The demise, or maybe not, of Trumpcare is a big deal. The number one initiative of the new administration fell flat on its face. The Trump/Ryan effort was sabotaged not by Democrat crybabies, although none of them intended to vote for the bill in the House of Representatives, but by certain elements of Trump’s party. The bill would have passed with a simple majority, which the Republicans have in the lower house.

For seven years these same people have been bitching about the shortcomings and cost of Obamacare. Now the G.O.P. controls the White House and both houses of Congress, and Republicans can’t agree on anything. The ultra right wing brain trust made it impossible to gain passage effectively treating Trump like their former archenemy, Barrack Obama. Most of these bozos will likely face opposition from their constituencies in the 2018 elections given that they campaigned on repeal of O’care in 2016.

The talking heads (especially the liberal ones) are now saying that Trump’s administration is dead meat and incapable of rallying from such a huge setback. But perhaps they are overlooking some important issues.

The biggest one is that Democrats still own the crappy law commonly known as Obamacare. They continue to spin the program by indicating that more Americans now have health care insurance than ever before. That’s true but it mostly involves new Medicaid insurees who have coverage at no cost. Why did Obama need to spend trillions to create a massive bureaucracy for the needy? He could have just granted health care to this group of people through the existing Medicaid bureaucracy.

But he decided to force Americans (including many young people) who didn’t want coverage to sign up for it or pay a fine. These policies are expensive and inflexible and are used to defray the costs of Medicaid recipients.

Everybody expects O’care to implode in the coming months. Premiums are going to increase, deductibles will go up, doctors will drop out of the system and fewer insurance companies will provide coverage. This means that Democrats will re-take responsibility for bad health care in this country. They will soon have to come back to Trump to bail them out- wishful thinking on the part of the writer.

Seriously Democrats are going to take a hit for the continuing problems of O’care. Politically they should have supported T’care, thereby transferring responsibility for it to Republicans- wishful thinking again.

If in fact Trump is unable to push through his agenda items, what will he do? I’ve spoken to some who think he might just resign. He’ll wake up one morning and conclude that Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional and 60% or more of Americans don’t like him, his attitude, his hair or his negotiating style. Next stop, back to Trump Tower.

In Trump’s defense I still maintain that O’care is a dud and destructive to most who participate in it. The tax code needs to be reformed. A wall of some sort needs to be built to prevent more illegal immigration. ISIS needs to be defeated. Jobs need to be created. Trade deals need to be renegotiated. And so on.

Trump haters may get their way if the president fails, but they will also get a truly screwed up government.

By my count the New York Times published 16 articles in its Monday edition that were directed at President Trump. Every one was negative. At the same time I didn’t find one critical comment about Democrats. I guess liberals are perfect in the eyes of the Times’ editors and reporters even though voters didn’t think Hillary was perfect in 2016.

Is this fair and balanced reporting? Do you think this newspaper is sincerely trying to provide its readers with the facts so they can decide for themselves whether Trump is doing a good job? Or do they think all of us are too stupid to grasp liberal ideology?

The stories include the following subjects:

• An impending battle between the Federal Reserve Bank and the Trump administration relating to the growth of the economy. The Fed will likely raise interest rates to slow growth as Trump does whatever he can to accelerate it. Why is the NY Times suggesting that Trump’s high growth strategy is a bad thing for America? Won’t every American benefit by economic prosperity? It seems to me the Fed’s likely decision this week is the less desirable alternative at this point.
• The slow transition of the White House. Democrats have done everything humanly possible to deter the confirmation of Trump nominees to his cabinet. The recruitment of hundreds of subordinates has been delayed as a result. Perhaps the press should be pointing fingers at liberal lawmakers for impeding the confirmation process.
• Trump is hiring border officials who are bigots. There have been reports of abuse. Thousands are need to stop the flow of illegals. Is it any wonder that a few would be bad apples? Is it a surprise that many of the guards are enthusiastic about stopping the flow of undocumented people from Mexico into our country?
• The G.O.P. health care plan will be bad for all Americans except rich ones. How many times have you heard this bit of liberal rhetoric? The paper reviewed various elements of the proposal by the House of Representatives and reiterates that they will create a situation worse than what we have with Obamacare (not possible). The assessments are totally biased and don’t consider the fact that the current plan will be amended significantly before it becomes law. In fact many Republican senators are anxious to propose changes, and Trump has said he is open to compromise.
• Trump is changing the rules of engagement for counter terrorism actions by the U.S. To this point concern for collateral damage is a principal reason why ISIS has flourished. This particular enemy hides like a coward among the innocent so aggressive military action is impossible without affiliated deaths of non-combatants. This is a legitimate debate that should be considered by the administration. If the U.S. is overly cautious it will extend the life of ISIS.
• Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was “fired” by the Trump administration because he wouldn’t resign like his fellow colleagues. Every administration dismisses U.S. Attorneys when a new party is elected to the White House. Why should Bharara receive a dispensation? He should have resigned and not burned any bridges or had a hissy fit. Bharara should consider a political job (like mayor of New York City). He said he’s not interested in an elected position.

