President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress last week proved to me that he is the President I was looking for. I did not agree with all the policy prescriptions, but it was a magnificent speech. His delivery was natural, clear and inspiring. He spoke to his base, in simple and understandable terms. He described how far he had come in 40 days toward accomplishing what he had promised and he took responsibility for his blunders.
In tone and substance, the President reached out for reconciliation and proposed ways for Republicans and Democrats to work together for the common good. On infrastructure, immigration and health care, his approach should make Democrats – especially the ten senators who will be running for reelection in states he won in a landslide – hesitate to continue saying no to everything.
From first to last, President Trump spoke about unity. Referring to recent threats and desecration of Jewish monuments, he called for us to stand united in condemning hate and evil. He talked of the greatness of the United States, and our unity and strength. He said again that we all bleed the same blood, salute the same flag, and in my words are made by same God. After laying out his plans and goals, he concluded by acknowledging that we can only get there together.
I found it particularly refreshing to listen to a Presidential speech with not a single mention of the politics of identity, a theme that was present in every speech made by his predecessor. President Trump addressed us as a single nation, where our identity as children of God first, then as citizens of the United States, are all that matter, not differentiation by race, color, religion, culture or all the newly-invented identities of gender and preference.
There were some specifics in his proposals and goals that I particularly liked, and others that I was not so happy with.
President Trump was absolutely correct to state that businesses in the United States face the highest tax rates in the world and that it is critical to cut those taxes if we are to return to historical rates of economic growth. This is the centerpiece of the tax reform package developed by Speaker Ryan and Chairman Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee, along with a reduction in taxes on the middle class. The President also discussed how the United States is being taken advantage of by other countries that tax the goods we export to them and rebate taxes to their companies that export to us. In doing so, he came very close to endorsing another key provision in the tax reform proposals, which is to treat our imports and exports in exactly the same way that other countries treat theirs. This so-called border tax adjustment would no longer allow companies take a deduction for the cost of goods they import and then resell, and it would stop taxing revenue from exports. This means that if a company wants to sell here, they will do well to invest here, and these tax changes would put American businesses on the same footing as their competitors.
I emphasize this because eliminating handicaps in the tax system is a far better approach to trade than erecting tariff barriers or creating “buy America” programs. Many Republicans, as well as all economists, were very unhappy with the way Candidate Trump played up job loss caused by imports and threatened to erect trade barriers. Trade barriers always hurt the consumer, and if his speech indicated a willingness to substitute tax policy for trade restrictions, it is a welcome change.
As I discussed in a previous column, I agree that we need to scrutinize carefully all entrants from countries that spawn Islamic terrorism, and that getting reliable background information from countries of origin is critical to doing so. But for immigration from other countries, especially Asia and Latin America, we need to open our doors in a prudent way. His proposal to move to a merit-based system of granting permanent resident status is a good start, but we need to go much further. First, we should repeal the 1917 and1965 Immigration Acts and eliminate all quotas. I would instead give a temporary green card to anyone who passes a strengthened vetting process and accepts a condition that they will be ineligible for public assistance for some period of time. During that time, every applicant for residence should be required to learn English and have no criminal record. If all goes well, at the end of that time, they would become permanent residents eligible for citizenship and all other benefits.
I believe that if we remove quantitative restrictions on immigration, it is critical that we make sure that we admit only immigrants willing to work, assimilate and contribute to the economy. Instead of allowing immigrants to go immediately on welfare, we should let our communities and churches do their job of aiding and integrating them. I would happily increase my contributions to Catholic Charities, our Annual Diocesan Appeal and the Society of Saint Vincent dePaul to support immigrants who are in need thru no fault of their own. This return to the old-fashioned notion of taking care of each other would make charity meaningful again, as we would have to make personal decisions to welcome strangers rather than voting to spend someone else’s money on them. This approach would also favor assimilation and discourage the creation of separate identities.
I am not so happy about the President’s fascination with infrastructure. Infrastructure spending has been dominated by boondoggles designed to put a project in every Congressional district and award members of the appropriations committees. Democrats and too many Republicans see these projects as a right of their office. I was in charge of evaluating these kinds of expenditures while at the Congressional Budget Office, and we found that nowhere near as much spending is needed as the road lobby and others claim. Estimates of substandard highways and bridges, for example, often include a large number of structures that simply have lanes or shoulders a little narrower than current standards. Infrastructure spending needs to be approached critically and with a tight purse. Keeping costs down also requires avoiding the Buy American requirements the President recommended.
