Dear Editor,

Donald Trump continues to surge in the polls, much to the chagrin of his rivals and those who are able to see what he is beyond his bombastic and bragging rantings. But he is vulnerable on two fronts neither of which had been asserted in the campaign. Some people believe his claim of being the best and most skilled negotiator in the business world is open to attack by the fact that many of his enterprises have gone bankrupt. What Trump would do is set up any new enterprise in a separate corporation and when it failed, he simply put that company into bankruptcy. Those profitable businesses he kept going. It is not clear how many enterprises he has handled in this way, but he obviously is not as infallible in his business as he likes to think.

But he is far more vulnerable with regard to another one of his sponsored enterprises, namely, the Trump University he set up in May of 2005. This was meant to be an adult-education program through which Trump would provide students, who signed up with Trump’s supposed expertise, his methods and secrets, with regard to real estate transactions. Trump himself was very active in developing promotional materials for potential students, claiming in them that he “handpicked the professors for the school”, and had met with many of them.

The school started out by inviting people to attend one-day get-acquainted sessions. Personal invitations from Trump were sent out. Efforts were made at these events to convince the attendees to enrol in a three-day workshop with a charge of $1,495 apiece, where the school’s “professors” would provide instructions on real estate techniques. It was claimed that they would be given “all you need to start getting rich”.

During the workshops, the instructors sought to enlist those attending to participate in mentorship programs with prices ranging from $25,000 for the gold program to $34,995 for the elite program. Supposedly, under these programs, the mentor would counsel and lead the student through actual transactions, using secret ideas Trump claimed to know. People who were anxious about their financial situations and aspiring to do better enlisted. A total of 7,611 individuals eventually signed up either for the workshops or the mentoring programs, many of whom were elderly. One an 84-year-old man from New Jersey signed up for the $34,995 program. When he withdrew from the program and asked for the return of his payment, he was refused.

None of the instructors was trained in education, let alone a professor. Most had backgrounds in sales. It did not take long for the participants to recognize how inadequate the instruction was. Many sought refunds and some who complained were given refunds, but many others were denied. Some mentors did locate properties for their mentees, but banks were not willing to advance loan money to acquire them, even though the promotional materials which Trump oversaw said bank financing would be obtained through Trump’s programs. Trump University operated from 2005 to 2010 when it went out of business. During that time it took in $40 million in fees and paid $5 million to Trump. Trump said he would donate his payment to a charity, but has not done so as of last November.

Eventually, those who were unable to recover the payments they had made banded together and retained attorneys. Two class action suits were filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs in the Federal Court in San Diego against Trump individually and the Trump University corporation alleging fraud and in one case racketeering under the Rico Act. Trump’s lawyers used every type of manoeuvre to stall the cases from going forward. But primarily they attempted to have the actions against Trump dismissed based upon the allegations that he did not own stock in Trump University, and had been completely “absent from the operations” of the school.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys were quick to point out that Trump’s materials stated that he owned the University “lock, stock and barrel” and that a separate corporation owned by Trump held title to the stock. The presiding judges refused to dismiss the actions against Trump. Last reports indicate those rulings still stand and the cases will be going to trial soon.

On November 5, 2015, Time magazine carried a seven-page article by Steven Brill, an established legal columnist in New York City, in which he described in detail how Trump developed the University and its promotional materials, how it operated thereafter, and the legal actions alleging fraud and racketeering against Trump, who by then was the leading Republican contender in the primaries.

Yet up until the Republican debate on February 25th, no other candidate brought this critical information to the attention of voters or the media. Maybe they had been fearful that Trump, as he so often threatens to do, would bring an action again them. That is exactly what he did when a former student filed a complaint against him with the Better Business Bureau, filing an action against her for slander. His action was dismissed by the Court in April 2015, however, and he was ordered to pay the defendant’s the legal fees she incurred, which is unusual for a court to do.

Finally Ted Cruz brought up the subject in the recent debate, although not very forcefully and without describing any of the evidence against him. Trump casually swatted the subject away, stating this was merely a “civil action that he could easily settle at any time he chose.” Now we will see if the media, which follow everything that Trump says and does, will follow up on this revelation.

