Donald Trump launched illegal war against Iran now is negotiating a "treaty" including reparations without Congressional approval

Echo opinion published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette from Bloomberg.  

How many ways to spell "loser"❓

A Trumpzi (secret) deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is set for signature on Friday, and Donald Trump is already congratulating himself on being the first U.S. president to have made peace with Iran since the country's 1979, revolution. 

That's wrong❗ He is the first to have taken America to war with Iran, and therefore the first to have needed a truce- a.k.a., "treaty", to stop it. The peace his predecessors sought and failed to achieve has yet to come.

None of this would be cause for criticism if the decision to attack the Islamic Republic were to leave the U.S. in a substantially better negotiating position than it enjoyed before the start of hostilities. We can't be sure of the terms of the so-called Memorandum of Understanding, because they haven't been published. 

But the fact that the Iranians are gloating while Israelis are horrified strongly suggests that isn't the case.

Indeed, the Israelis are aghast, (who knew ❓) because even though they are a party to the conflict, they have had no role in the negotiations, and there's no indication that Trump's truce will end any of the problems they went to war to resolve. The nuclear issue is reserved for negotiation after the truce takes effect. Others aren't even mentioned.

The eventual deal will have at least four requirements, judging by comments where all sides agree: An end to all hostilities, including in Lebanon; reopening the Strait of Hormuz to shipping; a restart of nuclear negotiations; and the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds, with conditions and a schedule that remain unclear.

Iran's negotiators also are having to sell the deal at home, where hardliners object to any agreement with the U.S. They don't believe that Washington--which, with Israel, assassinated the nation's supreme leader while engaged in the last round of nuclear talks--can be trusted. Plus in their view, they're winning the war.

Iran's state-controlled Mehr news agency has published comments from Mehdi Mohammadi, strategic adviser to the Iranian negotiating  team, as well as a leaked purported 14-point draft of the MOU (memorandum of understanding).

Mohammadi highlighted that the MOU's terms would mark the first time the U.S. has guaranteed it will control Israeli actions, something he considered highly significant. He also said the agreement would commit Trump--the architect of America's "maximum pressure" sanctions policies--to lift primary economic sanctions on Iran.

And although the MOU does require Iran to enter talks on diluting its stock of highly enriched uranium, negotiations on any other part of the country's nuclear program are not guaranteed. That would require the assent of both parties: "Without mutual agreement, there will be no negotiations," he said, according to Mehr.

Other parts of the draft published by Mehr (like the creation of a 💲300 billion reconstruction fund) are hard to credit, amounting to an Iranian wish list. Yet nothing that U.S. officials have said, on or off the record, suggests the core elements of the deal Mohammadi describes are wrong.

Trump criticized the Obama-era nuclear deal he went on to dismantle because it was impermanent, and failed to completely eliminate Iran's uranium enrichment program or address other Iranian threats, such as its ballistic missile program and network of proxies. He also faulted the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for, in exchange for Iran's concessions, returning some frozen funds and lifting sanctions. Trump said he could do better.

Yet Friday's MOU looks set to fail on the same counts, while making even more concessions for a much more limited potential nuclear deal--and all because Iran has discovered it can hold the world to ransom by closing Hormuz. That may not save a hated regime in Tehran once peace returns, but it will make for an inherently volatile situation in the Middle East.

This is a ceasefire extension and an agreement on Hormuz, not a peace deal that would reimagine U.S.-Iran relations or bring stability to the region. It is a mark of the war's failure that all of the problems that predate it have been left to the future.

Republicans have zero economic policy and history proves it

Echo opinion letter to the Editor of the Reading Eagle, a Pennsylvania newspaper:

Republicans are misleading people about what the federal debt ceiling means.

Hard-right Republicans in Congress are demanding tax cuts and no debt ceiling increase. Don’t they know the national deficit went down under every Democratic president, and up under every Republican, since 1980?

President Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down (aka "trickster-down) tax policy was a trick that increased the gap between rich and poor. According to information compiled on Wikipedia, the economy had been better under Democratic presidents than Republicans since the Depression, including jobs, gross domestic product, stock market returns, corporate profits and personal income.

Since the Truman administration, unemployment was down under Democratic presidents and up under Republicans. Since 1945, the S&P 500 gained an average of 11.2% under Democrats, 6.9% under Republicans. Every Republican president since 1900, had a recession in his first term.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, a Trump administration appointee, said there could be $1 trillion in tax fraud annually. The Inflation Reduction Act gives $80 billion to the IRS, across 10 years, for more phones, modern computers and more agents replacing retirees. The increased ability to audit big-time cheaters would pay for itself many times over and slash the deficit.

Bloomberg says America’s economy improved more in President Joe Biden’s first year than any president in the last 50 years. The deficit is $1 trillion lower. Unemployment is lowest in 50 years. Inflation caused by COVID-19, especially the supply chain snafus, is easing. Corporate profits are at a 70-year high. Wages aren’t.