Five Trump articles appear in the op-ed section. Every one attacks him. It should be noted that this is the section of the newspaper where editors, columnists and readers are supposed to state their opinions. The Times allows reporters great freedom to opine in other sections of the paper.

I’m not suggesting that Trump’s agenda should be accepted without debate. There are and there should be push back to important initiatives. But the treatment of the new president is downright disrespectful.

Trump hasn’t made it easy for skeptics to connect with him although he’s had good meetings with union members and other groups that you would expect to oppose him.

Making America great is a noble objective. At least this aspect of Trump’s agenda should be lauded. Yet respectful pushback is healthy for our country regarding specific important issues. The process would be more productive if the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle was tempered. Unfortunately the combatants have taken the low road.

I hasten to remind everyone that Trump will be our president for at least four years unless Democrats can figure out a way to impeach him. We all know that’s not going to happen so Americans should be open minded about Trump’s agenda. Consider each item of it independently apart from Trump’s bravado and you might see a good plan that will make America great.

Some Republicans are taking an enormous risk as they attempt to disrupt the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. The longevity of Donald Trump’s administration and the party’s controlling majorities in Congress could very well be dependent upon how the GOP navigates through the health care crisis. Every Republican was elected in 2016 based upon change, and the abrogation of Obamacare was and continues to be at the top of the agenda.

Conservatives are popping up all over the capital and taking pot shots at the initial plans relating to Obamacare. They’re saying that Speaker Paul Ryan’s first crack at the entitlement is nothing more than Obamacare Lite. Others don’t think the plan goes far enough. And most Republicans think it will still be too expensive for the country’s taxpayers.

At this stage it’s highly likely that the new proposal will be changed and amended many times before it becomes law. Given that health care represents a huge part of total federal expenditures and affects so many Americans, it’s folly to think that a new law could be enacted in just a few weeks and without vetting by both political parties.

Further our lawmakers should be focused first and foremost on the needs of Americans, not just the impact a new law will have on the federal deficit. Our government must ensure that every American has the ability to obtain health care at a reasonable price. This means that a new health care program will be expensive, hopefully less so than the current entitlement. Frankly the objectives of taxpayers in this situation are secondary to the health needs of our citizens.

American voters clearly indicated that they want to reform Obamacare, at a minimum. They want lower premiums, lower deductibles, access to more doctors and better care. This is what Trump and his fellow Republicans campaigned on. If it’s not possible to reduce the absolute cost of health care to the federal government at this time, so be it. At least Trump would fulfill his most important promise to the American people.

In a perfect world all those who don’t have health care security would be able to obtain it at a reasonable cost. This includes the tens of million of people who are not able to pay anything for health insurance. The only successful aspect of Obamacare was the expansion of Medicaid, which captured most of these people. It would be impractical and immoral to decrease these benefits for people who have no other medical alternatives.

Similarly protecting Americans from being turned down for health insurance because of preexisting conditions is not something that should be taken away in a new law. And health care coverage held by parents for children under 26 years of age is yet another excellent and productive Obamacare benefit.

The real debate should be focused on creating a national insurance system across state lines. It would foster competition and give the insured flexible coverage that is affordable. This strategy could very well offset the affiliated some of the cost of repealing individual mandates, which force people to buy insurance or be subjected to a penalty (otherwise known as a tax).

It’s outrageous that young people must buy expensive insurance policies to subsidize those that can’t afford insurance. This group only needs catastrophic protection, not comprehensive coverage for sore throats and the like. The cost of limited protection policies will make it more affordable for many middle class Americans.