I was disappointed that along with the need for infrastructure investment for future generations, President Trump did not mention two much clearer threats to our economic future: the crises of spending on welfare and social security. No matter what is done to cut spending elsewhere in the budget, the national debt will continue to rocket upwards unless spending on these programs is cut. Action is needed on all three to secure our future: prudent infrastructure spending, cutting welfare, and reforming Medicare and Social Security.
On the other hand, I thought the President’s presentation of the need to repeal and replace Obamacare was astute. He made it clear that this action is not a matter of partisan politics but of necessity. Obamacare is not just bad policy. It is in crisis, with insurance companies pulling out and costs of insurance policies skyrocketing.
Even without more specifics of the repeal and replace proposal, I was very pleased with his comment that legal reforms are needed to protect from unnecessary costs. This is another important drain to the swamp. Malpractice suits play a huge role in generating excessive testing and treatment as well as creating astronomical malpractice insurance and settlement costs that are all passed on to patients. Institutional change of this type can play a huge role in making medical care more affordable.
It was also wonderful to hear the President talk with sympathy about the cycle of violence that plagues our cities, and to do so without blaming it on the police. Again, his message was of unity: the police are also members of the community, and divisive rhetoric has to stop. I would put it more strongly: activists, mayors and State’s Attorneys whose actions have prevented police from providing effective law enforcement in poor neighborhoods have only inflicted greater suffering on those they hypocritically claim to champion. But in this case, the President toned down his message.
Finally, I was both touched and pleased by the way the President recognized those who sacrifice to protect our freedom. I thought his tribute to Senior Chief Ryan Owens was appropriate and heartfelt. My heart went out to Senior Chief Owens’s wife, whose appreciation and grief was open and sincere. It has been eight years since our President showed such deep and open respect and affection for our troops.
It is a shame that her courage and the President’s tribute have been met by despicable attacks from the President’s detractors. The supercilious left could only make fun of him and the widow of Senior Chief Owens for showing emotions they do not share and cannot understand.
I am confident that the President meant it when he ended by asking God to bless the United States of America. This is the President I hoped for.
David Montgomery was formerly Senior Vice President of NERA Economic Consulting. He also served as assistant director of the US Congressional Budget Office and deputy assistant secretary for policy in the US Department of Energy. He taught economics at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University and was a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Just incredible. Some people, and most of them are on the Hill, will put up with a lying narcissist in order to reduce corporate taxes. None of these people are patriots. period.
Howard McCoy says
Somehow I get the feeling you have not been paying as close attention as you might, David.
Edward Plaisance says
That was “teleprompter Trump”.
The true Trump triumphed over the teleprompter this weekend with his wire tapping tweets. How can the nation feel secure with the finger of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder on the nuclear button?
Edward Plaisance says
Worth looking at the DSM-5 referenced here: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568
Do we recognize anyone?
sam tomlin says
I am touched … by the stupidity of these arguments! Poor Fellow…. he does not know a manic depressive when he sees one!
Elke Wiedemann says
Thank you David – your voice in this highly charged post election period was badly needed. I hope with you that things are calming down and good sense will prevail. I am an (legal)
immigrant, who, for 51 years, paid his taxes, never was on food stamps, never collected welfare and is still grateful to this great country to accept me and offer me an opportunity to
succeed. I am proud of this country (warts and all) and I am proud of being an American. Whoever dislikes this country should go to his/her place of choosing, just as I did. And the people we elect deserve their chance to govern and lead. Four years from now, we can fire them or re-elect them for a job well done. Keep it up, David.
Joe Wiedemann
Deirdre LaMotte says
“whoever dislikes this country…” ? I do hope that you are not implying that those who are extremely distressed that an unfit man is President “dislike this country”.
The contrary…it is those who condone such a dangerous man who history will not be kind to.
And, we are all immigrants.
Matt Daley says
It is indeed difficult to reconcile the obvious discrepancies between President Trump’s impulsive approach to issues as seen in his Twitter account and the more thoughtful and substantive policy approaches (whether one agrees with them or not) articulated in his speech to Congress. But Mr. Montgomery is very much on target in focusing on the substance of policy rather than fixating on the President’s style and approach to decision-making. Institutions such as the Congress, the Supreme Court and the much maligned bureaucrats whose oath is to protect and defend the Constitution remain salient, indeed, critical to how the political upheavals will unfold.
I have often been troubled by the practice of having individuals in the audience on the occasion of a presidential address to a joint session of Congress to underscore a narrative, but in an era when the sons and daughters of the upper middle and upper classes are conspicuously absent in the uniformed services, I deemed the President’s treatment of Senior Chief Owens service and his recognition of the sacrifice made by his family more than warranted.