Congressional Republicans are weaponizing economic ignorance about the results of tax cuts on deficits.

Jane Beck in Brecknock Township in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Republicans loose Veterans

Editorial:  Republicans' stance on the issues loose the support of veterans:

Republican leadership consistently attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, denying millions access to health care coverage...

Opinion echo published in the Virginia newspaper the 

Richmond Times Dispatch

Combat veteran and moderate Republican, Kevin Green* cannot support Republicans on key issues such as climate change, gun safety, health care and immigration, nor their current (DJT) leader, and it is past time for a change. 

In my opinion, the scientific evidence on climate change is overwhelming, yet the Republican Party leaders act like ostriches and bury their heads in the sand, trying to bring back coal and lower auto standards. I am not a Green New Deal fan, and I do think carbon fuels (such as natural gas) need to be a bridge to a better, cleaner tomorrow. But we need to act now!

On gun safety: Introducing background checks and eliminating assault weapons with high-capacity magazines are some steps we can take to start turning the tide.

On health care: Republican leadership has consistently attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, denying millions access to care. I am not for "Medicare for All," but we need a government option for those that need or want it, while retaining our employer-provided options.

On immigration: It takes labor and capital to create wealth. We need people, and not giving "Dreamers" a path to citizenship is a huge mistake and goes against our core values. When I factor these policy failures with the extremely poor example of leadership from the current White House and Senate Republicans, I feel compelled to speak out and look for a better solution, and that better solution is Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is, without a doubt, the best moderate candidate who can beat Donald Trump in the general election. With his successful private and public leadership experience, he’ll act on key issues and restore faith in America around the world.

*Kevin Green, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Whistleblower Strong! What we know

"I'm sorry, but I don't want to be involved in the democratic elections of U.S.A.," Zelensky said to reporters at the U.N. General Assembly. - Reported in Newsweek

Two White House officials named in the whistle blower complaint are Rudy Giuliani (Trump stool pigeon) and Attorney General (Trumpzi!) William Barr.

Here's a brief summary of what the whistle blower complaint asserts:
A dozen White House officials were on the call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and several later intervened to "lock down" records of the call, according to the whistleblower.
After pleasantries were exchanged, the president "used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests," said the whistleblower, citing White House officials with direct knowledge of the call.

The document describes the whistleblower's concerns that these actions constitute a "serious or flagrant" problem, abuse, or violation of the law.

The whistleblower said these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in elections.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-26/whistle-blower-complaint-about-trump-released-to-public

Multiple White House officials were “deeply disturbed” by President Donald Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president and the administration attempted to “lock down” records of the interaction, according to a whistle-blower’s complaint made public Thursday.

The complaint from the whistle-blower, who hasn’t been publicly identified, “appears credible,” the intelligence community’s inspector general said in a separate letter released Thursday, by House Intelligence Committee.

“The White House officials are deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They said that there was already a ‘discussion ongoing’ with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain,” the complaint says.

The whistle-blower said that senior White House officials used unusual procedures when handling the records of Trump’s July 25, conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They said it wasn’t the first time that a presidential transcript was put into a “code word-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive -- rather than national security sensitive -- information.”

William Barr is a fake Attorney General because he lied to Congress

This is an echo opinion published in Bloomberg.

Fake Attorney General William Barr is cornered by Robert Mueller- an echo opinion published in The Spokesman-Review by Timothy L. O'Brien, editor for Bloomberg.

Fake Attorney General Barr lied to Congress and doing so was a crime.  

During a congressional hearing on April 9, Rep. Charlie Crist, a Florida Democrat, asked Attorney General William Barr if he knew why Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators were reportedly upset about a recent letter released by Barr. The missive summarized the Mueller team’s still unpublished findings from its conspiracy and obstruction probe involving Donald Trump, with his advisers and Russia.

“Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter. That it does not adequately or accurately, necessarily, portray the report’s findings,” Crist said. “Do you know what they are referencing with that?

“No, I don’t,” Barr responded. “I suspect that they probably wanted more put out.”

A day later, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, pursued a similar line of questioning and noted that Barr’s summary went well beyond the Mueller report’s findings by unilaterally absolving Trump of obstruction. 

“Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” Van Hollen asked.

“I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion,” Barr replied.

Just how honest and candid Barr was with Congress is now in play. 

As it turns out, Mueller himself wasn’t comfortable with Barr’s take on his work and he wrote to the Justice Department on March 27 to complain about it in detail – almost exactly two weeks before Barr began testifying otherwise to Crist and Van Hollen.

Mueller told the Justice Department (and Barr in a subsequent phone call) that the attorney general’s four-page memo outlining the report’s primary conclusions “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the investigation, according to a copy of Mueller’s letter that the Washington Post disclosed on Tuesday.

