WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017 NEWS7A
OPINION
The worldwide reach and
vast range of products, brands
and services owned by the ex-
tended Trump family members
are orders of magnitude more
complex than retired Exxon-
Mobil Chief Executive Rex Til-
lerson’s holdings, which he has
agreed to shed, with much of it
going into a blind trust.
Everyone knows that selling
illiquid assets such as brands
and real estate in a hurry re-
quires accepting huge losses.
After electing the first Afri-
can-American president eight
years ago, Americans made his-
tory once again by choosing a
truly international business-
man. A future global business-
man might be discouraged
from seeking the presidency if
we force huge losses on the
Trump family via divestiture.
Ethics requirements could
be met by temporarily nation-
alizing Trump Inc. only for
four or eight years, without a
formal deed of sale.
Since Donald Trump has
supposedly been audited every
year, an audited estimate of the
pre-tax income and the rate of
growth in that income over the
past four or eight years is avail-
able to the Internal RevenueService. All of the Trump com-
panies’ business secrets would
remain private.
Instead of huge losses from
divestiture of assets at fire-sale
prices, Trump family would be
better off accepting, in the spir-
it of public service, an income
cap over the next four or eight
years, based on the past income
level and growth rate.
It is only fair to let the
Trumps earn at their own his-
torical level with a downside
protection. The Foreign Gifts
and Decorations Act of 1966
states that high-value “gifts”
belong to the U.S. Treasury.
Thus, a legal framework to cap
Trump Inc. earnings already
exists.
Suppose a foreign country
pays to rent a room for a repre-
sentative in a Trump hotel or
buy a Trump-branded item. It
is easy to allege that payments
were intended to curry favor
with President-elect Trump.
But if the businesses were U.S.
government property, all con-
flicts of interest allegations
would be invalid.
Temporary nationalization
of earnings above the Trump
family cap would be efficient,
simple and clean.Hrishikesh (Rick) D. Vinod is
an economics professor at Ford-
ham University.Opposing view
Don’t divest,
nationalize
Hrishikesh (Rick) D. VinodIf President-elect Donald
Trump requires inspiration for
extricating himself from his pri-
vate financial entanglements be-
fore taking the oath of office on
Jan. 20, he needn’t look any fur-
ther than the example set by Rex
Tillerson, the newly retired
ExxonMobil chief nominated to
be the next secretary of State.
Tillerson is a controversial
choice whose close ties to Rus-
sian President Vladimir Putin
will draw tough scrutiny at his
confirmation hearings, scheduled
to begin today. The confirmation
process for Trump’s Cabinet
choices is further complicated by
the failure so far of several nomi-
nees to complete the ethics re-
view process of filing financial
and employment disclosures.
In the meantime, the steps tak-
en by Tillerson to shed ties with
the multinational energy giant
have drawn praise even from ex-
acting ethics watchdogs.
One of the knottiest problems
Tillerson faced, if confirmed, was
what to do about more than
2 million deferred ExxonMobil
shares he would have received
over the next decade. In an agree-
ment with the company’s board
of directors, those shares will be
converted into about $180 million
in cash and held in an indepen-
dently managed trust. He would
forfeit the money to charity
should he return to the energy in-
dustry during those 10 years.
Tillerson, who retired Dec. 31,
also agreed to sell 600,000 shares
he owns once he is confirmed. He
loses about $7 million in bonuses
and share value in the deal, but he
gains the public’s confidence that
his actions as secretary of State
would not be self-enriching.
Trump should follow Tiller-
son’s example, which was worked
out with the same U.S. Office of
Government Ethics that advised
the president-elect through Twit-
ter after the election that “dives-
titure is good for you, very good
for America!”
The president-elect has taken
only modest steps to reduce con-
flicts of interest by dissolving hispersonal charitable foundation,
ending some foreign develop-
ment plans and considering an
outside financial monitor. He is
expected to detail additional ac-
tions at a news conference today.
It doesn’t help matters that
Trump has said that his children
will run the family business but
then allowed them to be part of
his presidential transition team,
or in son-in-law Jared Kushner’s
case made him a senior adviser.
Nor is the extent of Trump’s
holdings clear. He has refused to
release his tax returns, unlike all
others elected president in the
past four decades.