The expectations of conservative Republicans may sabotage the Trump initiatives relating to health care coverage. This, in turn, will delay or make other initiatives impossible. The result will be political Armageddon for the Republican Party. Simply put Democrats will trounce Republicans in the coming elections.

We must accept the fact that health care costs will continue to plague taxpayers. Creative amendments to a new health care law could lessen the taxpayers’ burden over time, as would a thriving economy.

In a new docudrama titled And After The Fire Lauren Belfer gives her readers historical insight into bigotry perpetrated against Jews. The author uses a fictitious and controversial cantata written by Johann Sebastian Bach in a superlative effort to dramatize the racial bias that has dogged her people for centuries.

The protagonist is a Jewish woman in her mid-thirties who works as a director of an eleemosynary organization, a family foundation in New York City. She inherits a manuscript from a recently deceased uncle that appears to have been written by JS Bach. Her uncle came into possession of the document under very questionable circumstances at the end of World War II.

The story focuses on the many things experts do to prove the authenticity of ancient documents and their provenance, the chain of ownership.

But the most interesting issue is the one that faces the woman after it is determined that the document is an original, because the cantata contains offensive lyrics about Jews.

JS Bach (1685-1750) was German. He was a Lutheran and his music was very much inspired by the teachings of Martin Luther, who was a very outspoken anti-Semite.

The protagonist must decide what to do with the document. Her choices are to sell it for profit, sell it and donate the proceeds to charity (her current occupation), or destroy it because the cantata denigrates her people. You will have to read the book to find out what decision she makes.

The book is historically significant because it vividly portrays Jewish bigotry in Germany beginning in the late 1700s through the 20^th Century. Belfer flashes back and forth in time from the present day to the years after the cantata was written to chronicle several people that were affected by the cantata.

She describes the opulent lives of wealthy Jews in the years after Bach passed away. The most fortunate of which were those that were bankers serving the royalty of the time. This however didn’t protect them from explicit and implicit racial denunciation.

Over the years the original owners of the Bach cantata were systematically stripped of their wealth by the French, German and Nazi regimes leading up to the end of WWII, by which time Adolph Hitler had murdered millions of Jews.

The book is wonderful in many ways. Aside from the trials and tribulations of Jews during an extended period of history, the book delves deeply into the works of Bach and his protégés. Even a neophyte should be thrilled to learn more about the classical music of the 1700s.

Donald Trump took a huge first step towards becoming a legitimate president last night. Throughout the campaign and the first month of his tenure he defiantly challenged his opponents, other countries and the political establishment.  During his first speech last night to a joint session of Congress the president delivered an insightful assessment of America and his plans to improve it.

But more importantly Trump didn’t get in anyone’s face. Certainly Democrats are still skeptical about many of the administration’s proposed policies. But Trump asked for their help to accomplish many things. Similarly Trump toned down his rhetoric when he addressed other countries that should be our strong allies in the fight against terrorism and illegal immigration.

Donald Trump showed that he can be presidential and more than a bully. It appears he is benefiting by having such an accomplished group of people advising him. Making good on his agenda is the most important objective for the administration. The president knows not everyone agrees with every item, but his popularity and support will grow if he keeps his promises.

During the journey last night the president showed the country that he has deep feelings about a number of sensitive issues. They include his affection for our brave soldiers and veterans. His tribute to the wife of a fallen Navy Seal was the most dramatic and moving moment of the evening.

Additionally Trump displayed empathy for the plight of refugees, the disgusting anti-Semitic actions of bigots who desecrated Jewish grave sites, continuing racism, and the scourge of drug use.

Thankfully Trump avoided petty battles he has had with the media and certain individuals in government and other countries.

Donald Trump left no doubt that Islamic terrorism, which he explicitly named, was one of his highest priorities. In this regard he wants to defeat ISIS once and for all. Although he is determined to end illegal immigration the president showed compassion for innocents caught up in the controversy. And importantly Trump indicated that the U.S. will no longer be taken advantage of by our allies or enemies relating to trade and national security.

Many Trump devotees have been waiting for this moment- the evolution of Trump from a self-centered egotist to a president. We hope he continues to improve his image, but his greatest objective is to keep every promise he made during the campaign.