The media might ask such questions as: What is the evidence against Trump supporting the fraud charge? When will there be trials at which Trump will have to testify and be cross examined? Has there ever been a contender for the presidency who has faced fraud and racketeering charges? Will his adherents continue to support him so strongly when they know about this? Can such a man be elected President?

But what about the old gentleman from New Jersey, who lost his $34.995 and was refused a refund? After all that, when asked by Steven Brill, he said he, being a self-proclaimed Tea Partier, would still vote for Donald Trump. Go figure!

Stephen A. Hopkins

Dear Editor,

Please allow me some space in your newspaper to address the Traffic Police and Public Works.

To those whom it may concern, please paint the lines/lanes on the road in the area of Daily Extra going around to the tire centre area. Many drivers don’t seem to know you have to stay in one lane and not switch without any indication.

Perhaps it is not known that there are two lanes. Therefore the lines need to be painted again.

Name withheld at author's request.

Dear Editor,

Member of Parliament Maurice Lake missed a big part of the story in his press release, which I will explain.

Within a 10-year span NV GEBE had seven director changes (2006- 2016). Three of the changes were temporal/interim directors with limited decision-making powers. For the past months GEBE has been functioning with a temporary director with no power. There are vacancies for Financial Director, Technical Director and Managing Director for the longest awhile. The truth of the matter is the Supervisory Board can only nominate candidates for the positions, but it is only the Government can appoint persons as directors. There candidates for those position on Government’s desk pending a decision since last year.

Government, in the meantime, has decided to send home the board of NV GEBE, which can only make a bad situation even worse. A company that is the cornerstone of the St. Maarten economy will have, in the height of the tourist season, no supervisory board and no stable director at the helm.

In addition to all of this confusion in the company, GEBE has to buy a new engine this year to keep pace with the demand for electricity on the island. Even though Government approved the purchase it cannot happen without a permanent director and a supervisory board in place. All of this confusion is an accident waiting to happen. Government has created a frustrating situation which can have explosive consequences.

You mentioned about nine projects in your press release that need to be executed. How are all those projects that you mentioned going to be executed with no director in place or one with limited authority? The workers’ needs on all levels are neglected as a result of no one being in charge. Are you aware that our CLA’s expired since last year?

At the moment NV GEBE is on automatic pilot with no one in charge of it. Management blames the Supervisory Board, and the Supervisory Board blames Government, which results in Government blaming the management. This goes round and round; the question is when is all this going end?

Mr. Lake is a supporter and coalition partner in this government with the responsibility for Ministry of Public Works which included GEBE; this put him in a position to do something about this mess. If he wants NV GEBE to start investing back into the community and executing projects he has to take decisions. H has to start by appointing a Financial Director and a Technical Director. Those are the two most crucial positions needing to be filled urgently. If people in the Ministry are not cooperating, just give them a vote of non-confidence.

Mr. Lake should not issue another press release complaining about lack of action on the part of NV GEBE. He is in charge and has the responsibility to do something about it. All the chaos in GEBE was brought about by Government’s inaction. If he wants a sense of tranquillity in NV GEBE he has to take some action. His next press release to the public should be to let us know when NV GEBE director(s) are going to be appointed. Then and only then can we talk about projects that need to be executed. I am looking forward to an early response from you on this urgent matter MP Maurice Lake

Antonio Brown

Dear Editor,

The cost of health care in the United States has increased enormously over the past decade, resulting in huge profits for hospitals and drug companies. The profit which the University of Pittsburg Medical Center made recently was $769.7 billion and the compensation of its CEO was $5,975,462. Other well-known hospitals, which are also supposedly charitable organizations, had similar figures. It is estimated that in 2013 the cost of health care will be $2.8 trillion.

Hospitals are able to generate these huge profits because they are charging outrageously inflated amounts for every single item used in any way by a patient (e.g. $24 for one over-the-counter pain killer tablet).

One recent billing by a small hospital in Massachusetts charged $10,500 for just two blood transfusions. The average charge for an appendectomy in the US is $13,000, compared to $5,600 in Canada and $3,200 in France. The US spends more on health care than the next 10 biggest spenders in the world combined. From 1990 until 2010, the cost of medical care in the US increased 500 percent, five times the GDP.