To be sure, Trump’s real estate
holdings are more complicated to
unwind than Tillerson’s deferred
ExxonMobil shares. Any liquida-
tions should neither be fire sales
nor sweetheart deals aimed at
currying favor with the first fam-
ily. Either way, there’s a means to
ensure that selling what Trump
holds, no matter how complicat-
ed, would not be his burden:
Name an independent trustee.
“All Trump has to do is sign a
simple piece of paper appointing
an independent trustee,” says
Norm Eisen, the founder and
board member of Citizens for Re-
sponsibility and Ethics in Wash-
ington. “Let the trustee have all
those headaches. ... Complicated
for the trustee. Simple for Trump.
He should follow his secretary of
State nominee’s lead.”TODAY’S DEBATEDIVESTITURE
Our view
Tillerson shows the way on
avoiding financial conflicts
ZACH GIBSON, AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Rex Tillerson visits Capitol
Hill last Wednesday.GANNETT CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER
Joanne Lipman
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Patty Michalski
EDITOR, EDITORIAL PAGE
Bill Sternberg
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Beryl LoveUSA TODAY PRESIDENT & PUBLISHER
John Zidich
GENERAL MANAGER
Susan Motiff
CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER
Kevin Gentzel
CHIEF PRODUCT OFFICER
Daniel Bernard
PRESIDENT, SPORTS MEDIA GROUP
David Morgan"USA TODAY hopes to serve as a
forum for better understanding
and unity to help make the USA
truly one nation."
Allen H. Neuharth,
Founder, Sept. 15, 1982GANNETT COMPANY PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Robert DickeyE
ven before the election
of Donald Trump, Oba-
macare was in trouble.
Premiums on the gov-
ernment exchanges for individual
policies are projected to increase
an average of 11% next year, near-
ly four times the increase for em-
ployer-based family policies. And
some large insurers are pulling
out of the individual market alto-
gether.
Those who buy policies on the
exchanges often find that even
with subsidies, they can’t afford
to use them because of mounting
deductibles ($6,000 for individual
Bronze plans). It has become
clear that health insurance is not
the same as health care.
In 2010 when Obamacare was
enacted, about 50 million Ameri-
cans (16%) were without health
insurance. The United States was
then spending $2.6 trillion a year
on health care. Last year, about
29 million (9%) remained unin-
sured, and we spent $3.2 trillion
on health care in 2015.
That doesn’t seem like much of
a bargain. Costs matter. Expand-
ing access to health care, as Oba-
macare does, is only half the job.
The other half requires control-
ling costs, so the system can be
sustained.
PROFITS VS. PUBLIC INTEREST
The problem is that the underly-
ing causes of the cost inflation
were left largely untouched by
Obamacare. The system remains
in the hands of investor-owned
insurance companies, drug com-
panies and profit-oriented pro-
viders that can charge whatever
the market will bear. Like all mar-
kets, this one is driven to expand,
and does. Moreover, these indus-
tries are consolidating, so they
behave more like oligopolies than
competitive businesses.
President Obama was so eager
for the political support of the
health industries that he assumed
they’d modulate their drive for
profits in the public interest.
What will the Trump administra-
tion do?
While Trump calls for repeal-
ing and replacing Obamacare, he
has never said what he’d replace
it with. But other Republicans
have offered isolated proposals:
They’d permit insurance to be
sold across state lines, which
means that companies in states
with lax regulations would be
able to sell substandard plans
elsewhere; they’d abolish the
mandate that requires people to
buy insurance but keep the provi-
sion that requires insurers to cov-
er people with pre-existing
conditions (an idea that would
cause premiums to skyrocket);
and they’d promote health sav-
ings accounts, which are essen-
tially tax-free savings plans that
favor the wealthy.
What is absolutely certain, giv-
en the GOP’s rhetoric and
Trump’s nomination of Rep. Tom
Price for secretary of Health and
Human Services, is that we will
move very sharply toward an
even more expensive, inadequate
and unequal health system.UNIVERSAL MEDICARE
Sen. Bernie Sanders had it right.
The best way to provide universal
health care at a sustainable cost is
to extend Medicare to everyone.
Medicare is essentially a sin-
gle-payer system for those older
than 65 — government-financed
but privately delivered. Because it
uses the same profit-oriented
providers as the rest of the sys-
tem, it would need some reforms.
