Debates Exposed Schisms In Democratic Party

The most important takeaway from the second round of Democratic debates, other than the fact that Joe Biden performs better after a practice round, is that there is a deep division within the Democratic Party. Contrary to claims by many of the pundit class, the Democrats are not all in lockstep solidarity with the democratic-socialist left. Over the past two nights, several Democratic candidates sounded almost (but not quite) conservative.

In particular, there seems to be an ongoing struggle between different factions of the party with respect to two issues: immigration and health insurance. Several sharp exchanges in the debates related to whether healthcare reform plans should eliminate private medical insurance in favor of Medicare-for-all and whether illegal immigration should be decriminalized.

Joe Biden led off the second night of debates with an attack on Kamala Harris’ plan to replace private health insurance, saying, “There is no talk about the fact that the plan in 10 years will cost $3 trillion. You will lose your employer-based insurance. And in fact, you know, this is the single most important issue facing the public. And to be very blunt and to be very straightforward, you can't beat President Trump with double-talk on this plan.”

Sounding almost like a conservative, Biden continued, “The plan, no matter how you cut it, costs $3 trillion when it is, in fact, employed, number one. Ten years from now, after two terms of the senator being president, after her time. Secondly, it will require middle-class taxes to go up, not down. Thirdly, it will eliminate employer-based insurance. And fourthly, what happens in the meantime?”

Biden is on firmer ground here than Harris. The former vice president was deeply involved with Obamacare, the 2010 health care reform bill that was intensely unpopular until Republicans came close to replacing it in 2017. At that point, Obamacare suddenly gained more fans and maintains a 10-point advantage in polling.

On the other hand, the approval of Medicare-for-all fluctuates wildly in polling and is heavily dependent on the details. AP polling from January found that voters like the idea of Medicare-for-all but not the higher taxes and longer wait times that it could bring. More recently, FiveThirtyEight pointed out that more voters are on board with the idea of allowing people to buy into Medicare voluntarily than in eliminating private insurance and forcing everyone into the program.

This is underscored by the recent endorsement of Joe Biden by the International Association of Fire Fighters, who said in a statement that union members “do not support the concept of abandoning those plans for a government-run single-payer plan,” adding, “The elimination of employer-based insurance in favor of a Medicare-for-all or government-run single-payer proposal is a bad idea that punishes working families who have secured quality healthcare.”

In his opening statement on the first debate night, John Delaney, a former Maryland congressman, argued that the focus on Medicare-for-all could cost Democrats the election. “We can go down the road that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren want to take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected,” Delaney said. “That’s what happened with McGovern. That’s what happened with Mondale.”

Later that night, Delaney took on Sanders directly, saying, “His math is wrong” and warned that many hospitals across the country would close if they had to rely on Medicare reimbursement rates.

“Why can’t we just give everyone healthcare as a right and allow them to have choice?” Delaney asked. “I’m starting to think this is not about healthcare. This is an anti-private sector strategy.”

Amy Klobuchar voiced similar concerns about the Medicare-for-all plans of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “I just don’t buy… that it’s somehow not moral to not have that public option,” she said.

The other big policy disagreement between the Democrats was over immigration. When former Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro advocated decriminalizing illegal immigration, it was Joe Biden once again who resisted the urge to pile on the popular liberal talking point.

“I have guts enough to say his plan doesn't make sense,” Biden responded to Castro. “Here's the deal. The fact of the matter is that, in fact, when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they're seeking asylum. People should have to get in line. That's the problem. And the only reason this particular part of the law is being abused is because of Donald Trump. We should defeat Donald Trump and end this practice.”

There was one other issue where one Democrat sounded more conservative than present-day Republicans. At one point, John Delaney mounted a spirited defense of free trade, something rarely heard these days in either party.

“So listen, this is what I don’t understand,” Delaney postulated. “President Trump wants to build physical walls and beats up on immigrants. Most of the folks running for president want to build economic walls to free trade and beat up on President Obama.”

“I’m the only one running for president who actually supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Delaney continued. “President Obama was right about that. We should be getting back in that. Senator Warren just issued a trade plan that would prevent the United States from trading with its allies. We can’t go and we can’t isolate ourselves from the world. We have to engage with fair, rules-based trade.”

At the end of the two nights, it was obvious that there are two different overlapping factions within the Democratic Party. One is the Obama faction represented by candidates like Biden, Delaney, Klobuchar. The other is the far-left faction of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. After attempting to keep one foot on both sides of the party in recent months, Joe Biden seems to have firmly embraced his position in the moderate lane.

As I’ve argued in the past, Biden is the dominant moderate candidate in the Democratic primary while numerous strong candidates are vying for the limited number of progressive votes. Barring unforeseen circumstances such as a gaffe of Trumpian proportions or a sudden health problem, this makes Biden likely to become the eventual nominee.

It also makes Biden likely to eventually become president. As he stakes down middle-of-the-road policy positions, he makes himself palatable to the moderate and independent voters who will decide the election, voters who have been all but ignored by Donald Trump for the past three years. As Biden attacks Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, he is also inoculating himself from charges of socialism by Republicans and positioning himself for the general election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Health Care Frustrations Emerge As Election Issue

As health insurance companies set rates for 2019, the country is about to be reminded of one of President Trump’s biggest failures, the failure to repeal or reform Obamacare. Republicans made several attempts in 2017 to reform the Affordable Care Act, but failed to garner even the simple majority required to pass the measure under budget reconciliation rules. Now their inability to fix the law is coming home to roost in the form of higher insurance premiums for many Americans.

If you listened to President Trump last December, you might think that Obamacare was repealed. In reality, Republicans repealed the law’s individual mandate, but left most of the ACA intact. Repeal of the mandate might actually worsen the problem of rising premiums as young, healthy insureds flee from the expensive policies still mandated by Obamacare.

In March, the Wall Street Journal forecast that health insurance premiums would be an election issue after Congress failed to agree on a stabilization (i.e. subsidy) bill to shore up the individual health insurance markets. Now that forecast is starting to come to fruition as the first announcements of premium increases are being heard. Maryland, one of the first states for which information about the new insurance rates has become available, has insurers proposing an average increase of 32 percent. The proposed increases range from 18 to 91 percent.

Announcements of rate hikes, along with news of insurers withdrawing from Obamacare marketplaces, have become an annual tradition in the years since Obamacare was implemented, but rising health insurance costs don’t just affect those Americans on individual plans. Marketwatch recently reported on a study that showed that rising health insurance costs contribute to slower wage growth among the nation’s workers, many of whom are covered by group plans purchased by their employer. Group health insurance premiums were forecast to increase by about four percent for 2018.