But apart from these charges, we have in addition the costs of drugs in the US which are 50 percent higher than other developed countries. For example, there is a product manufactured in Spain as a solution for increasing the immune system, and the cost for processing by the Spanish firm and to test and ship this product is $300. It was sold to a US hospital for $1,500, and ultimately the patient who used this product to control his lymphoma was charged $7,346 by the hospital for the drug.

In another situation involving a cancer drug, it is estimated that it cost the manufacturer $300 to process, test and ship the product to a hospital, receiving $3,300 in payment, and the hospital charged its patient $13,700 for administration of the drug.

In 2003, George W. Bush pushed Congress to pass a bill which would provide the right to obtain drugs through Medicare. This sounded great, but unlike how Medicare can negotiate to set the charges of hospitals and doctors, Congress, under the persistent pressure of drug company lobbyists, refused to allow Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies to obtain reasonable prices for their drugs.

Other nations, including Canada, have negotiated for lower prices through arrangements with the US drug companies, but Congress held that Medicare must pay the average sales price, plus a six percent add-on, and of course, the drug companies set the sales prices at whatever they chose. As a consequence, cancer drug prices increased from $3 billion in 1997 to $11 billion in 2004, and analysts say annual cost will reach more than $20 billion, and keep in mind that this is only the cost of cancer drugs.

Members of Congress, particularly the right wing Tea Party types, focus entirely on the national debt (which incidentally has been significantly reduced in the past year under the Obama administration, something nobody talks about). They seek to do this by reducing or eliminating entitlement programs which benefit the elderly, the disadvantaged and those in poverty. Yet, they are perfectly willing to allow the drug companies to charge whatever they can get for drugs they sell in the US, twice the prices they receive from nations such as Canada. This, of course, imposes an even heavier burden on the disadvantaged in the nation.

Most of these right wing types profess to be avowed and committed Christians, but recognizing that Jesus Christ, first and foremost, sought to satisfy the needs of and to assist the poor and needy, it is amazing that these pious right wing types are willing to take programs from the poor and needy so that already wealthy companies can make even more profits.

For example, they pushed through a bill in the House providing for increased subsidies to large farming conglomerates while in the same bill at the same time, they cut back on food stamps for the poor which they desperately need merely to survive.

The drug companies and those members of Congress who support them all contend that a large portion of the prices charged for drugs are needed for the research and development of new drugs. Various analysis have shown, however, that this is a fabrication; that R&D is a small percentage of total revenue; that the costs spent by these companies for lobbying in Washington is as much, if not more than the cost of R&D; and that the primary goal is not altruistic but rather to raise profits of these drug companies even more.

Implementation of the Affordable Health Care program will have the effect of curtailing the runaway cost of health care while at the same time providing some 14 million or more Americans with medical coverage for the first time which they otherwise could not obtain.  

Under the system which has been in place for so many years, all with the blessing of members of Congress, hospitals, drug companies and doctors were free to charge whatever they could obtain, and those members of Congress who supported these health providers, were recognized through financial support from their benefactors at election time.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives, who are in the majority, have vehemently opposed what they have labelled as Obamacare, seeking to repeal it some 45 times and even shutting down the government for two weeks in protest to the program. One reason for this mindless opposition is the fact that, as they themselves have acknowledged, they cannot abide the idea that President Obama will be attaining this major undertaking after numerous earlier presidents could not do so. Indeed, these same Federal officials oppose every bill the President presents.

But another reason undoubtedly is that once the health care program is in place and functioning, health costs will be contained and these members of Congress will not have the same power to provide benefits to the drug companies, for example, thus no longer receiving from them a certain financial largess for their efforts. And again, in their blind opposition, they could care less about the fact that the runaway costs of health care will be curtailed and many millions of people will, for the first time, have medical coverage.

It will take time to fully implement the health care program, particularly since Republicans have done everything in their power to obstruct the program, including the fact that some 26 states under Republican control have refused to set up exchanges to facilitate the ability of people to obtain coverage and the Federal government will have to do this.

But once the program is up and running and the people begin to recognize the benefits it provides, the right wingers will be sorry that in the years ahead, long after Obama steps down, the program will popularly be known as Obamacare, the label they so callously applied to it in their effort to disparage the program.

Stephen A. Hopkins