Everything is again

Is President Trump preparing to cross out the political heritage of President Obama? What can be said about the policy of the Trump administration, based on the views of candidates for the main ministerial positions? Will Trump give will to the American oil industry? What to expect the Kremlin from the US Minister of Defense - Putin's prominent criticism?

We are discussing these and other issues with Vladimir Kontorovich , Professor Haterford College in Pennsylvania, and Yuri Yarym-Agaev , an economist and political scientist, an employee of the Guver Institute at the University of Stanford in California.

Two and a few weeks before the assignment of US President, Donald Trump not only previously formed his office, that is, he called candidates for ministerial positions, which should be approved by the Senate, but also managed to understand the current president that he did not joke during the presidential campaign, promising to get rid of the fact that Barack Obama considers his presidency symbolic achievements.

On January 3, on the first day of the work of the Congress of a new convocation, the republican majority raised the issue of canceling the law on affordable medicine, known as the Obama Law. The next day, the alarmed president appeared on the Capitol Hill with an appeal to defend a law associated with wide masses with his name. As the president said to the reporters, he called on the legislators to "defend the interests of people", protecting his law.

Mike Pence meets with legislators on the Capitol Hill

The case of the Democrats, however, is hopeless if all lawmakers-republicans make against medical reform. It was to this that they were called by the future vice president Mike Pence, who visited Congress simultaneously with Barack Obama. “First of all, we must fulfill the promise to withdraw the Obama law and replace it as a result of reform, which will reduce the cost of medical insurance and not expand state structures”-this is how the Pence of the Tasks of Republicans at the press conference explained.

The second in the list of priority cases of the Republican President and the Republican Congress may be the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. On the second day of the work of the Congress, the Republicans made a conversation about the return to the life of the law on the construction of a fence on the Mexican border, adopted back to the presidency of George Bush Jr.. And in the third, fourth, fifth lines of this list there may be steps to cancel the presidential decrees that hinder the development of the energy industry and small businesses. At least, such an assumption suggests the composition of the office proposed by Donald Trump, my interlocutors believe.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, doesn’t there be something like the Antiobamian revolution or a wave of reaction behind this unexpectedly stormy activity of the Republicans?

Obama emphasized the redistribution of American wealth, and not on its production

“I think yes.” I think it can be the Antiobamov Revolution, says Yuri Yarym-Agaev . - This is one of the first and important steps against what Obama has done in 8 years. The main thing that Obama did in 8 years is - he took the full emphasis on the redistribution of American wealth, and not on his production. From the very beginning, he came out with the slogans of the class struggle, they say, 1 percent has too many, the rest are too few. But in fact, this 1 percentage just during the time of Obama’s presidency succeeded, but who suffered the most - this is an American middle entrepreneur, an American middle class, from whom they took money in all forms and redistributed. The two main redistributions that occurred under Obama are from working people to non -working and from the private sector to the public sector. And we see this very simply by the number of gigantic increase in all subsidies, including foodstamps ( grocery subsidies for the poor. - RS) and everything else. We see this by how richer the city of Washington became, where officials live, which used to be inexpensive compared to everyone else. This is the main redistribution that occurred. And judging by the appointment of people in Trump’s office - Ben Carson, Tom Price, who is responsible for healthcare, and other ministers, there is reason to think that they are going to completely expand this process.

- Professor Kontorovich, our interlocutor predicts a revolutionary response or revolutionary reaction of the Republican Congress and the Trump administration to the eight -year rule of the democratic administration. Agree with such a look?

- No, I do not agree. In general, the word "revolution" must be applied carefully to America, - says Vladimir Kontorovich .

- I naturally use a metaphor.

- Washington has become an dear city for a long time, it has become an increasingly expensive and rich city. This is not Obama, this happened under the republican presidents, and under Reagan, and with both Bush. This trend has been going on from the 60–70s. As for the redistribution of income, Trump has its own ideas about the redistribution of income. He again against this 1 percent and for the care of the people who have bypassed economic growth. He has a completely redistributive policy, which, perhaps, will work a little differently, through restriction of freedom of trade-this is also a redistribution. The redistribution of the end is not visible, maybe other groups will benefit from this than before. For 1 percent I would not be worried, he will be all right, as always.

