enormous burden that would be placed on the VA system as veterans returned from Iraq — a burden that we were not preparing for.

And that was before the surge in Afghanistan.

Upon taking the oath of office, Barack Obama tripled U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, sending over 60,000 troops into combat. Only now, five years later, have troop levels reverted to the level they were at when he took office. So you can add 60,000 troops for five years on top of the costs projected by Bilmes and Stiglitz — projections that were verified and replicated by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, as well as Nobel laureate Lawrence Klein, the father of modern economic forecasting.

And yet, Congress refused to boost the VA budget.

For years, discretionary funding for the VA health care system had been growing at approximately 6 percent per year, slightly less than health care costs for the average American family, making it the most cost-efficient system in the country. Meanwhile, it ranked at the top of quality rankings, better than all its private competitors, year after year. It was the best medical care system in America.

That is, until the troops came home.

“Republicans beat back a Democratic attempt to provide almost $2 billion in additional health care funding for veterans,” reported the Washington Post in 2005, “rejecting claims that Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals are in crisis.”

The following year, Bilmes told ABC News, “In 2004, the VA had a backlog of 400,000 cases. Last year it was 500,000 cases. Now the backlog is 600,000 cases. That’s just in two years. And the big wave of returning Iraqi veterans has not even hit yet.”

And yet, the VA budget kept growing by 6 percent per year, as if the war didn’t exist at all.

As if that wasn’t a big enough problem… “Proposed cuts in Department of Veterans Affairs spending on major construction and non-recurring maintenance threaten to derail efforts to update the department’s aging infrastructure,” reported the Washington Post in 2012. And so, Democratic Senator Patty Murray led the charge to boost the VA’s construction funding, only to have it beat down by Republicans.

Later that year, Paul Ryan, the Republican chair of the House Budget Committee, released the party’s annual budget proposal. Had it become law, the VA would’ve sustained billions of dollars in budget cuts, forcing smaller facilities to shut down in rural areas.

So it wasn’t surprising to Senator Murray when allegations surfaced of VA hospitals lying about the number of veterans on their waiting lists because they didn’t want the world to know that they were unable to give their patients lifesaving treatments. “In an environment where everybody is told, ‘Keep the cost down. Don’t tell me anything costs more.’ — it creates a culture out there for people to cook the books,” she said in a recent interview.

Who would’ve ever thought, after years of relentless cost-cutting in the halls of Washington, that the federal government actually spends our money on important stuff? Who would’ve thought that wars cost money, and tax cuts cost money, and maintaining our infrastructure costs money? Not the Republicans, that’s for sure. While the Bush administration plunged us into two wars and cut taxes on the rich, who were already taking a bigger piece of the pie than they had since the Roaring Twenties, Republicans in Congress were blocking every Democratic attempt to give the VA the funding they needed to give our veterans the medical care they were promised. And then, when the Obama administration tried to correct this funding crisis, Republicans responded by proposing deeper spending cuts.

Let this be a warning to every politician and every voter who thinks we can cut our way to prosperity: Those dollar figures represent real services that the government provides to real people. Every cut has a cost, and not just in money. In lives.

==========

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

Republicans Want to Replace Obamacare with…Obamacare-Lite?

Americans Trust Democrats Over Republicans on Health CareEver since Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010, the Republicans in Congress have tried to repeal it. This week’s vote was their 50th attempt.

And yet, despite their unyielding opposition, their earnestness rings hollow to most Americans for the simple reason that they have not offered an alternative path to health care reform. Even the party’s own strategists have chastised it for its negative approach, for failing to offer a plan of their own, for obstructing rather than leading.

Finally, their pleas have been answered — in the form of the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act, or “PCEREA,” sponsored by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn, and Richard Burr.

At long last, we can answer the simple question that Democrats have been asking Republicans since March 23, 2010: You got a better idea?

Unfortunately, the answer is a disappointing “no.”

The ACA, better known as “Obamacare,” has four major provisions: (1) a ban on price discrimination against sick people, (2) an “individual mandate” requiring everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fine to the IRS, (3) tax credits for Americans who cannot afford to purchase insurance, and (4) a Medicaid expansion for the poorest Americans who don’t pay enough taxes to qualify for the tax credits.

The PCEREA does away with the first provision right off the bat. The most popular feature of Obamacare, the one that appeals to our basic sense of fairness, is the rule prohibiting insurers from charging different prices to different consumers based on health status. The Republicans would erase this rule, once again making insurance least affordable for the people who need it the most.

With the first provision gone, there isn’t much need for the second one. This is what most people have trouble grasping about the individual mandate: As unpopular as it is, it’s necessary in order to sustain the most popular part of the law. Without an individual mandate, a ban on price discrimination will simply result in insurers charging high rates to everyone, driving all but the sickest consumers out of the market. Insurers can only afford to charge reasonable rates across the board if healthy people are required to buy in.

The PCEREA replaces these two provisions with two new provisions called “continuous coverage” and “auto-enrollment.”

Under “continuous coverage,” Americans would be given a one-time opportunity to buy insurance at prices that aren’t based on health status. So long as they keep this insurance plan for the rest of their lives, they’ll never be discriminated against. If they miss this opportunity — say, by being born after the window passes — they can be discriminated against. If they lose their plan — say, because they change jobs — they can be discriminated against. Basically, “continuous coverage” is a con, a “first come, first serve” lottery that doles out the right to fairness like it’s a privilege, a prize in some twisted game, and then snatches it out from your hands if you fall on hard times or dare to exercise your freedom of choice.

Under “auto-enrollment,” states can sign you up for insurance without your consent, but you can opt out. Basically, the Republicans are assuming that the problem with the insurance market is that Americans are so stupid that they aren’t signing up for insurance that they need and can afford.

Astonishingly, the Republicans have simply taken the provisions of Obamacare and made them temporary — and called it “reform”! We’ll give you fair prices, but only for a little while. We’ll require you to sign up for insurance, but only until you back out.

The third provision confirms this ploy. Just like the ACA, the PCEREA offers tax credits to Americans who purchase insurance on the individual market. The only difference is that the Republicans’ tax credits are far less generous, helping far fewer people.

Finally, the PCEREA addresses Medicaid by restricting its availability to only certain types of Americans, apparently the ones whom the Republicans deem worthy: pregnant women, children, the disabled — but not, for example, working parents. It would also change Medicaid into a block grant program, where it would get a chunk of money every year regardless of how much it needs, leaving most states with tremendous shortfalls during recessions and leaving patients out in the cold when they need help the most.

This last provision is just cruel, but the Republicans can slip it into the bill because the rest of the proposal looks so thoughtful and measured that they’re hoping you won’t notice that it will do almost nothing to address the serious problems ailing our health care system. It is little better than the status quo that existed before Obamacare — and in that sense, they haven’t really offered an alternative after all.

==========

This op-ed was published in the Huffington Post, and an abbreviated version was published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.