Let’s objectively see if they work

For this discussion, let us set Donald Trump aside. Let us ignore him. It’s not easy, because he seems to be everywhere.

Let us look at the latest U.S. policies. He will get credit for all. But the policies are really created by many people. They have been itching for years to shape such. At last they are in positions to do so. Their leader looks kindly on their proposals.

Imagine a dry-as-dust professor, lecturing on Strategies 101 — utterly objectively with no political bias. I suspect the prof would explore some of our current strategies. Because they differ a lot from our previous strategies. For that reason alone, they are interesting.

For instance, we have gone on the attack on trade. We have taken the fight to our trading partners — with all guns (or tariff threats) blazing. We are forcing these partners to react to our demands. We are not going into negotiations saying, “Let us discuss our issues.” We are, instead, opening with: “You are screwing us! This must stop! Here is a list of our demands.”

Of course, this is a negotiating strategy. It flings the other side onto defense from the start. It is also a strategy to try to change the assumptions on both sides. That is a particularly important ingredient. European leaders, for instance, have long assumed that they deserved to run trade imbalances with us. Ditto for many American leaders. We are attempting to change that thinking, those assumptions.

The Chinese — and American leaders as well — have long assumed that the Chinese could impose their self-serving rules upon us. And that we would complain, but do nothing about them. The Chinese assumed we are so desperate for their cheap goods we would continue to cave.

The North Koreans assumed we would not get serious about their nuclear threat. They assumed our strategy would remain as it was. We would pretend to bring pressure and they would pretend to respond, while building nuclear firepower.

America obviously is trying a new policy. We have lined up support from countries in the region. We have told China and Russia they will suffer repercussions if they don’t also bring pressure. We have told Kim to shut his yap. And to do his talking at a negotiating table.

We are trying new policies with NATO as well. For years, our policy was to suggest to NATO countries that they pony up money for their defense — to meet their treaty obligations. But that policy had no urgency to it. We never pushed hard. Today we do. Today we embarrass them publicly. “You are screwing us with your puny defense spending! Here’s what we want from you.”

We are challenging old assumptions at the UN, as well as in the Middle East.

We are trying new policies with our borders and with illegal immigration. We are also looking at changing our policies on legal immigrants.

Our economic policy certainly differs from what it was. It is not really new. It copies much of Reagan’s policy and JFK’s. Thus far, it is getting similar results.

If the dry old prof was smart, he (or she) would keep Trump’s name out of the discussion. He would know that it instantly colors people’s thinking. It prejudices their thoughts one way or the other.

If he was wise he would urge students to look objectively at these policies — to monitor and assess their effect. To measure if they succeed or fail. Or don’t move the needle at all.

He might suggest to students they live in a time when major policies of this country are changing. And that “change” may change the thinking of millions in this world. Perhaps for the better. Perhaps for the worse.

Anthropologist Margaret Mead told us to: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

These truly are extraordinary times.

From Tom…as in Morgan.                   

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home in upstate New York. You can write to Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com. Read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com

People are concerned about the direction our state is headed. We have some of the highest property taxes in the U.S., a sluggish economy, and an onslaught of corruption cases and other scandals involving taxpayer dollars. The following are some questions I am frequently asked on these important issues and some ideas on how to change and improve state government.

What is the biggest problem with Albany?

There is a general lack of transparency in the way the state legislature conducts business. For example, although New York has a massive budget, most of it is negotiated behind closed doors by what has come to be known as “three men in a room”— the governor, Assembly speaker, and Senate majority leader. This process should be opened up to allow rank and file members and the public to have more of a voice. The same goes for general legislation. For major pieces of legislation, there should be public hearings where proponents and opponents of the legislation testify. This might give legislators perspectives that they may not have considered and could result in the proposed legislation being improved.

How do we weed out corruption and special-interest control in Albany?

I have seen firsthand how the lack of transparency and the consolidation of power in the hands of a few has had a corrupting influence and has often led to the enactment of poor public policy. Pay-to-play has dominated state government for too long. For these reasons, I co-sponsor the Public Officers Accountability Act (A. 5864) which among other things would: (1) establish crimes against the public trust; (2) create a new crime for failure to report corruption; (3) reform legislative grants to prevent conflicts of interest; and (4) implement term limits for legislative leaders and committee chairs.

What are your thoughts on Common Core and the Board of Regents?

The roll out of the Common Core curriculum and the efforts to tie teacher’s evaluations to standardized test scores was deeply flawed. It was defective because it was a top-down approach. The “one-size-fits-all” tactic does not work for our education system and does a disservice to our teachers and to our students. I am not against minimum standards, but I continue to be opposed to taking power away from local school districts. They are in the best position to know their schools, students and teachers. I would like to reform the way our state’s Board of Regents is appointed. Because they are appointed by the legislature with each member getting one vote (Assembly member and senator) the appointments are controlled by the Assembly speaker who is not accountable to anyone but his constituents and conference. At the very least, the governor should have the appointment power with the consent of the State Senate. Theoretically, the governor is accountable to all the voters of the state and accordingly the Board of Regents would, in turn, be more accountable.

What is the most pressing issue facing our area?

The economy is the number one issue I hear about from constituents. Most say taxes are too high and, as a result, we are losing people and businesses to other parts of the country. New York’s property tax burden is one of the highest in the nation thanks in large part to state mandates, particularly Medicaid. For that reason, I support a state takeover of the local share of Medicaid for counties outside of New York City over a 10-year period and a 50 percent takeover of New York City’s Medicaid costs over a 20-year period. The state has already provided some relief to the counties by capping counties’ Medicaid costs. This has lessened the burden on counties by $3.3 billion. A complete takeover would build on these savings. This legislation also would require that all local savings resulting from the takeover would be required to be passed directly on to the property taxpayer. I also support the creation of the Real Property Tax Redesign Team which would identify mandates to be funded or revoked by the state in order to accomplish $500 million in annual savings to localities.

There is no lack of solutions to the many problems of our state government. The real challenge is finding the political will to enact the much-needed reforms. 

William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, or (315) 598-5185.