- In this case, why do you think the first act of Congress was an attempt to neutralize this law of healthcare Obama?

-Because the law on healthcare was pulled out with the help of parliamentary maneuvers, without any consultation with the other side. It was an insult, and an answer should be expected. Republicans swore that they would do this, so they took up this.

- And why did the law, which, according to its supporters, had to make Americans make it happy, providing everyone with affordable medical insurance, causes negative feelings of more than half of the Americans? It would seem a noble idea.

- One of the reasons why he does not work: he extends insurance to those people who do not want to pay insurance for this. Those tools on which the Obama Law is based: prices control, vehicle is an attempt by central planning, which, we know, are always failed. The market also does not work very well in this area. I can’t say that the Republicans have some wonderful ideas. To a large extent, they respond to the strategy of the nasty side, and this is always losing. They thought little about healthcare. Cancel, replace. They don’t really know how to replace. But this makes sense, what was proposed by the Democratic Congress and Obama is inoperative in any case.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, is it clear why the law created, based on the best motives, does not take root?

Advertising materials of the Law on Available Medical Service

- This is a reflection of the real effect of this program, from which a significant part of the population was really affected, namely, again, an independent middle class, which itself pays for its insurance. It turned out a strange effect: many people who do not pay for insurance, that is, with very low income, received insurance, and some of the people who used to be insurance or lost them for real, or their insurance became such that they actually cannot use healthcare, because they must first pay huge money from their own pockets for medical services. This law did nothing to reduce the cost of American medicine. If you take all the money of the governments spent on medicine and divide the number of people living in this country, we will receive more than 4 thousand dollars a year, and this is more than Germany or France, where state medicine is spent. Our costs for medicine are higher than in Europe, because we take on a large disproportionate burden of developing modern medical technology, drugs and so on. The emphasis should still be to reduce the cost, which will then automatically lead to expansion of access to the healthcare system, and not to an attempt to expand this access without reducing this cost. Such a scheme cannot work, and we see its sad results.

- Vladimir Kontorovich, among Trump's main promises - dismantling the important part of Barack Obama’s heritage in the field of economics regulation. Obama, for example, introduced a lot of restrictions on oil production and the development of oil fields, for the release of carbon dioxide, he, according to critics, was simply conjured by the American economy. Can we expect the liberation of the American economy by the Trump administration from the regulation of regulation?

“I think you can.” Most of what Obama did does not require Congress’s decisions - these were presidential decrees, the new president can cancel them. As far as I understand, now a list of Obama presidential decrees is being compiled, which increase the burden of regulation, so that the pen of the pen is just as accurately, as Obama introduced them, Trump canceled them. There is a constitutional question. Here is the question of who creates the rules in the country, the question of what is called a regulatory state. Congress creates regulatory authorities, gives them broad powers, and regulatory authorities issue their decrees, which have the power of the law that is almost impossible to challenge in court. These organs only grow. If you look at the number of pages of the rules that they publish, this is a fantastic figure, hundreds of thousands of pages are added every year. It is clear that they are on autopilot, these agencies have their own interests, they do not weigh the benefit and the cost of their rules. One of the important tasks of modern democracy is to introduce a regulatory state into the framework.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, the head of the American Oil Institute, was the lobby of oil companies, had just complained that during the presidency of Barack Obama, 145 different regulations-restrictions on the actions of the energy industry were introduced. Trump nominated for energy ministers of the former Governor Texas Rick Perry, a person close to oil and gas concerns. Are we waiting for a sharp increase in oil production and falling prices?

- Obama introduces these regulations literally until the last minute. More recently, he introduced a very strong restriction on oil installations in the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast.