Americans are getting less coverage despite paying higher premiums. Spending on deductibles and coinsurance, the patient’s share of medical bills, has increased in recent years as copayments have covered less. Whether you have an Obamacare plan or an employer-based plan, you are probably paying more out of your own pocket for health care than you were just a few years ago.

There are also hidden limitations that you only find out about when you have a claim. As an example, my wife had to go to the hospital in an ambulance last year. Six months after her hospital stay, we received a bill from the ambulance service asking us to pay more than $4,000 for a 30-minute ride. When I followed up with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, our insurance company, I was told that the ambulance service was out-of-network. When I pressed further, I found that Blue Cross did not have any ambulance providers in their network in the entire state of Texas. As a result, Blue Cross paid less than $1,000 on a total claim of more than $5,000.

In the United States, the way that we buy health care is totally disconnected from markets and economic reality. If you have any idea what you will owe a doctor for something as simple as an office visit, you are in a minority of consumers. The problem is even worse if you go to the hospital for tests or surgery where several billing entities from the doctor to the anesthesiologist to pharmacies and labs and the hospital itself are involved. Prices are not known until after the service is provided. In many cases, the patient doesn’t even know what services are being provided or by whom.

In another personal experience, I went for a colonoscopy a few years ago. I discussed the cost of the procedure with the doctor and the hospital before I was admitted, but when the bills came later, it was more than three times what I had been told to expect. After months of running between the hospital, the doctor and the insurance company, I traced the problem to an error in the diagnostic code. It took many more hours on the phone to get this code corrected. Many patients probably simply pay incorrect medical bills without questioning whether they are correct or taking the time to investigate.

An accounts receivable representative for the ambulance service that we used told me that, because Blue Cross is hesitant to pay ambulance bills, they often send shockingly large bills to the patient. Part of the goal is to get the patient to put pressure on the insurance company to pay up. The provider doesn’t necessarily care where the money comes from as long as they get paid and the insurance company is happy if patients pay the bills and let them off the hook.

Because of the lack of competition in the healthcare system, Americans are left without options when health insurance companies misbehave. The majority of Americans who get their health insurance through an employer have no input into the choice of a health insurance provider. You can only decide whether to participate in or drop an employer health plan during open enrollment. If you decide to buy insurance from a company other than your group health provider, you lose the employer contribution to the premium. This means that you end up paying far more to buy your own health insurance that you would if you participated in the group plan.

The problem is similar for workers who like their company’s group health plan, but who leave their job. Coverage may not start at a new company for several weeks. In the meantime, health insurance premiums for your old plan may from a few hundred dollars to more than thousand.

Frustration with the existing health insurance system is probably a major reason why a majority of Americans now favor a single-payer system (i.e. government-run universal healthcare). Several recent polls have shown growing support for more government involvement in health care. In April, a Washington Post – Kaiser poll found that 51 percent of Americans favored single-payer. Gallup and Pew found similar results last year. The increasing costs and decreasing value of private health insurance is undoubtedly leading many Americans to embrace this radical idea.

Republicans have damaged themselves on the issue. The Republican health bills of 2017 were so unpopular that they turned public opinion around on Obamacare. After years of favoring repeal of the ACA, more Americans now oppose repeal than support it. CNN polling from March shows Democrats with a 20-point lead over Republicans when voters are asked which party would do a better job on health care, the largest gap of any issue.

At this point, there are no signs that Republicans are interested in fixing the health insurance problem. President Trump is basking in recent foreign policy successes, but Republicans may be hurt in the midterms if attention shifts to domestic issues like healthcare. Korean détente may mean that voters focus more on pocketbook issues instead of national security. If health insurance prices spike in October and November as Obamacare exchanges and employers hold open enrollment for 2019 health plans, it could provide Democrats with a much-needed issue with which to hammer Republicans.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Bernie Sanders Wants to Turn Medicaid into National Single-payer

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks the Republican health care plan is going to fail, but he has a plan. The sometimes-Democrat from The Green Mountain State announced that after the presumed defeat of the Republican bill, he intends to introduce legislation to make “Medicare for All” the national health care system of the United States.

“We are going to introduce it literally as soon as we’re through with this debate. I don’t want to confuse the two issues,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Sanders said that the initial phase of his plan would lower Medicaid eligibility to age 55, but would ultimately expand to cover all Americans. “Longer term, we need a Medicare for all,” Sanders said.

Sanders has been talking about universal Medicaid for years. The further expansion of Medicaid was a plank of Mr. Sanders presidential platform in 2016. Details of the plan are still available on BernieSanders.com. Last March, after the Republican bill failed its initial vote in the House, Sanders raised the prospect of introducing his Medicaid plan to the Republican-controlled Congress.

“President Trump, come on board. Let's work together,” Sanders said in Politico at the time. “Let's end the absurdity of Americans paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”

Sanders claims that his plan would save the typical middle class family more than $5,000 in annual health care costs. In reality, the plan would shift costs from insurance premiums to private companies to healthcare taxes paid to the government. Families would pay a 2.2 percent tax and employers would pay a 6.2 percent payroll tax for the health insurance. The increase in payroll taxes would likely translate into lower wages.

The Sanders plan contains a long list of other taxes that would be increased to pay for his healthcare plan as well. These include increases in the income tax, the dividend tax, the capital gains tax and the estate tax. He would also limit deductions for households earning more than $250,000 per year.

What would Americans get for their money? The Sanders plan does not go into detail about what the expanded Medicaid would cover or out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and coinsurance, but there are well-known problems with Medicare. The government only reimburses doctors for part of their costs in treating patients. Under the current system, states pay for Medicaid services and then the federal government reimburses the state for a percentage of its Medicaid costs. Forbes notes that Medicaid pays less than private insurers at the same time that Medicaid patients take more time than other patients. Increased paperwork and delays in payment mean that many doctors limit access for Medicaid patients or don’t see them at all. FactCheck.org estimates that only about 70 percent of the nation’s doctors participate in Medicaid.    

Despite Sanders’ claims that expanding Medicaid would save money, the plan merely shifts the burden of paying for healthcare to the states and the federal government. Already, Medicaid is the second largest budget item for most states, only coming in behind education spending.

When states face budget crunches, a common response is to cut reimbursement rates. These cuts can cause increase in wait times for treatment, lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for patients or even cause some providers that rely heavily on Medicaid funds to go out of business.

With Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress, the Sanders plan for national Medicaid will be dead-on-arrival when he submits the bill. However, if Republicans fail to reform the health insurance system, the threat of single-payer from leftists like Bernie Sanders will not go away.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Obamacare Reform Is Looking Doubtful This Year

If you’re wondering whatever happened to the Republican health care reform bill, you are not alone. When we last heard from the American Health Care Act, House Republican leaders were waiting on the Congressional Budget Office to score the bill before submitting the legislation passed in the House to the Senate. The CBO scored the bill in late May, but the silence from the Republican ranks has been deafening. The congressional website does not show any action on the bill since it passed the House on May 4.

Readers of The Resurgent are aware that the Republican health care bill falls short of full repeal. Senate rules require 60 votes for cloture on a repeal bill and Republicans would not be able to find eight Democrats to join them in ending a Democrat filibuster. Even if Republicans eliminated the filibuster entirely, they would not have enough votes for full repeal because at least four Republicans have pledged to oppose a repeal bill that does not provide for a phase out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Now some Republicans are saying that it is doubtful that they will be able to pass even an incomplete health care reform bill. “I don’t see a comprehensive health care plan this year,” Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said in Politico. “It’s unlikely that we will get a health care deal, which means that most of my time has been spent trying to figure out solutions to Iowa losing all of its insurers.” Burr serves on the Senate Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

In the Wisconsin State Journal, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) agreed that the first priority to would probably be to act to preserve the health insurance markets in their current form. Johnson said that a short-term “market stabilization” bill could be passed that would fund the Obamacare exchanges with billions of dollars to help prevent insurers from exiting the marketplaces. Such an approach would reduce volatility in the Obamacare markets and buy time for Republicans to agree on a reform bill.

“To me, this may be a two-part process. I would admit that’s probably a minority view in the Republican Senate right now,” Johnson said.

Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also tried to tamp down expectations. “There are some still saying that we’ll vote before the August break,” he told the Washington Post. “I have a hard time believing that.”

The fundamental problem is that conservative and moderate Republicans do not agree how to handle various aspects of the health care issue. Although Republicans have been united in their desire to repeal and replace Obamacare since the day it was passed, they disagree on the details of what should come next.

In the eight years since Obamacare became law, Republicans such as Tom Price, formerly a Georgia congressman and now Secretary of Health and Human Services, have written legislation to repeal Obamacare and reform the health insurance industry, but the party has not coalesced around any single bill. When Donald Trump eked out a squeaker of a victory in the Electoral College, Republicans were caught flat-footed and did not have a plan for how to exploit his victory. Indications were that, as late as early February, Republicans had not even started writing an Obamacare reform bill. The Senate considers the House bill dead on arrival and is writing its own version of health care reform, which may be available as early as this week.

President Trump’s antics are also hurting the possibility of passing a health care bill. The investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible connections with Russia and the firing of FBI Director James Comey are distractions that make it even more difficult to find a compromise that is acceptable to all GOP factions. The president showed leadership in the fight to pass the AHCA in the House, but has largely been missing-in-action on the issue in the month since the House vote.

Not all Republicans are pessimistic on health care. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) was quoted in The Hill as saying, “We do need to take care of our business, and I think you mentioned healthcare, and that's certainly front and center in the United States Senate — something we're going to have to get resolved here in the next few weeks.” Cornyn said that he thought a Senate bill would be “done by the end of July at the latest.”

Repeal of Obamacare has been the centerpiece of the Republican platform since 2010. The fact that repeal is not possible, even with Republican majorities in Congress and a Republican president, is not going to please most Republican voters. If the new Republican administration leaves Obamacare completely intact, it may well face a mutiny from the grass roots.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

New Cruz? Texas Senator Works For Health Care Compromise

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has developed a reputation as a firebrand. Cruz has made refusal to compromise a trademark of his career in Congress and has often had strong words for fellow Republicans who disagreed with him on strategy. Now a new behind-the-scenes report by the Wall Street Journal reports that Cruz may be turning over a new leaf.

The Journal reports that Cruz began working quietly with moderate Republicans to find a consensus on health care reform that has a realistic chance of becoming law. Cruz was instrumental in forming a working group of 13 Senators that had its origin in a February steak dinner with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). The group includes Republicans concerned about the effect of an outright repeal of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and pre-existing conditions rules such as Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Cory Gardner (R-Col.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). Cruz has reportedly been working with House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mike Meadows (R-N.C.) for the past month.

Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed surprise at Cruz’s new strategy. “It’s a ‘you live long enough, anything can happen’ moment,” said Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“It would be a first for Sen. Cruz,” noted Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

The GOP’s 52-vote majority in the Senate means that Republicans can lose no more than two votes and still be able to pass an Obamacare replacement. A defection of two Republicans would require Vice President Mike Pence to cast the tie-breaking vote. At least five Republican moderates are considered to be doubtful in their support for the American Health Care Act.

The working group is expected to be vital in bringing various Republican factions in the Senate together to forge a compromise that can replace as much of Obamacare as possible. Cruz’s participation and support may help bring other conservatives such as Mike Lee and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on board with the Republican reform effort.

In the past, Cruz has had difficulty with consensus building and passing legislation. He is perhaps most well-known for his role in the 2013 government shutdown and attempt to defund Obamacare. With Republicans outnumbered by Democrats, the shutdown failed to halt the implementation of President Obama’s namesake health bill. Cruz was also known for failed attempts to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling and compromise spending bills under the Obama Administration.

Cruz may be realizing that the role of majority party senator is very different from that of one who serves in the opposition. When a party is in power, it is expected to deliver results in the form of advancing its legislative agenda. It is not enough to just say “no” when your party controls both houses of Congress and the White House.

“They’re giving him a leadership role and he’s going to have to make the most of if it,” said Rick Tyler, who served with Cruz’s presidential campaign. “If he can pull it off it’s a huge victory. But it’s fraught with danger.”

The upside for Cruz would be an enormous amount of prestige and notoriety if he shows an ability to build a coalition to pass a landmark reform bill. The boost for Cruz could potentially reach beyond his normal conservative base and lay the groundwork for a second presidential campaign in 2020.

Without the support of Cruz and other Senate conservatives, a reform effort would necessarily have to reach across the aisle to Senate Democrats. That would mean fewer conservative reforms in a watered-down bill. The alternative would be to delay reform until after the 2018 elections or until health insurance markets become so dysfunctional that the public demands action.

A potential pitfall would be alienating the conservative base whose expectations are for a full repeal of Obamacare. Even though Republicans do not have the votes for a full repeal, Mr. Cruz has helped stoke those expectations over the past few years. Many conservatives view anything short of full repeal to be a betrayal. Cruz must help the party overcome that view and sell the reform bill to the conservative base.

Health care reform gives Ted Cruz an opportunity to break out of his stereotypical role as a roadblock in the Senate. If Cruz can prove that he has the ability reach out and build a working majority with senators who don’t share his views, it would represent a major milestone in his career make him an even greater force in the Senate.

