President Trump Wants to Restrict Access to Contraception Under the Guise of Religious Liberty

The following article by Heidi Williamsona nd Claire Markham was posted on the Center for American Progress website June 22, 2017:

AP/Charles Dharapak — Protestors participate in a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, March 25, 2015.

Last month, the Trump administration took two significant actions to curtail women’s access to reproductive health care. On May 4, the president signed an executive order that expands the power of religious refusals in denying access to health care. The order limits the actions that the government can take against individuals and organizations who assert religious beliefs as a reason to deny their employees health care coverage—namely, contraceptive coverage. The order also gives Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a longtime foe of progressive efforts to promote equality and pursue robust civil rights enforcement, broad authority to issue guidance interpreting religious liberty into federal law. Continue reading “President Trump Wants to Restrict Access to Contraception Under the Guise of Religious Liberty”

Trump said no Americans would lose coverage under Obamacare repeal. Paul Ryan won’t make that promise.

The following article by Kelsey Snell was posted on the Washington Post website March 12, 2017:

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Sunday that he doesn’t know how many Americans would lose coverage under his proposal to revise the Affordable Care Act, which is under fire from fellow Republicans, AARP and virtually every sector of the U.S. health-care industry.

“I can’t answer that question,” Ryan said in an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Continue reading “Trump said no Americans would lose coverage under Obamacare repeal. Paul Ryan won’t make that promise.”

If Obamacare Exits, Some May Need to Rethink Early Retirement

The following article by Austin Frakt was posted on the New York Times website February 27, 2017:

Oscar Gronner

Here’s another possible consequence of repealing the Affordable Care Act: It would be harder for many people to retire early.

Americans reaching 65 become eligible for Medicare. Before reaching that age, some can get retiree coverage from their former employers. But not very many companies, especially small ones, offer medical insurance to retirees. If early retirees are poor enough, they could turn to Medicaid. To retire early, everybody else would need to turn to the individual health insurance market. Without the subsidies and protections the A.C.A. put in place, health care coverage would be more difficult to obtain, cost consumers more where available, and provide fewer benefits than it does today.

That means that if the A.C.A. is repealed, retiring early would become less feasible for many Americans. Continue reading “If Obamacare Exits, Some May Need to Rethink Early Retirement”

Former D.C. schools chief takes on DeVos: ‘Sorry lady … this is so amateur and unprofessional’

The following article by Valerie Strauss was posted on the Washington Post website February 18, 2017:

Kaya Henderson, the former chancellor of District of Columbia Public Schools, is none too happy with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s comments about teachers at a D.C. public school she recently visited.

Sorry lady. Tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But this is so amateur and unprofessional that it’s astounding. We deserve better. https://twitter.com/emmersbrown/status/832962029250043904 

DeVos, confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 7 only after Vice President Pence broke the first-ever tie vote for a Cabinet nominee, visited Jefferson Academy last week. Her initial effort to get into the school by a side door was blocked by protesters, and she entered another way. She later criticized the protesters, saying they were hostile to change in education.

DeVos is seen by her supporters as a true champion of school choice who has used her inherited fortune to advocate choice and support education efforts in Christian communities. Critics of DeVos, who has said public education is a “dead end” and that “government sucks,” say she wants to privatize America’s public education system. They also say she has no real experience with public schools, having attended private schools, sent her children to private schools and spent decades advocating alternatives to traditional public schools.

As The Post’s Emma Brown wrote, DeVos also criticized some of the teachers she saw at Jefferson, telling columnist Cal Thomas of the conservative online publication Townhall that they seemed dedicated and sincere but were in “receive mode.”

“I visited a school on Friday and met with some wonderful, genuine, sincere teachers who pour their heart and soul into their classrooms and their students, and our conversation was not long enough to draw out of them what is limiting them from being even more successful from what they are currently. But I can tell the attitude is more of a ‘receive mode.’ They’re waiting to be told what they have to do, and that’s not going to bring success to an individual child. You have to have teachers who are empowered to facilitate great teaching.”