-In my opinion, did he generally suddenly tried to ban the drilling on the shelf, after he seemed to intend to remove the restrictions a few years ago?

The Ministry of Environmental Protection Madly strangles businesses

- Yes, it happened just the other day. Of course, we will expect from Trump and from Perry the abolition of most of these regulations. This area, in which you can be practically sure that by the end of the first term Trump production of both oil and gas will increase. Plus, the transportation of gas, which is also very important, is one of the things that Obama blocked is the construction of ports for liquefaction and transportation of gas. As a result, America will become not only self -sufficient, but also one of the main exporters of oil and gas, which will affect very much in international politics, the balance of power in the world. I also want to mention one extremely important ministry - this is the Ministry of Environmental Protection, which most of all introduced such restrictions and which is madly strangling businesses. It is easier for the Russian listener to understand the analogy: such a role is played by sanitary and epidemios and fire protection, which are familiar to all Russian people who strangle the Russian small business in the same way.

-Professor Kontorovich, to listen to you and Yuri Yarym-Agaev, the departing president participated in the conspiracy against the American economy, introducing regulations that prevented its growth, despite the already insignificant economic growth?

- With the environment, everything is very clear. Environmental protection causes very strong passions among a large part of voters, and some people compare this with religion: Mother Earth, which must be preserved in its original form. The party, which most of all reflects these passions, is a democratic party. When she is in power, she holds the rules supported by these people. So here it is clear where it comes from. We can say that environmental protection is good, but in many people it is overlapping over the edge, they do not want to hear about the costs of this case, they do not want to weigh the costs. Now about the regulatory state. When you create some bureau and give him a task, there are no restraining centers, it creates rules for itself, it is naturally interested in the greater number of rules on autopilot, it is very difficult to calm down. This bureaucratic phenomenon is well known. No one is to blame, they created for a good goal, people there also work good, but they do not see other aspects of their activities. This is fine.

-Do you believe that the administration of Trump will actually try to turn the country from the path laid by Obama towards the market-conservative model?

- This is interesting. During the election campaign, after all, no one understood who Donald Trump is. Obama was clear to everyone. And Donald Trump suddenly became a republican, before that he had been a democrat all his life. And many conservatives suspected that he was still a democrat and would pursue left policy, but with some modifications. There was such a very strong suspicion of conservative circles. Now, when he scored his office, this is a normal conservative office. People who do this say: yes, more conservative than the past Bush had. The standard position of the Republican Party and Conservatives is to calm the regulators. No one says to cancel the regulation, but to calm the regulators, in particular, to calm the release of presidential decrees. How far they will go in this is incomprehensible. There will be no linear process in one direction, there will be a lot of resistance and inertia, but movement in this direction can be predicted.

- And can, for example, can predict a sharp increase in oil production in the United States as a result of these processes for trouble to some other oil producers or a tangible economic growth that has not been since the so -called "great recession"?

- The ban on drilling on the sea shelf is now irrelevant, at the current prices no one will drill there. This is for the future, this is a symbolic gesture. It is clear that if the regulation is weakened, then the production should rise. How much? Anyone who knows, guesses how much it will rise, he becomes a millionaire and then enters the next republican office.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, a very important and interesting figure in Trump’s office is General James Mattis, nominated for defense ministers. I know that you are familiar with Matisse through the Giverov Institute ...

General James Mattis was the head of the central command of the US Armed Forces

- Moreover, we often communicate with him, I congratulated him, by the way, on the election, sent his wishes, advice, he answered me, thanked. About two years ago, I organized a one-day seminar at the Goverov Institute about the actions of Russia in Eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass, invited several people there, including General Mattis so that he would give his assessment of military events, and that the West and America could do in this situation. I can say that the attitude of Matisse to Putin and his actions in Ukraine were, perhaps, even more stringent and categorical than my own, although it is difficult to imagine. And he has this position, as far as I know.

- His personal views are one thing, and the views of the president, the official adviser of which he will be in case of approval, is a completely different matter.