Originally published on The Resurgent

AHCA is best chance to replace Obamacare in our lifetime

The House of Representatives finally passed a bill to gut Obamacare and many conservatives are upset. Admittedly the bill is not full repeal. It is far from perfect. If I was going to write a health care reform plan, the American Health Care Act would not be it. Still, I’m very glad that the House passed the bill and I fervently hope that the Senate moves the legislation forward. Why? Because it is the only health care reform that has any chance of passing.

Many myths have grown up around Obamacare and the Republican repeal and replace effort. Over time, we have forgotten that Obamacare was not passed by a budget reconciliation. “HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” was passed on Christmas Eve 2009 after a cloture vote by 60 Democrats ended a Republican filibuster. It was a traditional bill that requires a traditional bill to repeal.

So, what was the controversy about the budget reconciliation? After Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was elected to the Senate, the Democrats could no longer break Republican filibusters. If the Democrat-controlled House amended the ACA, it would be subject to another cloture vote, which the Democrats would lose. The answer was to have the House pass the bill unchanged and use the budget reconciliation process to pass a second bill, “HR 4872, The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act,” by a simple majority vote. This bill was subject to the same limitations that the GOP now faces in passing their own budget reconciliation.

Even though Republicans hold the presidency and control both houses of Congress, they were not granted a blank check by voters. A full repeal would require 60 votes for cloture in the Senate and there are only 52 Republicans. The mathematical problem is obvious.

But what about the 2015 repeal bill that was vetoed by President Obama, you may ask. Republicans didn’t have 60 votes in 2015 either, but they passed a repeal bill then. Why can’t they do it now?

The answer is that the 2015 repeal bill was not a full repeal either. The 2015 bill, was also a reconciliation bill that carried the unwieldy title, “HR 3762 To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Section 2002 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016.” The text of the bill states in Section 102 that the ACA “is amended,” not repealed.

If the 2015 bill was better that the AHCA of 2017, it is for two reasons. First, there were 54 Republicans in the 114^th Congress where there are only 52 now. The GOP could afford to lose more votes in the Senate in 2015 that it can today.

Second, four Republican senators who voted for the 2015 bill now say that they won’t vote for a bill that does not provide for a phase out of the Medicaid expansion. Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio,) Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) refuse to back the same bill that they voted for two years ago. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against the 2015 bill and would presumably do so again. Other Republicans are reluctant to repeal the popular provision concerning pre-existing conditions. It is these five senators and House moderates, not the Republican leadership or President Trump that are forcing a more watered-down version of the bill.

Some conservatives suggest that Republicans should get rid of the filibuster to pass a repeal. We wouldn’t need 60 votes then and the Democrats will probably kill it anyway the next time they have a majority, they argue.

The problem with this strategy is that full repeal could not even win a simple majority vote. The five Republican defectors in the Congress and the Tuesday Group of 50 Republican moderates in the House would kill it.

Removing the filibuster would also mean that Democrats would only need simple majorities to replace Republican health care reform with a national single-payer system the next time they control both houses of Congress and the presidency. It would also usher in a host of other bad ideas from gun control to a higher minimum wage to higher taxes to onerous regulations on practically everything. It is true that Democrats might one day choose to remove the filibuster, but it is certain that if Republicans remove it now, for no strategic reason, Democrats will have a field day when they return to power.

What, then, are the options for Republicans on Obamacare? One option is to wait and hope for a filibuster-proof majority. If you favor this option, be aware that the last time that Republicans had a 60-vote majority was the 61^st Congress from 1909 to 1911. It is extremely likely that before the Republicans get a supermajority, Obamacare will implode, health insurance premiums will skyrocket, insurance companies will cancel policies and hell will freeze over. I have little doubt that if Republicans hold out for the perfect, full repeal bill that I will die of old age with Obamacare still intact. (I’m only 45.)

Waiting until 2018 might give the Republicans a few more votes to craft a better compromise. It is also possible that two years into the Trump Administration, voters might deliver a rebuke to Republicans in the form of Democrat majority in either the House or Senate that makes any sort of conservative impossible. In any event, it is doubtful that the numbers would change enough in the GOP’s favor to justify putting off a cornerstone promise of the campaign for two years. The longer Republicans wait to take action, the more entrenched Obamacare will become.

A better option is to take baby steps toward the full repeal of Obamacare starting now with the AHCA. The current bill has the support of moderates as well as the Freedom Caucus and has decent chance of becoming law. While far from ideal, it is a reasonable bill that can hopefully be improved further in its journey through the Senate. Even if it became law in its current form it would mark a vast improvement over Obamacare.

The Republican reform bill should not be viewed as a final step, but as a first step toward total repeal. Without a supermajority, it may take years of nibbling at the edges of Obamacare to fully repeal the behemoth, but conservatives have to start somewhere. The logical place to start is the bill that has the support of the two disparate factions of the GOP. The only bill that has a chance of becoming law.

Conservatives must decide whether it is worth trading a chance to gut Obamacare now to wait for a perfect bill in the distant future. The answer should be obvious. We should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of good and the possible.

Seize the day and start saving American healthcare!

Originally published by The Resurgent

Few lasting achievements from Trump's 100 days

As the Trump Administration passes its 100-day mark, the most striking thing is how ineffective the new president has been thus far. In spite of a plethora of Executive Orders that undoubtedly please most on the right, President Trump has put few lasting marks on the country at this early point in his presidency.

Even though President Trump has signed many bills in his tenure as president, most have not been laws that have lasting significance. For conservatives, passing laws is not an end unto itself. Laws should roll back government and make it smaller and less intrusive on the American people. Politifact notes that several of the bills that Trump has signed are business-as-usual type laws that designate memorials and name buildings, for example.

Not all of Trump’s new laws have been trivial, however. About half of the 28 bills signed by Trump so far were passed under the Congressional Review Act. This law allows Congress to review and rescind last-minute Obama-era rules by federal agencies. The law provides for a 60-day window to review bureaucratic rules that begins when Congress is notified that a rule has been finalized. The Daily Signal has a list of Obama-era rules that run the gamut from gun control to environment to education that have been rescinded by President Trump and the new Congress. Nevertheless, the laws merely preserve the status quo and do not break new ground in shrinking government or rolling back Obama’s legislation. Additionally, the window is now closed to rescind other rules from the Obama Administration.

The most notable legislative story of Trump’s 100 days is the failure to advance a bill repealing or reforming Obamacare. For seven years, Republicans have railed against President Obama’s trademark health entitlement yet, under President Trump’s leadership, Republicans in Congress have failed to advance even a watered-down version of bill reforming Obamacare.