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” Mueller wrote. “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

During his call with Barr, Mueller also told the attorney general that “he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings” about the special counsel’s report, the Post reported. The newspaper also noted that some of Mueller’s investigators felt that “the evidence they had gathered – especially on obstruction – was far more alarming and significant than how Barr had described it.”

Barr testified again on Wednesday before Congress, for the first time since the 448-page Mueller report was released publicly on April 18. The report offered a portrait of Trump and his team acting in much more sinister and purposefully illicit ways than Barr suggested in his summary, and in the odd little bit of media spinning and political theater he engaged in during a press conference ahead of the report’s release.

In prepared remarks he issued hours prior to Wednesday’s testimony, Barr defended the decisions he’s made at the Justice Department and presented himself as guardian of the rule of law. 

“It would not have been appropriate for me simply to release,” the Mueller report’s own inconclusive take on whether Trump obstructed justice “without making a prosecutorial judgment,” Barr allows.

Still, what we have in Barr is a subtler and more emotionally disciplined version of Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s most prominent pit-bull attorneys. Barr often seems content to placate the president’s legal adversaries to keep them off balance or to lay down verbal smokescreens that confuse the media.

At first blush, it’s strange that Barr didn’t seem to see a rebuke from Mueller coming and prepare for that. On the other hand, Barr has moved in and out of Washington’s power circles for years and one of his fortes involves developing ways for presidents to avoid scrutiny or culpability. 

Maybe he doesn’t care too much about what Mueller thinks.

Trump has a long history of co-opting those who spend a lot of time around him, but Barr arrived in the White House ready to rumble and with an expansive view of executive authority. He and his boss were a perfect fit.

Timothy L. O’Brien is the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion.

Health care costs and documenting social needs

Prognosis
Doctors Propose New Diagnosis: ‘Unable to Pay for Prescriptions’

Outlier Health Care Spending- by John Tozzi published in Bloomberg

The U.S. spends less on social services, but makes up for it in medical costs

If you get struck by lightning or bitten by a pig, a physician can record that information with a code shorter than your phone number.

But if you can’t afford your bills, doctors and health plans have no consistent way to document that.

Now, the biggest U.S. insurance company and the country’s most influential association of doctors want to create new ways to better capture information about patients’ social conditions. It’s part of a shift in the health-care industry to address aspects of people’s lives that influence their well-being beyond medical care, so-called social determinants of health.

“Having a standardized diagnosis allows for everyone in the system to understand that there’s an unmet social need,” said Sheila Shapiro, a senior vice president at UnitedHealthcare. The company, a unit of Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc., announced the plan Tuesday with the American Medical Association.

Just as medical diagnoses trigger prescriptions or referrals to labs and specialists, the proposed codes are meant to help clinicians refer patients to assistance for food, housing, transportation or other needs.

Since 2017, UnitedHealthcare’s Medicare Advantage plans have made more than 700,000 referrals to outside social-service programs. The insurer’s Medicare plans cover about 4.9 million people.

Among the more than 20 new codes under consideration:

• unable to pay for prescriptions
• unable to afford child care
• worried about losing housing
• unable to count on family and friends
• feeling unsafe in current environment

Having standard designations for such conditions would let doctors, hospitals and health plans share the information through medical records and insurance claims forms.

“Everyone can start reading from the same sheet of (medical!) music,” said Tom Gianulli, chief medical information officer at the AMA’s Integrated Health Model Initiative.

While the codes wouldn’t immediately lead to reimbursement changes, capturing data about patients’ social needs may be a step toward paying for interventions that address them.

“Collecting data is a big part of this right now, and trying to figure out what’s effective, and advocate for funding around that,” said Steve Nelson, chief executive officer of UnitedHealthcare.

Slowly Changing

Payments are still largely tied to the number of procedures clinicians perform, rather than the overall health of patients. 

That’s slowly changing, and the effort to treat social needs is part of the transformation.

For example, a diabetic who can’t get to the pharmacy to pick up medication may wind up in an emergency room with uncontrolled blood sugar. 

Traditionally, insurance would pay for the emergency room visit but not for the cab ride to the pharmacy that might have prevented it.

The taxpayers and employers who finance America’s $3.5 trillion medical system ultimately pay the cost of that hospital visit. The health-care industry and policy makers are struggling to figure out how to get people those cab rides, as well as other interventions that could make people healthier and reduce overall spending.

The industry has already taken steps in that direction. In 2016, the new codes were adopted to indicate whether a patient is homeless, poor or lacking adequate food, for example. The latest proposal would build on that effort. A federal committee will decide whether to adopt the proposal later this year.

New codes are a useful first step, but there are limits to what the health-care system can do, said Melinda Abrams, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation focused on health research.

Society also needs to properly finance the social-service system because inadequate funding contributes to high health-care costs, Abrams said.

“The health-care sector has had a blind eye to it.”