It is certainly true that the education policy changes of the past 15 years have taken away autonomy from teachers as many of them have been forced to use scripted curriculum and spend a lot of time preparing students for high-stakes standardized tests. But that’s not the same thing as saying that teachers at Jefferson — or other schools — are “waiting to be told what they have to do” or that DeVos would be able to see and identify really great teaching on a carefully arranged, brief stopover at a school.

As Brown reported, teachers at Jefferson were none too pleased about DeVos’s comments, blasting her on Twitter.

JA teachers are not in a “receive mode.” Unless you mean we “receive” students at a 2nd grade level and move them to an 8th grade level.

After Henderson’s tweet about DeVos, there was this exchange between her and John J. Falcicchio, chief of staff to D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D): Bowser got in on the conversation about DeVos’s comments with this tweet:

DC teachers are one of the reasons we are the fastest improving urban school district in the nation. We respect & support the work they do.

After all of this, DeVos tweeted back:

.@JATrojans Your teachers are awesome! They deserve MORE freedom to innovate and help students.

And the new chancellor of D.C. schools, Antwan Wilson issued this statement, supporting the Jefferson teachers in more diplomatic language than Henderson:

White House in turmoil shows why Trump is no CEO

The following article by Bert Spector was posted on theconversation.com website:

Photo: Getty Images

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump made much of his business experience, claiming he’s been “creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life.”

The fact that he was from the business world rather than a career politician was something that appealed to many of his supporters.

It’s easy to understand the appeal of a president as CEO. The U.S. president is indisputably the chief executive of a massive, complex, global structure known as the federal government. And if the performance of our national economy is vital to the well-being of us all, why not believe that Trump’s experience running a large company equips him to effectively manage a nation?

Instead of a “fine-tuned machine,” however, the opening weeks of the Trump administration have revealed a White House that’s chaotic, disorganized and anything but efficient. Examples include rushed and poorly constructed executive orders, a dysfunctional national security team and unclear and even contradictory messages emanating from multiple administrative spokespeople, which frequently clash with the tweets of the president himself.

Senator John McCain succinctly summed up the growing sentiment even some Republicans are feeling: “Nobody knows who’s in charge.”

So why the seeming contradiction between his businessman credentials and chaotic governing style?

Well for one thing, Trump wasn’t a genuine CEO. That is, he didn’t run a major public corporation with shareholders and a board of directors that could hold him to account. Instead, he was the head of a family-owned, private web of enterprises. Regardless of the title he gave himself, the position arguably ill-equipped him for the demands of the presidency.

Public accountability

Several years ago, I explored the distinction between public and private companies in detail when the American Bar Association invited me to write about what young corporate lawyers needed to understand about how business works. Based on that research, I want to point to an important set of distinctions between public corporations and private businesses, and what it all means for President Trump.

Public corporations are companies that offer their stock to pretty much anyone via organized exchanges or by some over-the-counter mechanism. In order to protect investors, the government created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which imposes an obligation of transparency on public corporations that does not apply to private businesses like the Trump Organization.

The SEC, for example, requires the CEO of public corporations to make full and public disclosures of their financial position. Annual 10-K reports, quarterly 10-Q’s and occasional special 8-K’s require disclosure of operating expenses, significant partnerships, liabilities, strategies, risks and plans.

Additionally, an independent firm overseen by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board conducts an audit of these financial statements to ensure thoroughness and accuracy.

Finally, the CEO, along with the chief financial officer, is criminally liable for falsification or manipulation of the company’s reports. Remember the 2001 Enron scandal? CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted of conspiracy, fraud and insider trading and initially sentenced to 24 years in prison.

Internal governance

Then there is the matter of internal governance.

The CEO of a public company is subject to an array of constraints and a varying but always substantial degree of oversight. There are boards of directors, of course, that review all major strategic decisions, among other duties. And there are separate committees that assess CEO performance and determine compensation, composed entirely of independent or outside directors without any ongoing involvement in running the business.

Whole categories of CEO decisions, including mergers and acquisitions, changes in the corporation’s charter and executive compensation packages, are subject to the opinion of shareholders and directors.

In addition, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act requires – for now – regular nonbinding shareholder votes on the compensation packages of top executives.

