Jackson Withdraws as VA Secretary Nominee

       My last month's blog post discussed the circumstances surrounding the firing of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, David Sulkin, and President Trumps nomination of Admiral Ronny L. Jackson as his replacement. The main point I was arguing in my post was that Trumps nomination of Jackson, who has virtually no experience leading such an organization, was a step in the wrong direction for the VA, and largely just an attempt at advancing the privatization of the organization.  It turns out I was not the only one who doubted that Jackson was competent enough to lead the VA. On Thursday, April 26th, roughly a month after his nomination, Jackson withdrew as a nominee after multiple claims and accusations of misconduct, ranging from drunk driving to creating a hostile work environment.

      Jackson claimed in his statement that the accusations are "false and fabricated" but in my opinion, his immediate withdrawal makes the claims seem more credible. I have no doubt that Jackson performs very competently as a physician, he has been the lead physician in the White House the last three presidents, but it's clear he was unprepared to handle the responsibility of heading such a large and complicated organization as the VA. Hopefully, the amount of scrutiny directed a Jackson will force Trump's future underqualified nominees to reconsider their choice to step into the national spotlight.

       I am glad Washington was able to react relatively quickly to this nomination and shut it down before it even made it to a confirmation hearing. With any luck this will bring more attention to this cabinet position and prevent Trump and his allies from advancing the privatization of the VA without first undergoing nationwide scrutiny.

The Economic Benefits of Planned Parenthood

In my classmates editorial on her blog All About U.S. Gov, she makes a compelling argument for the benefits of effective and readily available contraceptives and warns of the consequences of President Trump's plans to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood.  Her arguments are especially effective because they are based on objective facts and empirical data. I think her editorial will help convince people who are more inclined to base their political opinions on economics that supporting organizations like Planned Parenthood is the best move for the country as a whole. 

Shulkin's Firing, and VA Privatization.

On March 28^th Donald Trump announced over Twitter that he was replacing the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs, David Shulkin, with Admiral Ronny L. Jackson, the White Houses physician who you might recognize from a press conference earlier this year that purported President Trump was in “excellent health” and “very sharp and articulate.”

                Trump has made a habit out of seemingly spontaneous firings during his term, and as usual, this most recent firing is trailed by a wake of controversy. The Trump administration claims that the firing was a result of the VA inspector general’s report that found while Shulkin was on a business trip to Europe he spent the majority of his time sightseeing, and also accepted Wimbledon tickets as a gift. Obviously, these are unethical ways for a government employee to conduct themselves, but it is hardly enough reason to be fired from office, especially when compared to the ethical bar set by Trump.  The real reason many people believe Shulkin was fired, including himself, was to remove opposition to the privatization of the VA. In a New York Times op-ed piece written by Shulkin following his firing he states:

“They saw me as an obstacle to privatization who had to be removed. That is because I am convinced that privatization is a political issue aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans.”

Not only do I think this firing is a thinly veiled attempt at advancing privatization, I also think it is irresponsible to select Admiral Jackson as Shulkin’s successor. It is no secret the VA is an organization that is inundated by issues, and hiring Admiral Jackson, who has very little managerial experience, is not a step towards fixing the many problems plaguing the VA.

       The private healthcare sector already struggles enough with its attempts at providing for the general public, and privatizing the VA will only bloat the healthcare system more with the complex healthcare needs of veterans. Privatization will cause more issues than it will solve, and in my opinion, the primary motivation behind the privatization of the VA is increased profits, and not better healthcare for veterans. 

Trump's impulsive plan to meet with Kim Jong Un

      Recently President Trump promised to hold unconditional talks with Kim Jong Un before the end of May. This statement has caused controversy because it will give Kim Jong Un recognition on the world stage without requiring him to agree to a nuclear disarmament deal. Shortly after Trump's statements, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders attempted to “walk back” Trump's statements by claiming the meeting would only happen after the North Koreans made verifiable steps towards denuclearization. For more information on this topic, I revisited the Washington Post blog written by the conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin named “Right Turn”.

       Rubin is clearly worried that Trump's attitude towards diplomacy is too casual and doesn’t factor in the severity of the situation, instead, Trump is treating the meeting “like a real-estate deal. He marches into the room, barks a few lines, sets a price and then goes out for a steak dinner with the guy on the other side — all the details to be worked out later”. By highlighting this aspect of Trump's personality, specifically his “massive ego and virtually [nonexistent] understanding of foreign policy” Rubin is warning of the dangers of what could happen if no one was able to prevent Trump from making impulsive and irrational decisions that have a global impact. Rubin goes on to explain why meeting with Kim Jong Un would “undercut much of the good work the Trump administration has actually done” such as relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terror, and imposing stricter sanctions on trade with them. By meeting with Kim, Trump is allowing him to be “cast as a normal leader on the international stage” and doesn’t portray him for what he truly is, a dictator, and a human rights criminal who constantly threatens the world with nuclear weapons.