That would include shifting hos-
pitals and other providers to a
non-profit delivery system, ad-
mittedly a huge challenge that
could prove as controversial as
Obamacare itself. We could ease
the transition by switching to
universal Medicare one decade at
a time, starting by dropping the
eligibility age from 65 to 55.
Paying for Medicare for All
would require an increase in tax-
es — perhaps an earmarked pro-gressive income tax — but that
increase would be offset by the
elimination of premiums and
out-of-pocket costs, and the slow-
ing of inflation that stems from
our market-based system.
As it stands, 65% of health
costs are paid by the federal gov-
ernment in one way or another.
Health policy experts estimate
this would increase to 80% with
Medicare for All. Since employers
would no longer have the expense
of insurance, they would be more
competitive in global markets
and would likely hire more
workers.
We are between a rock and a
hard place. Obamacare is falter-
ing, and the incoming Trump ad-
ministration has no realistic
alternative. This might be exactly
the right time to push for a na-
tional health program.
Repeal Obamacare, but not
without replacing it, and the best
replacement is Medicare for All.
Some polls suggest most Ameri-
cans favor such a system. We
should pick up our metaphorical
pitchforks and torches and make
that preference known.Marcia Angell, corresponding
member of the Faculty of Global
Health and Social Medicine at
Harvard, stepped down as editor
in chief of the New England Jour-
nal of Medicine in 2000.TIME FOR
MEDICARE
FOR ALL
Trump and Republicans have no
realistic replacement for Obamacare
JACQUELYN MARTIN, AP
Protester Connie Roberts, left, and nurse Sheila Inman sign a
Medicare poster in Washington in 2015.Marcia Angell
It came as no surprise that a
federal jury recommended the
death penalty for Dylann Roof,
the unapologetic, unrepentant
young man who in June 2015
massacred nine African Ameri-
cans inside a historic church in
Charleston, S.C.
Not only did he deliberately
target innocent parishioners in
the midst of Bible study for the
sole purpose of advancing the
cause of white supremacy, but the
trial was as one-sided as could be.
Deliberations took less than three
hours.
Roof ’s rejection of mental ill-
ness as a defense at trial and as
mitigation in sentencing speaks
volumes. Such a legal strategy
would, from his perspective, have
negated any legitimacy to his
hateful agenda.
Even as he stood firing at his
victims, Roof proclaimed, “I’m
not crazy,” according to witness
testimony.
Roof ’s refusal to mount a case
against death reflects a stoic
readiness to become a martyr.
Like-minded racists would view
Roof as a hero, and would invoke
his name and the government’s
attempt to silence him through
the death penalty as a rallying cry.
As one skinhead vowed shortly
after the church shooting, “Dy-
lann will be my next tattoo.”
By virtue of his death sentence,
Roof is guaranteed greater celeb-
rity. Any appellate actions on his
behalf and any steps in prepara-
tion for his execution will un-
doubtedly be publicized widely,
along with a reminder of his of-
fensive motivation for the assault.Having him instead reside for the
rest of his life behind prison walls
in obscurity would have been a
far more palatable outcome.
Just as Roof rejected the idea
of claiming mental illness, the
government rejected an offer for
him to plead guilty in exchange
for a life sentence.
Although the prosecution was
successful in seeking the death
penalty, the trial was costly in
more than just a monetary sense.
Thanks to the prosecution’s deci-
sion to have his jailhouse journal
read into evidence during the
penalty phase, his hateful mus-
ings became quoteworthy materi-
al for major news outlets around
the country.
Ever since Theodore Kaczyn-
ski had his Unabomber manifesto
published in The Washington Post
under the threat of continuing at-
tacks, it has become fashionable
to characterize whatever a mass
murderer articulates as ideologi-
cal justification for violence as a
manifesto. However, the term
“manifesto” is typically used to
describe a policy declaration by a
person of prominence.
When Roof corrected us by in-
sisting that his writings were not
to be considered a manifesto, it
was the first truthful statement
he had made.
Roof's ugly words hardly de-
serve the amount of news atten-
tion they have been afforded up
to and during his trial. Now that
his day in court is over, let us
hope that his time in the lime-
light will be over as well.James Alan Fox is the Lipman
Professor of Criminology, Law and
Public Policy at Northeastern Uni-
versity and a member of the USA
TODAY Board of Contributors.Dylann Roof got what
he asked for — death
James Alan Fox