President Trump’s answer was to pivot from health care to tax reform, but he is likely to have the same result and for the same reasons. The Trump coattails left Republicans with tiny majorities in both houses of Congress. The Republican Senate majority cannot defeat a Democrat filibuster and the House Republicans are too divided between Tuesday Group moderates and Freedom Caucus conservatives to pass a health reform bill. Tax reform is likely to be no different.

In order to avert a government shutdown, President Trump even had to give in and omit funding for construction of his wall and crackdown on sanctuary cities from the spending bill that will carry the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. Trump said repeatedly that Mexico would pay for the wall before asking for taxpayer funds.

Trump has done better with Executive Orders. The president has issued many orders that will slow the growth of government and streamline government regulations. An early Trump Executive Order reinstated President Reagan’s Mexico City policy that banned federal funds from international groups that promote abortion. President Obama had rescinded the policy in 2009. Other Executive Orders, such as the travel ban, seem poorly conceived from the beginning.

Good or bad, Executive Orders are limited. The president cannot legislate from the Oval Office with an Executive Order in place of Congress. Executive Orders may also last only as long as the president who signed them. An incoming president could sign Executive Orders rescinding Trump’s orders as easily as Trump reversed Obama’s.

On foreign policy, President Trump, whose views in the campaign ranged from promising a plan to destroy ISIS within his first month to neo-isolationism in other regions, launched what is largely considered to be an ineffective attack on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack before turning his attention to North Korea.

For several weeks, Trump suggested that he would make trade concessions to China in exchange for help in dealing with North Korea. As recently as April 30, Trump suggested on CBS News that he was open to dealing with China on trade, saying, “Trade is very important. But massive warfare with millions, potentially millions of people being killed? That, as we would say, trumps trade.”

Today that has changed. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross seemed to walk back weeks of diplomatic overtures in an interview with CBS, saying, “I don't think he [Trump] meant to indicate at all that he intends to trade away American jobs just for help on North Korea.”

One hundred days into Trump’s presidency, there is also still no detailed plan to defeat ISIS.

To date, the Trump presidency can be described as lurching from one crisis to another. Some of these crises have been self-inflicted, such as the president’s tweets about wiretapping by the Obama Administration. Others, such as North Korean missile tests and Syrian chemical warfare, have been outside the president’s control. Still others, such as the division among congressional Republicans, reflect a lack of leadership from President Trump.

The one unqualified success that President Trump has had is with the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch seems to be as solid a conservative jurist as anyone could possibly have picked. Nevertheless, the confirmation came at the cost of the filibuster. This was necessary due to unreasonable Democratic obstructionism, but may haunt Republicans in the future.

To have a lasting and positive impact, President Trump is going to have to develop a cogent and consistent worldview on both domestic and foreign policy. So far, the president has been inconsistent on numerous issues in both realms. He needs to make up his mind as to what his goals are and concentrate on those items.

The president also needs to learn to work with Congress. Donald Trump was elected partly on claims that he is a world-class dealmaker. His deal-making skills are sorely needed in hammering out compromises on Obamacare and tax reform, but so far President Trump seems to have little interest in the details of policymaking. The president should realize that the qualities that made him the Republican nominee and that enabled him to win the election don’t necessarily make him a natural leader and statesman.

None of this means that he will have a failed presidency, however. President Trump has assembled a very qualified and capable team. With a few exceptions, the Trump cabinet can truly be called a “conservative dream team.” President Trump should listen to their advice and consider it carefully.

As someone who was a Never Trump conservative and a third-party voter during the election, I must admit that Trump, with all his foibles, has not been the worst-case scenario that I feared. So far, he has undoubtedly been better than President Hillary (shudder) would have been. Neither has he been a valiant, steely-eyed, conservative leader. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

So far President Trump has been erratic and ineffective, but he has trended toward the right. In some cases, such as backing away from his plans to terminate NAFTA, his flip-flops have even be reassuring. In other cases, such as his saber-rattling against North Korea, his actions are downright scary.

After 100 days, the jury is still out. 

Originally published by The Resurgent

It's time to stage an intervention for Republicans

When I was growing up, a frequent trope on television sit-coms was to stage an intervention for characters whose destructive behavior was getting them into trouble. The episode would involve other members of the cast gathering together to show the character with the problem how they were destroying their life with the hope of convincing them to change their ways. This week, as the prospects for repeal and replacement of Obamacare grow ever dimmer, it is time for an intervention for Republicans.

Obamacare cannot be repealed.

There. I’ve said it.

As a popular meme series might put it, “Stop trying to make full repeal happen. It’s not going to happen.” At least for now, this is the hard truth for conservatives.

The truth is that Republicans don’t have the votes to repeal Obamacare. The Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act with 60 votes, enough to end the Republican filibuster two days before Christmas in 2009. Republicans also need 60 votes to stop a Democrat filibuster of a repeal bill. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate. You do the math.

Repealing Obamacare is not mathematically possible without at least eight Democrats crossing the aisle. Reforming Obamacare is possible through a budget reconciliation. That should be our goal. We should be talking about health care reform instead of repeal.

Ted Cruz (R-Texas) advocates the 2015 repeal bill that was vetoed by President Obama, noting that “Virtually every Republican in Congress voted for that language, and the parliamentarian has already ruled it as permissible.” This bill is also unattainable, however. Cruz fails to note that four Republicans who voted for the 2015 bill now refuse to vote for a bill without a phase out of the Medicaid expansion. The 2015 bill was also not a full repeal.

Otto von Bismarck said that “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”

That is what Republicans should focus on: What is possible, attainable, and the next best thing to full repeal that can actually pass. That is going to involve the ugly art of compromise. Any bill that can pass is not going to be everything that the conservative and moderate Republicans have on their respective wish lists.

The question for Republicans is this: Is a compromise that reforms Obamacare but falls short of repeal better than leaving the current monstrosity in place in its entirety? The answer should be a resounding “yes!”

Repeal is the ultimate goal, but it is not going to happen within the next two years. The current, short-term goal should be to take baby steps toward fixing the health care mess that Obamacare created. If Republicans can create a policy compromise that makes things better for most Americans, then hopefully voters will trust them with a larger majority in 2018.

Even then, it probably won’t be a slam dunk. Sixty-seat supermajorities don’t come along often. This is especially true for the Republicans who last had 60 seats in 1911. As long as there is a filibuster, compromise and forging bipartisan majorities is going to be necessary to advance conservative legislation.

Conversely, the more dysfunctional the party acts, the less likely voters are to give Republicans more power.