       The two arguments that Rubin makes; that Trump is irresponsible with international diplomacy, and that meeting with the North Koreans gives them undeserved credibility on the world stage are both logical, and I am inclined to agree with her although I don’t think I’m as worried that Trump will cause any significant problems regarding North Korea as Rubin is. Trump appears to speak without thinking quite frequently, and if his term as president so far is any indication, then I think the world has already learned not to take what he says at face value, however disconcerting that may be. I think that Trump is largely kept in check either by competent people at the White House, or the limitations of his office, and as Rubin says, “We should pray that barrier lasts through the end of his time in the White House”.

Is Jared Kushner Indicative of an Irresponsible Administration?

         Jennifer Rubin is a writer for the Washington post who offers a conservative perspective on the current political news. Along with her blog “Right Turn”, she also writes opinion pieces regarding domestic and foreign policy issues.  In a recent opinion piece titled Jared Kushner encapsulates what’s wrong with the Trump administration, she explains why she believes Jared Kushner is an unqualified and potentially dangerous senior advisor to Donald Trump, and how Kushner’s employment within the White House is indicative of a mismanaged administration.
    She begins her argument by highlighting Kushner’s glaring lack of political experience and non-existent credibility within the political realm claiming that he at best “might be employable as an intern”.  Along with pointing out his lack of experience Rubin also stresses the fact the Kushner has never received the permanent security clearance necessary to read confidential reports. Despite not having the permanent security clearance Kushner has continued to be allowed to read highly classified documents and “reportedly makes more requests for intelligence materials than any other non-National Security Council adviser”. Rubin uses the facts that Kushner is under qualified and has been allowed access to classified information for over a year without clearance as a strong indictment of what is wrong with Trumps administration.
        Another way Rubin demonstrates the ineptitude of the administration is by explaining how “one transgression beget[s] more”. Her argument is that an administration that will hire someone solely through nepotism, ignore the gravity of security clearances, and allow inappropriate contact with Russians is clearly an indication that it is irresponsible. The political implications that arise from a White House that ignores serious issues such as security clearances are troubling because it either implies complete ineptitude and carelessness, or the support of treasonous activities like Russian collusion. It is unclear which is the case, but Rubin seems to imply it is probably a combination of both.
         I believe Rubin makes a strong and effective argument for why Kushner’s appointment as an advisor is a reflection of what is wrong with the Trump administration. She shows how many early bad decisions that this admiration has made are now “coming home to roost”. Since she represents a conservative perspective on the situation I believe her goal is to convince other conservatives of the irresponsibility of Trumps administration. She does this by stressing Kushner’s lack of experience, and access to classified documents while having suspicious Russian connections, and how all of these “reflect Trump’s own refusal to grasp the responsibilities of his office”.

Another Possible Government Shutdown

On Thursday, February 8th the New York Times posted an article titled Facing Shutdown, Congress Set to Vote on Sweeping Budget Deal which discusses the new government spending bill and the controversy surrounding it. If the bill does not pass by midnight on the 8th there will be a temporary shutdown of government spending.  The new deal is expected to be met with some opposition from Democrats who don't believe the bill provides enough funding for immigrants. The bill is expected to easily pass in the Senate but will not have such an easy time in the House. Some of the key changes the new deal proposes include raising domestic and military spending to caps by nearly 300 billion, providing 90 billion in disaster relief funds, and most importantly it will keep the government funded for another six weeks allowing it time to construct a "long-term" spending bill that will cover the remainder of the fiscal year.
The new bill has become controversial to both political parties. Some Republicans, like those in the House Freedom Caucus, believe the increase in spending is too large, and have subsequently "formally opposed" the bill. Some Democrats dislike the bill because they don't believe it provides enough funding to help the undocumented young immigrants known as "Dreamers". Because the bill is not garnering much bipartisan support the odds of avoiding a government shutdown seems unlikely.

This article is worth reading because it highlights how complex and difficult it is to succesfully pass a bill through Congress. All of the competing interest groups want funding and there is never enough to satisfy everyone. I think it is a good example of Madisons idea that a large representative republic with cause majority parties to fragment and prevent them from steam rolling minorities.

Hello world.

test post