And then there’s this critical fact: well-governed firms tend to outperform poorly governed ones, often dramatically. And that’s because of factors like a strong board of directors, more transparency, a responsiveness to shareholders, thorough and independent audits and so forth.

Trump’s business

None of the obligations listed above applied to Trump, who was owner, chairman and president of the Trump Organization, a family-owned limited liability company (LLC) that has owned and run hundreds of businesses involving real estate, hotels, golf courses, private jet rentals, beauty pageants and even bottled water.

LLCs are specifically designed to offer owners tax advantages, maximum flexibility and financial and legal protections without either the benefits (such as access to equity capital markets) or the many obligations of a public corporation.

For example, as I noted above, a corporate CEO is required by law to allow scrutiny of the financial consequences of his or her decisions by others. As such, CEOs know the value of having a strong executive team able to serve as a sounding board and participate in key strategic decisions.

Trump, by contrast, as the head of a family business was accountable to no one and reportedly ran his company that way. His executive team comprised his children and people who are loyal to him, and his decision-making authority was unconstrained by any internal governance mechanisms. Decisions concerning what businesses to start or exit, how much money to borrow and at what interest rates, how to market products and services, and how – or even whether – to pay suppliers or treat customers were made centrally and not subject to review.

Clearly, this poorly equips Trump to be president and accountable to lawmakers, the courts and ultimately the voters.

Another important aspect of the public corporation is the notion of transparency and the degree to which it enables accountability.

A lack of transparency and reluctance to engage in open disclosure characterized the formulation of Trump’s immigration ban that was quickly overturned in federal court. That same tendency toward secrecy was manifest throughout the campaign, such as when he refused to disclose much about his health (besides this cursory “note”) or release any of his tax returns.

While there’s no law that requires a candidate to divulge either health or tax status, that lack of transparency kept potentially vital information from U.S. voters. And Trump’s continuing lack of transparency as president has kept experts and advisers in the dark, leading to precisely the confusion, mixed messages and dysfunction that have characterized these early weeks. And, of course, this can quickly lead to a continuing erosion of public trust.

Trump, it should be noted, made one stab at a public company: Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. That was an unmitigated disaster, leading to five separate declarations of bankruptcy before finally going under, all this while other casino companies thrived. Public investors ignored all the signs in favor of the showmanship and glitz of the Trump brand and, as a result, lost millions of dollars. Trump allotted himself a huge salary and bonuses, corporate perks and special merchandising deals.

What is especially telling about this experience is that, rather than speaking on behalf of fiduciary responsibilities for the best interests of the corporation, Trump noted, “I make great deals for myself.”

Multiplicity of voices

There is no need to be overly naive here.

Some CEOs also operate in a highly centralized manner, expecting obedience rather than participation from direct reports. All business executives expect a shared commitment from their employees to their corporate goals and value dependability, cooperation and loyalty from subordinates.

But the involvement of a multiplicity of voices with diverse perspectives and different backgrounds and fields of expertise improves the quality of resulting decisions. Impulsive decision-making by an individual or small, cloistered group of followers can and often will lead to disastrous results.

What lies ahead

Virtually every U.S. president, ranging from the great to the inconsequential and even the disastrous, have emerged from one of two groups: career politicians or generals. So why not a CEO president?

Without question, a background in politics does not guarantee an effective presidency. Abraham Lincoln, the consensus choice among historians for the best president ever, was a career politician, but so was his disastrous successor, Andrew Johnson.

Likewise, we can think of many traits of an effective corporate CEO that could serve a president well: transparency and accountability, responsiveness to internal governance and commitment to the interest of the overall corporation over and above self-enrichment.

Sadly, that is not Trump’s background. His experience overseeing an interconnected tangle of LLCs and his one disastrous term as CEO of a public corporation suggest a poor background to be chief executive of the United States. As such, “nobody knows who’s in charge” may be the mantra for years to come.

View the original post here.