Since the defeat of the AHCA, President Trump has realized that he needs some Democrat votes and has started reaching across the aisle. The question is whether conservative Republicans will be left behind in the new reality or whether they will use their influence to craft the best, most conservative bill that can pass. If conservatives don’t play ball with the “nonpartisan” president, they may well find a new reform law passing that is even less likeable than the AHCA.

There is no honor for Republicans in insisting on a perfect bill that will never become law. There is no honor in killing imperfect bills that can improve the lives of hardworking Americans. The honor for Republicans will be found in coming together and building a bill that both conservatives and moderates can say “yes” to.

Voters did not send Republicans to Washington with a blank checkbook. For better or worse, Republicans were given a slim majority and a president who is not a conservative. No one faction of the party can enforce its will on the others. To accomplish anything, Republicans must learn to work together and get beyond the “just say ‘no’” mentality.

Voters did send Republicans to Congress to fix the Obamacare mess. If the ACA cannot be repealed, then it should be reformed where possible. Republicans should roll up their sleeves and get to work doing just that. 

Trump pivots towards Democrats after health bill disaster

The White House issued a warning to Republicans yesterday. In the wake of the failure of the president’s health care reform bill, the Trump Administration signaled that it is willing to reach out to Democrats to advance its agenda if it can’t win support from the various Republican factions.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus underscored the potential shift in strategy on “Fox News Sunday” (quoted in the Wall Street Journal). “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Priebus said. “I think it's time for our folks to come together, and I also think it's time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board as well.”

When asked if President Trump would move on from health care reform and allow the implosion of Obamacare to run its course as he threatened in a tweet, Politico notes that Priebus answered, “I don't think the president is closing the door on anything.”

“It's more or less a warning shot that we are willing to talk to anyone. We always have been,” he said in Time. “I think more so now than ever, it's time for both parties to come together and get to real reforms in this country.”

Since the decision to remove the AHCA bill from consideration on Friday, President Trump has alternately blamed the Democrats, blamed the House Freedom Caucus and reached out to Democrats.

The Washington Times reports that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was receptive to Trump’s overtures. “We Democrats, provided our Republican colleagues drop [repeal and replace] and stop undermining the ACA, are willing to work with our Republican friends — as long as they say no more repeal,” Mr. Schumer said. Schumer added in Time that, “if he changes, he could have a different presidency.”

With Republicans holding 52 seats in the Senate, virtually all reform legislation is subject to Democrat filibusters. A minimum of eight Democrats must cross over to kill the filibuster and allow a vote on any individual bill.

The Resurgent speculated in January that President Trump might forge a bipartisan coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans on a number of issues where the president’s platform is at odds with traditional Republican principles. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said that he wouldn’t mind being a “free agent” in his dealings with Congress.

The price for dealing with the Democrats on health care would be giving up the full repeal of Obamacare. Republicans currently don’t have enough votes for repeal, but many, including those in the House Freedom Caucus, would refuse to vote for anything less. The price of bringing Democrats on board other items in the Republican agenda, from tax reform to immigration, is likely to be just as unpalatable. The more the president moves to the left to appeal to Democrats, the more Republicans he will lose. The question is whether he can find a workable majority in the middle.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Which is worse: Failure or passage of the GOP health bill?

As the American Health Care Act heads toward an uncertain future in the House, there is speculation that Republicans might be better off if the bill is killed quickly in its first vote. With many members of the Freedom Caucus lining up against the bill, Margot Sanger-Katz and Nate Cohn, who respectively cover healthcare and elections for the New York Times opined on which was worse for the GOP, having the bill fail or having it pass.

 “I think there are two big forces behind the progress of this bill,” Cohn said. “One is that no one wants to be responsible for its failure. So I agree that if the House passes something, there will be a lot more pressure for the Senate to figure something out. They might not be able to do it, but they might really try.”

“Two is that the speed is good for the Republicans,” he continued. “It has a better chance of passing if they move quickly, before public opinion turns against it. It’s better for the Republicans if it fails quickly, because they can move on to other things.”

“I think the Republicans are in a tough spot either way, but I think they’re better off if the bill fails,” Cohn continued. “They’ll get bad press, but voters have fairly short memories and I think the Republicans will move on. They’ll still be able to blame problems on Obamacare, even if it will be less credible. If they pass this plan, I have no idea how they intend to defend it. And I think hurting vulnerable Americans would go against the core of Trump’s appeal to the decisive Obama-Trump vote in the Midwest and Northeast, with little benefit. I think the best position for a lot of Republican members is to vote for the bill, but hope it fails. On the other hand, if the bill passes, it will be nice to be among the Republicans who voted against it.”

If the bill does manage to pass the House, it won’t pass the Senate as written. “The Senate has more of a moderate problem than the House, it appears,” said Sanger-Katz. “There are two senators — Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins — who don’t like that the bill defunds Planned Parenthood. There are a few senators from states that expanded Medicaid who are worried about changes to that program. There are also some concerns about the generosity of tax credits, particularly for older Americans.”

If the bill is amended to win the votes of Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Collins (R-Maine), it will face increasing opposition from Senators on the right such as Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Still, the best chance for repeal and replace seems to be to pass versions of the bill in both houses and work to improve it in the conference committee that irons out the differences.

The biggest problem for Republicans is the lack of a clear direction if the AHCA fails. “My sense is that there’s just no policy consensus about health care among Republicans,” Sanger-Katz said. “I think they would need that kind of vision and consensus to get something ready in advance.”

Finding a consensus is easier said than done. Many of the problems with the current bill result from trying to find a consensus where there is none. Conservatives want a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act which is not mathematically possible in the current Congress without Democrat defections. Moderates want to protect citizens of their states that rely on the Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The resulting standoff makes it unlikely that enough Republicans can be satisfied to pass any bill without compromise from both sides.

The current bill is the result of an “effort to write this bill, in a hurry, with a jumble of provisions, [that] seems to suggest that they are just trying to find something that can pass, as opposed to articulating a clear policy vision for what they want health care to look like in this country,” Sanger-Katz said.

If the current compromise bill, written to get something passed, cannot pass, what is the future of the Republican repeal and replace effort? Amending it to satisfy members of the Freedom Caucus would probably spur moderates to vote “no” and vice versa. If the bill dies, there is no clear path forward.

Failure of the current bill might have the effect of moving healthcare reform to the left. If conservatives cannot be brought on board, President Trump may tack to the left and craft a bill that could pass with a coalition of moderates from both parties.