- The president’s views will be largely formed on the basis of the main people in his office too. Trump's position in foreign policy is not framed, it is quite contradictory. It occupies a very sharp position regarding China, relative to North Korea and Iran, and a very reconciliation position in relation to their closest ally of Russia. In fact, this is already a contradictory position. I know the position of Mattis, I know the position of Flin, which I also know a little.

- This is the future adviser to the president in national security.

Rex Tillerson and Vladimir Putin

“I am completely unknown to Tillerson, who will be the head of the State Department, and a certain past is caused by a certain skepticism.” But, for example, returning to Mattis, I know that this is a person who not only does not change his views easily, but is not afraid to express them. And an example of this was his first meeting with Trump, where he convinced Trump regarding the use of torture for one first meeting. Therefore, I would not write off the position of such key figures in Trump’s office from the account. I think they will influence the formation of foreign policy to a certain extent. So far, I think this fortune -telling on the coffee grounds to a certain extent, we definitely cannot say what this foreign policy will ultimately pour into.

– Владимир Конторович, Дональд Трамп сделал немало интересных заявлений по поводу необходимости укрепления американской армии, повышения расходов на оборону, он даже пригрозил гонкой вооружений в ответ на бахвальство Владимира Путина, назвавшего российский ядерный арсенал мощнейшим в мире. Совсем недавно Конгресс США утвердил оборонные расходы, которыми предусмотрено финансирование исследований и испытаний в области базирующейся в космосе противоракетной обороны. Не может ли Дональд Трамп в действительности оказаться современной версией Рональда Рейгана, поднявшего оборонные расходы, напугавшего Москву "звездными войнами", бросившего ей вызов, на который она не смогла ответить?

Угроза России не вошла в психику избирателя, а угроза Советского Союза там была

– Мотивация и атмосфера другие. Советского Союза боялись больше, чем боятся России. Угроза России не вошла в психику избирателя, а угроза Советского Союза там была. Импульс к увеличению расходов при Рейгане на самом деле начался при Картере, рост военных расходов одобрили в 1978 году. То есть было некоторое согласие между партиями на этот счет еще до Рейгана, Рейган, конечно, усилил эти тенденции, но началось до него. Так что я не думаю, что это будет такой же рывок. Закономерно после пацифистского президента Обамы, который сокращал расходы на оборону, что расходы на оборону усилятся. Гонки вооружений не будет, потому что с другой стороны некому гоняться. Надо помнить, что общий тон кампании избирательной Трампа, который ему очень помог, о том, что надо заниматься своими проблемами в конце концов, хватит тратить жизни и миллионы долларов на какие-то войны далеко от нас, которые мы все равно не выигрываем. Я не думаю, что есть тот же настрой, который был в 1980 году, а расходы увеличатся.

– Юрий Ярым-Агаев, видите параллели между Трампом и Рейганом?

Трамп обозначил свою позицию, повторив тезис Рейгана "мир с позиции силы"

– Трамп обозначил свою позицию, повторив тезис Рейгана "мир с позиции силы". Это как раз не противоречит ни в коей мере его нежеланию участвовать в каких-то войнах, ибо тот же Рейган был самый миролюбивый президент в последней истории Америки. Дело в том, что как раз именно сила Америки обеспечивает ее громадное влияние без применения прямых военных конфронтаций. Ориентация Трампа также именно на сильную Америку. Мы говорили об экономике, об энергетике, – безусловно, те же действия будут происходить в военной области, в области обороны, в области оборонного бюджета и так далее. Трамп, – исходя из того, что он говорил, а главное, из тех людей, которых он назначил, – будет ориентироваться именно на сильную Америку и на то, чтобы сила обеспечивала мир и очень эффективную мощную политику этой страны.

– Хорошо, а как вам скажут скептики, он может размахивать дубиной, но денег у них на это нет.