Jared Kushner proves to be a shadow diplomat on U.S.-Mexico talks

The following article by Phillip Rucker, Ashley Parker and Joshua Partlow was posted on the Washington Post website February 10, 2017:

Jared Kushner, left, White House senior adviser, listens to President Trump during a meeting with cybersecurity experts at the White House on Jan. 31. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

The scene in the Oval Office was remarkable: the foreign minister of Mexico — the very country that Donald Trump had turned into a campaign-trail piñata — huddled with now-President Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The men were debating what Trump would say in a speech later that day as he ordered construction of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Mexican diplomat, Luis Videgaray, and Kushner, a White House senior adviser, had concluded that the remarks as drafted would upend the two countries’ fragile relationship, so together they urged Trump to soften his language about Mexico.

The trio arrived at a compromise, according to a half-dozen U.S. and Mexican officials who detailed the encounter. Trump, understanding that Mexicans would hang on his every word, agreed to state that a strong Mexico was also in the best interests of the United States. In Mexico City that afternoon, Jan. 25, officials welcomed Trump’s remarks as the most encouraging statement he had given to date about Mexico — and they celebrated Kushner as a moderating influence.

Relations ruptured anew only hours later, however, after a war of words between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto — punctuated by an angry Twitter missive from Trump the next morning while Videgaray was back at the White House.

Trump promised a foreign policy based on unpredictability, and by that measure, he is delivering. The messy episode involving a neighbor and longtime ally encapsulates his administration’s emerging foreign policy, one that mingles the president’s public bellicosity with Kushner’s behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

Kushner, 36, has no traditional foreign policy experience yet has become the primary point of contact for presidents, ministers and ambassadors from more than two dozen countries, helping lay the groundwork for agreements. He has had extensive talks with many of these officials, ranging from Europe to the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region.

Kushner’s back-channel communications with Mexico — the full extent of which has not been previously reported — reveal him to be almost a shadow secretary of state, operating outside the boundaries of the State Department or National Security Council.

Videgaray had come to the White House on Jan. 25 for a full day of private meetings, but it was Kushner who gave him a heads-up that Trump would deliver a speech that afternoon at the Department of Homeland Security where he would sign an executive order on his signature border wall.

And it was Kushner who led Videgaray into the Oval Office for an unscheduled audience with the president, where together they made their case to Trump for a more measured discussion of Mexico.

The president agreed.

“We also understand that a strong and healthy economy in Mexico is very good for the United States — very, very good,” Trump said in his speech. “I truly believe we can enhance the relation between our two nations to a degree not seen before, certainly in a very, very long time.”

But Videgaray and Kushner’s victory was short-lived. So strong were the anti-Trump political winds at home that Peña Nieto felt compelled to go on television that night to declare that Mexico would never pay for the border wall.

This angered Trump, who tweeted at 8:55 Eastern time the next morning that he and Peña Nieto should cancel their upcoming summit if Mexico refused to pay for the wall. Peña Nieto called off the visit and in a brief phone call instructed Videgaray — back at the White House for another round of meetings — to leave and come home.

The mission was aborted, according to the officials’ accounts, and Kushner seethed with frustration at the outcome. Kushner declined to be interviewed.

Some of the leaders who have dealt with Kushner said they were initially skeptical but found him to be a good listener and courteous intermediary who quickly intuits the core of their issues and can facilitate meetings throughout the administration.

One of his top ambitions is to help broker peace in the Middle East — something with which the president has publicly tasked him — and Kushner, an Orthodox Jew, quietly has taken an active role in helping select ambassadors to that region.

“Everyone is trying to get to know Jared Kushner,” said the ambassador from one U.S. ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. Many ambassadors were loath to put even their positive thoughts about Kushner on the record for fear of jeopardizing what has become their most important contact in Trump’s Washington.

Kushner’s role as a foreign-policy fixer is, on the surface, an unlikely one. He came of age as the oldest son in a Democratic real estate family and as a young man initially divided his attentions between his family’s business and the New York Observer newspaper he purchased in 2006.

In Trump’s inner circle, Kushner draws plaudits for smoothing feathers ruffled by his father-in-law’s more erratic moves — with some aides bemoaning that on Saturdays, when Kushner observes Shabbat and does not work or use electronic devices, the workings of the White House sometimes devolve.