Jodi Mathison says
Why do some applaud 45 for reading a speech (he didn’t write) as if he had just won a limbo contest? The latter requires flexibility, some talent, quick thinking, assessing obstacles, and charting a winning course. The former requires the reading skills of approximately an eighth grader with words underlined for emphasis.
Of course he was unable to maintain any semblance of a presidential demeanor. From reports of his meltdown in the WH on Friday to the despicable ranting tweets his true self was on full display.
Mr. Montgomery: “newly invented identities of gender and preference” Really??? Maybe new to you, but variations of gender and preferences are as old as human beings.
Maria Wood says
Is the President you hoped for someone who colludes with foreign powers to influence US elections? Is the President you hoped for someone who has been credibly accused of child rape, whose accuser dropped the charges after receiving death threats? Someone who has been revealed through video and audio tape seen by the entire world as a sexual assaulter? Did you hope for a President whose closest advisors are white supremacists? Who doesn’t believe in scientific facts? Who had no idea health care was complicated until a week or two ago? Were you hoping for cabinet secretaries who want to dismantle the departments they run?
Howard McCoy says
“When we know ourselves to be connected to all others, acting compassionately is simply the natural thing to do.”
RACHEL NAOMI REMEN
Joan Berwick says
He READ the speech. No authenticity there.
James Nick says
To hear Mr Montgomery tell it, it seems the Second Coming is upon us and trump’s address to a joint session of Congress was nothing short of the Sermon on the Mount. Can walking on water be far behind?
But I wonder. Is there any line at all that trump can cross that is a bridge too far for his disciples? Is there no past or present behavior, insults, or ethical lapses that are to be condemned? Every day trump wakes up is another day he is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. What if an investigation shows trump and members of his campaign staff did, in fact, collude with the Russians during the campaign, will his supporters remain unwavering?
Are there are no lies, in either quality or quantity, that need to be called out? Are there no hair-brained conspiracy theories or unfounded accusations that are too bizarre? What if it is shown, as it surely will be, that President Obama did not order a wiretap on trump? Will it cast doubt on Dear Leader’s veracity?
Mexico will not pay for the wall, Sweden did not suffer a terror attack by Muslim immigrants, and trump does not have a secret plan to defeat ISIS, the terror organization co-founded by President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Is there any level of reckless incompetence that gives pause to trump supporters?
MacLeod Gates says
What’s his name, Trump, a spoiled rich brat who frequently wets his pants (tweets)….and this is the kind of president you hoped for! Really? David, David…….Oh, the shame of it.
david montgomery says
My thanks first to Matt Daley, who calmly and effectively makes the point that someday we must start an actual discussion of policies rather than personalities. I will add that such deeply held and endlessly repeated animosity toward the President implies the same hatred and disrespect for the nearly-50% of the electorate who voted for him.
I will restrain myself on sweeping claims about the pre-history of gender identity, and confine myself to observing how rapidly the number of letters in LGBTQ… have grown. To me, saying you can choose your own sexual identity and then align politically to promote it is saying that we should become an atomistic society with everyone defining (choose your gender-neutral pronoun)-self as unique and entitled to special treatment on whatever grounds (gender-neutral pronoun) pleases.
John Ramsey says
Speaking to one aspect of the political ramifications of the Trump presidency, the nationalistic world view, that drives his politics can be seen as a greater danger to the world at large, and as a consequence, to the United States. It will, along with Brexit and other nationalist movements, destabilize the developed world as it devolves into national self interest. This, at a time when the new Czar of Russia is flexing his muscles.
One of his main political tools is instilling fear, creating a false sense of our vulnerability. Fear of the refugee is a good example. Some real bad guys might sneak in to do us harm. Weigh that chance, a chance much smaller than he would have you believe, against the chance to help a few people in dire need. To face risk, and here it’s a very small risk, in order to help others defines our humanity, a trait I fear he lacks. To counter this, many, including Obama, said that’s not who we are. I heard Limbaugh retort, “Yes, that IS who we are.” Unfortunately we took Limbaugh to be just a loud mouthed clown. Over the years he snuck in and gained control of the narrative. We made the same mistake in our attitude about Trump, writing him off, while he cunningly adopted the narrative to his narcissistic needs.
And you are worried that sexual identities are mutable. The unstable mental state of the president of the United States is a much more pressing matter. If you view this as a disrespectful comment, I beg you to look at the evidence. Maybe he’s not unstable. Maybe he’s as crazy as a fox, but, if so, is this the leadership for this country you want our children to read about in the history books?