Рональд Рейган и Юрий Андропов в пик гонки вооружений

– У него будут средства на увеличение военных расходов, а главное, одна из ориентаций трамповского правительства, что, конечно, всегда очень трудно реализовывать, будет более эффективное использование этих расходов. Вы, например, упомянули противоракетную оборону – это очень важный аспект, он очень перекликается со стратегической оборонной инициативой, которую объявил Рейган. Дело в том, что на СОИ не было истрачено много денег, более того, никаких особенно реальных и практических результатов СОИ не достигла, но идеологический и политический эффект этой программы был громадный. Поэтому важна не только сумма, которая расходуется на оборону, но как, какой это производит эффект на другие страны.

– Этому они должны у Путина, видимо, поучиться, –​ использованию пропагандистских лозунгов.

– Этому можно учиться и у Рейгана, и у других людей в Америке, которые тоже в этом понимают толк. И то, что Трамп, между прочим, прямо сказал про гонку вооружений, а он это просто назвал именно так, а не другими словами, это тоже может произвести громадный эффект. Кстати, когда мы говорим о гонке вооружений, мы не должны только думать о России, на самом деле мы должны больше думать о Китае. Эту гонку, даже если будет объявлена, Америка абсолютно и безусловно выиграет.

– Владимир Конторович, близкие демократам комментаторы называют будущий кабинет Трампа правительством генералов и миллиардеров, считая, что такая комбинация опасна для Соединенных Штатов?

Кого вы хотите в кабинете – дезертиров и бомжей?

– Я бы сказал, что если это утверждение нацелено на критику, то это демагогия на уровне детского сада. Кого вы хотите в кабинете – дезертиров и бомжей? В американской истории было много президентов-генералов, было много президентов – боевых офицеров, последний из них был Буш. Это отставные генералы, это хорошая американская традиция, начиная с Джорджа Вашингтона, который тоже был генералом, Америке это не повредило.

– Но страшно далекие от народа, не понимающие нужды народа, как скажут вам скептики.

– А кто понимает нужды народа? Профессора? Адвокаты? Тогда нужно формировать кабинет из доярок и трактористов.

– Юрий, вы по-видимому, тоже хорошо относитесь к генералам и миллиардерам?

– Я к этому отношусь замечательно, потому что общая установка Трампа – это установка на успех и результаты, – говорит Юрий Ярым-Агаев. – Именно бизнес и армия в Америке – это два самых успешных сектора американского общества и это два сектора американского общества, которые отвечают за результаты и доставляют результаты. Поэтому, по-моему, очень логично и естественно привести в кабинет большое количество таких людей. К тому же насчет оторванности от народа, я не знаю, откуда такая странная идея, потому что часть из этих людей начинала свою карьеру с низов. Если мы говорим о том же Джиме Маттисе, он командовал взводом, он участвовал в военных действиях, он сделал полную карьеру снизу до четырехзвездочного генерала. Так же, как часть бизнесменов отнюдь не родились в семьях миллиардеров, а создали свое состояние, начиная с очень малых денег.

– Есть тогда аргумент Эйзенхауэра, который предупредил в свое время об опасности слияния власти с военно-промышленным комплексом.

Генералы – это люди, которые на самом деле меньше всего хотят начинать и участвовать в каких-то войнах

– Эта предосторожность есть, но, как правильно сказал Владимир, у нас президентами были генералы, и Вашингтон, и Эйзенхауэр, и Грант, и ничего плохого никогда из-за этого не произошло. Так что это надо всегда иметь в виду. Но никоим образом указанная структура кабинета не выглядит как приход к власти какой-то военной хунты. Это несколько очень заслуженных военных с громадным опытом управления и побед, которые находятся на своих естественных местах в этом правительстве. К тому же генералы не любят воевать. Несмотря на расхожие предрассудки наших интеллектуалов, которые считают, что военные генералы только рвутся начать очередные войны – это полностью противоречит опыту и знанию этих людей. Они прошли через войны, их друзья гибли в этих войнах – это люди, которые на самом деле меньше всего хотят начинать и участвовать в каких-то войнах.