Failing to repeal Obamacare won’t be good for Republicans. Neither is passing a bill that leaves much of Obamacare intact. Finding a bill that can pass will require walking a tightrope that leaves the GOP vulnerable to attacks from both the left and the right.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

Obamacare repeal meets bipartisan opposition

The Republican promise to repeal Obamacare is meeting bipartisan opposition. Democrats are protesting the entire idea of repeal. Meanwhile, some Republicans are seeking to delay the repeal or protect some facets of the Affordable Care Act until a replacement can be written.

A core dispute among Republicans is whether Obamacare should be repealed before a replacement bill is ready. Obamacare can’t simply be repealed because it remade the American health care system. Not all of the healthcare eggs that Obamacare scrambled can be unbroken. Removing the law would not restore healthcare to its previous status quo, which was unpopular anyway.

The ultimate solution must take into consideration that an estimated 20 million people are insured under Obamacare. And, believe it or not, some of them even like it. To be politically viable, the Republican plan for repeal and replacement must find more coverage for these Americans.

Democrats contributed to the discussion about how to handle Obamacare with a five-hour talkathon on the Senate floor. The evening bull session among Democrats began at 6:45 p.m. on Monday and lasted into the wee hours of Tuesday morning. The Democrats boiled down their message to what The Hill calls “The Pottery Barn” rule: You break it, you buy it. Ironically, this is the same rule that gave Republicans control of Congress after Democrats passed Obamacare in 2010.

“Get real, [Republicans] don't have a clue what to do next," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in The Hill. "Repeal and run. That's the Republican plan.”

Some Republicans agree that they don’t know what to do next. That is the essence of the debate among Republicans. One faction wants to pass a budget resolution to start the repeal and then follow up with a replacement later. The budget reconciliation is the same trick that Democrats used in passing the original Affordable Care Act to avoid a filibuster by Republicans. The resolution contains language that would direct House and Senate committees to write a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare by Jan. 27.

An amendment introduced by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would extend the deadline to craft a replacement law until March 3. Corker is joined by Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in favoring more time to write the new law.

“This amendment will give the incoming administration more time to outline its priorities after its chief healthcare official assumes office and fully reviews the tools currently at his disposal,” Corker told the Washington Examiner. “By extending the deadline for budget reconciliation instructions until March, Congress and the incoming administration will each have additional time to get the policy right.

Republicans all favor a repeal of Obamacare, but they have not agreed on a replacement. The original bill allows only a few weeks to write a complex bill to restructure the health insurance industry. Corker’s amendment would extend that time to a few months.

In either case, Obamacare will probably not go away instantly. MarketWatch reports that Republicans may delay full repeal for two to four years while the replacement law is written and implemented. At the same time, they will also be working on reforming the tax code, another massive undertaking which will be passed by the same budget resolution tactic.

While the budget reconciliation to repeal Obamacare would be passed by a simple majority vote, subsequent bills to replace it would be subject to cloture votes that require 60 votes. This would allow the 48 Senate Democrats to block bills that Republicans try to pass separately from the budget resolution.

Republicans can’t count on the Democrats to pitch in. “I take (Senate Minority Leader Chuck) Schumer at his word that if we just go ahead and repeal, Democrats won't provide one vote for enacting the replacement," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told CNN. "So I think we need to actually have a game plan.

One sticking point among Republicans is whether Obamacare’s taxes should be repealed immediately. Bloomberg reports that some Republicans, among them Sen. Cassidy and Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, believe that the Obamacare taxes should be repealed as part of the tax reform.

The problem, according to Cassidy, is that most Republicans have taken a pledge not to raise taxes. If the Obamacare taxes are repealed immediately, “then you’re in a hole” where Republicans politically cannot enact a new healthcare law because they can’t vote to pay for it.

“If we don’t like ’em, we can replace them,” Cassidy said. “But we can do it in a way where you overall are lowering tax rates and making the tax code more efficient. There will be enough there for people to win.”

Other Republicans say that the taxes must go immediately. “Repeal it, get rid of it, every single bit of it, don’t keep any of it,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “That’s all the taxes, all the mandates, all the things that are in this thing that the American people don’t like and that I think have driven up the cost of medicine, hurt economic growth. I think we’ve got to do what we told voters we were going to do.”

A second problem is defunding Planned Parenthood, which will also be part of the budget reconciliation. Pro-abortion Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski may not vote for the budget bill if it defunds the abortion provider. The loss of their votes could derail the repeal effort.

Corker told CNN that it “doesn’t seem very intelligent” to repeal the law without knowing what is going to replace it. Rand Paul agreed, “I will do everything in my power to have a vote on it the day we repeal Obamacare.”

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership is still pressing for a quick repeal and eventual replacement. “We're not going to do a comprehensive bill,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “We are going to do it in a step-by-step basis” with a series of smaller bills.

The direction that the GOP will take will soon be evident. The Senate plans to vote on the budget reconciliation authorizing the repeal of Obamacare this week. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why I voted for Evan McMullin and not Donald Trump

I’m a lifelong conservative who has voted Republican as long as I can remember. Growing up, I watched President Reagan swing Georgia from a state where a Republican couldn’t get elected dogcatcher to a state that was almost totally red. A defining moment of my political life was when I saw President Reagan live at a campaign rally in Atlanta. I started listening to Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the 1990s and have been writing my conservative Christian blog since 2007.

This makes it all the more surprising for people when they find out that I’m not voting for Donald Trump. In fact, I voted early last week and cast my ballot for Evan McMullin, the independent conservative.

Why I voted for McMullin and why I didn’t vote for Trump are closely intertwined. The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe that either Trump or Hillary should be president. In fact, I don’t believe that either Trump or Hillary should be allowed anywhere near the White House. Not even on a tour group.

People say that if I don’t want Hillary to be president, I should support Donald Trump. The truth is that I oppose Trump for many of the same reasons that I oppose Hillary Clinton. The two candidates are evenly matched in many areas. Trump and Hillary both have deep character flaws. Both are chronic liars. Both are dishonest. Both are corrupt.

I had always said that I would vote Republican as long as the party supported my beliefs and values. Under Donald Trump, it no longer does.

Hillary’s corruption is well known, but when I looked into Trump’s background, I found a seemingly endless list of scandals even before the revelation of his sexual harassment problem. Not paying workers, using eminent domain to take the homes of less wealthy and connected Americans, and openly bragging about bribing elected officials are only the icing on the cake. His unsatisfied clients say Trump was literally a con man who stole tens of thousands of dollars from hardworking real estate investors through Trump University and then allegedly paid off state attorneys general like Pam Bondi in Florida to cover his tracks.

I’ve been told that Trump’s corruption is less damning because he was in the private sector or that the amounts of money involved were less than the Clinton Foundation payoffs. In truth, corruption is a matter of the heart. If Trump would steal from a guy who has to max out his credit card to pay Trump University tuition, why would he not steal from the taxpayers of the United States or use his position to line his own pockets?