Still, the president risks undermining Kushner’s best efforts with his erratic compulsions, short attention span and tendency to lash out at real or perceived slights, as happened in the case of Mexico.

The White House, however, argues that the relationship between the U.S. and its southern neighbor is improving. “Our relationship with Mexico continues to grow stronger,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said. “They’re excited to pursue both economic and security areas of interest, and we continue to have a very, very healthy bilateral relationship.”

In the Mexico talks, the relationship between Kushner and Videgaray, who met through friends in the financial world, has proved pivotal, especially for Mexico. They had forged a personal bond and had managed to help bring together Trump and Peña Nieto, whose public positions and rhetoric are at extreme odds.

Kushner has inquired about books and articles on the history of U.S.-Mexico relations, and Mexican officials said Kushner offers Trump a different perspective from the one the president has formed based on his opposition to illegal immigration and trade deals he considers unfair to U.S. workers.

“Videgaray has in his favor a close relationship with Jared, and that opens a direct channel of communication with Trump,” said Rafael Fernández de Castro, a professor at the ITAM university in Mexico City. Though, he added, “the son-in-law is not going to save us.”

There appear to be limits to Kushner’s influence. The leaders of both countries are at a stalemate, not only over the border wall but also over trade, with Mexico trying to preserve the North American Free Trade Agreement that Trump campaigned against. Further complicating the relationship are domestic political pressures.

“The president of the United States is speaking to his issues and his base, and our president is speaking to most of Mexican society, which has roundly rejected the way the new U.S. administration has talked about Mexico,” said Arturo Sarukhán, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States.

Bill Richardson, a former Democratic governor of New Mexico and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the U.S.-Mexico relationship is at its lowest point in generations.

“The threats on paying for the wall, the threats to renegotiate NAFTA, the threats of the import fee have stoked a real nationalism in the Mexican people that is going to give President Peña Nieto very little room to maneuver,” said Richardson.

Navigating these challenges on Peña Nieto’s behalf is Videgaray, one of his closest advisers. Videgaray was Mexico’s finance minister last year when Peña Nieto tasked him with outreach to the Trump campaign, where he cultivated a friendship with Kushner.

Videgaray and Kushner arranged Trump’s trip to meet Peña Nieto in Mexico City in August — a visit so controversial that Videgaray was forced to resign. But even without an official post, Videgaray remained close to Kushner, flying to New York to meet. And after Trump won, Videgaray was back in the good graces of Peña Nieto, who named him foreign minister.

“He has access to people close to Trump,” said Raúl Benítez Manaut, a political analyst and professor at Mexico’s National Autonomous University. “Videgaray’s job is to do damage control.”

Videgaray visited Washington just five days after Trump’s inauguration, having roughly eight hours of meetings at the White House on Jan. 25 with Kushner and Trump as well as chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and National Trade Council head Peter Navarro. He has become so well-known in the West Wing that aides refer to him by his first name, Luis.

The tweet that ended the comity was perhaps as predictable as it was strident, and the fallout was swift. Kushner was angry about the situation and Videgaray cut short his trip, canceling a scheduled meeting with John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, the officials said.

But Kushner and Videgaray kept talking. The two helped arrange a follow-up call between Trump and Peña Nieto, which officials in both countries described as tough at times but largely cordial and constructive, including a discussion on combating drug cartels.

“I think he’s a very good man,” Trump said of Peña Nieto in a recent interview with Fox News. “We have a very good relationship.”

Kushner helped facilitate yet another trip for Videgaray to Washington, where on Wednesday he met privately with Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

In another sign of Kushner’s growing importance, Tillerson invited him into his meeting with Videgaray, which for the first half hour was just the three men — the U.S. secretary of state, the Mexican foreign minister and the U.S. president’s son-in-law — before they were joined by additional aides.

The diplomatic community is taking note, viewing Mexico as a guinea pig. Senior officials from several other countries have already reached out to their Mexican counterparts, hoping to glean insights about the new president, the changing geopolitical dynamics in Washington and the quiet, dimpled man behind it all — Kushner.

Partlow reported from Mexico City.

View the original post here.