If Christian conservatives like me put aside our ethical problems with Trump to defeat Hillary, what have we won? Trump is a New York liberal who, until he started planning to run for president, held traditional liberal views. Even while running as a Republican he has advocated universal government healthcare and raising the minimum wage, supported federal money for Planned Parenthood, and has even adopted Democrat positions on gun control. You would be hard pressed to find any of Donald Trump’s positions which involve shrinking government or making it less powerful. If we elect Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, we will only have succeeded in electing a different liberal.

Trump is even worse than Hillary on some issues. Trump bragged that his trade policy was “very similar” to that of Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. An analysis of Trump’s tariffs and rejection of trade deals found that they would probably cause a recession that might cost as many as 5 million American jobs.

He is no less of an isolationist when it comes to military alliances. He has threatened not to defend NATO allies and called NATO itself “obsolete,” even as Vladimir Putin’s forces carve off pieces of the Ukraine. Trump has said that he is open to proliferation of nuclear weapons and threatened to withdraw American troops from South Korea and Japan where they have stabilized East Asia for the past 60 years.

It was not being too strong that caused the last world war, it was being too deferential to expansionist dictatorships. This is a problem for Trump as well. Trump seems to have a fascination with dictators, but his admiration for Vladimir Putin is particularly troubling, from their bromance last fall to the growing body of evidence that Russia is interfering with the election in a way that benefits Trump. Russia’s investment in Trump may have already paid off. This year’s Republican Party platform dropped a proposal to arm Ukraine against the Russian invaders. The change reportedly came from the Trump campaign. Trump also seems ready to yield America’s role in the Middle East to Russia.

I can find no evidence that Trump is the America-loving conservative that he claims to be. There seems to be no Emmaus road moment that he can point to that led him to change his mind on so many issues. I can find no evidence that he is anything other than an actor playing a role. He is a liberal playing a conservative and occasionally he lapses into his true beliefs or cynically changes positions where he sees a potential benefit.

The character problems, liberal ideology and erratic behavior are red flags that warn about Trump’s lack of judgment. Just as Hillary Clinton’s use of an unapproved private email server and solicitation of donations in exchange for access while Secretary of State are disqualifying, Trump’s many scandals are a warning to voters that he is not to be trusted either.

In fact, almost everything about both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton seems to resonate as a warning against making them president. I cannot think of two people that I believe are less equipped to handle presidential authority and responsibility than the Terrible Two.

Some argue that Trump would surround himself with good people who would keep him in line. I think the reverse is true. One need only watch Mike Pence’s debate performance to see the corrupting influence of Trump on the Republican Party. Pence made excuses for Donald Trump and transparently denied that Trump said things that everyone has seen him say on video. What would four years with Trump as leader of the GOP do to the America’s conservative party?

Just when I was considering voting for Gary Johnson as protest or even not voting at all since Johnson showed himself to be a nut, Evan McMullin announced his candidacy.

After watching several interviews of McMullin, I boarded the “Evan Express.” McMullin is essentially a traditional Republican. He is a pro-life, free trade, strong defense, small government conservative. After working for the Republicans in the House of Representatives as a policy advisor, McMullin knows his stuff. He seems to be more knowledgeable than any other candidate, including Hillary Clinton. It is unfortunate that he was not included in the debates.

What really sold me on McMullin was not his policy chops though. What sold me on McMullin was simply the fact that, in a race dominated by two people who are, to use Hillary’s word, deplorable, he was an honest, decent man. He is the sort of person who tries to bring people together, rather than drive wedges between demographics to glom onto a few more votes.

I know that McMullin is a long shot. On the other hand, McMullin’s odds of becoming president are far greater than the odds of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becoming a president that I can be proud of. Given the choice between sacrificing my beliefs to elect an untrustworthy, liberal Republican who I believe would be a disaster for the country or supporting a candidate that who shares my beliefs, I decided to vote my conscience.

David Thornton is a contributor to The Resurgent

Evan McMullin unveils 'Principles for New American Leadership'

Yesterday independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin unveiled his list of conservative principles to a cheering crowd in Provo, Utah. McMullin, who only announced his candidacy in early August, is positioning himself as the conservative alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. His statement of principles, the “Principles for New American Leadership,” put forth core values for the relatively unknown candidate.

In a video accompanying the unveiling of the document, McMullin describes his beliefs. “Our great nation requires a new generation of leadership and civic engagement…. Washington has become distant and disconnected from our needs, and unable to meet the challenges ahead. The two parties have given us gridlock and division, and candidates who care more about themselves than us. That’s why I want to share my vision of new American leadership.”

McMullin’s principles appeal to the core values of the conservative movement, but also reach out to people who are not traditional conservatives. His first principle, that “our basic rights are God-given” is a direct reference to the Declaration of Independence. He also states that “we must honor the Constitution” and “any changes to the Constitution must be made through the amendment process, not by judicial or executive action.”

With respect to elected officials, McMullin’s principles state that “leaders must be honest and wise” and “put the public interest ahead of their own, acting with integrity, transparency and good judgment.” Leaders should also be “fiscally responsible,” McMullin says. “Our country cannot be secure and prosperous with uncontrolled debt and deficits.”

McMullin affirms traditional conservative issues with his declaration of principle. “We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which the government must ensure,” he states. He also strikes a strong pro-life stance, declaring “We must protect the lives of the most vulnerable from the unborn to the elderly.”

McMullin goes beyond traditional conservative issues, however.  His principles call for a “safety net for Americans unable to support themselves,” but government programs “should help people to overcome poverty, rather than simply survive it.” Beyond calling for the repeal of Obamacare, McMullin advocates for a healthcare system that will “encourage competition and innovation” to provide “access to affordable, quality health care.” McMullin’s principle of free markets applies to healthcare and other industries as well.

On immigration, McMullin finds a middle ground between the extremes offered by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. “We must secure our borders, enforce our laws and facilitate the legal immigration of those who will contribute to American prosperity, security and culture,” he says.

As an independent, Evan McMullin is an outsider candidate. After graduating from Brigham Young University and earning a Master’s of Business Administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He fought radical jihadists as a CIA officer in the Middle East after September 11. He worked for two years as an investment banker after completing his CIA service and then became a senior advisor to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and chief policy director of the House Republican Conference.

After only two months on the campaign trail, there are reports that McMullin is surging. Because he doesn’t appear in most polls, it is hard to gauge the depth of his support, but he has already passed Jill Stein in one recent national poll. 

Originally published on The Resurgent