A recent email exchange I had with a Trump supporter who I’ve corresponded with in the past was very interesting, particularly because I’m aware that he only watches Fox News.  It was an opportunity to pose some questions that I very carefully worded to avoid antagonizing him:  Was he concerned about the national debt and does he think President Trump’s “relationship” Russian President Vladimir Putin is troublesome?   What did he think when Trump called the media “the enemy of the people” and was he bothered by how divided the country has become?  I promised not to argue with any of his responses, explaining that I was just interested in his opinions for a blog I might write.  Based on past communications, this individual (I’ll call him Jake.) appears to be well-educated.

Jake’s response began with complaints about how conservatives are looked down upon, particularly in “progressive” areas, and because they are treated poorly, they are reluctant to discuss politics.  Yet, he believes that progressives respond with anger and vitriol when confronted with a challenge to their political opinions.

Regarding President Trump’s dealings with Russia and Putin, Jake thought they were just normal international relationships as with any other significant world power.  He agreed with the president’s foreign policy re: Iran, North Korea, China and the EU.  He also agreed with the tariffs on Chinese goods and claimed that they give the U.S. “leverage” for fairer trade agreements.

Jake’s answer to my question about Trump’s “America First” policy and apparent withdrawal from world leadership was not surprising.  He believes that every other country also puts its welfare first and blames President Obama for withdrawing the U.S. from world leadership.  He cited Russia and Crimea, Syria and the “so called” nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran as examples.  He believes that the rest of the world now respects our power and resolve again, even if they may not like us.

Jake doesn’t think climate change is a problem and that it may actually be good for the environment.   He does not believe recent increases in temperature are caused by human activities.  He didn’t directly respond to my question about Trump calling the media “the enemy of the people.”  Instead he complained about the biased “liberal media” and its broadcast of untrue and blatantly political anti-Trump material, 90 percent of which he believes is negative.

My question about truthfulness was very mildly worded and didn’t cite thousands of Trump’s documented false and misleading statements: “Are you concerned that Trump doesn’t seem to care about being truthful?”  Jake declined to address Trump’s truthfulness and instead responded by referring to the lies of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Jake was not concerned about Trump’s businesses and whether they are profitable.  He believes Trump no longer runs them “as is the law.”  He does not believe that the president’s handling of illegal immigrants is harsh.  To him, the border agents and ICE are just following the law enacted by Congress, which he believes is bad and doesn’t protect against massive illegal immigration.

Jake believes if Congress cuts the “ridiculous spending” and deficits, he has no objection to less taxation.  Regarding the deficits, he doesn’t believe they are just the president’s problem; Congress is responsible for budgets and they have totally failed in that task.  He doesn’t believe a president should control Federal Reserve policy but thinks that Trump was right in expressing opposition to earlier Fed rate increases and that rates should be lowered.  He had no great concerns about the way Trump is handling his job.

I was most interested in Jake’s response to my question about how divided the country has become.   He was very concerned about that but blamed it all on the Democratic Party.  He believes that Democrats were trying for a coup d’état with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI director James Comey “but it has all proven to be false concerning the president but is very damning concerning Obama, DOJ, FBI and the ridiculous members of Congress like [Reps.] Adam Schiff and [Jerry] Nadler.”  He added: “The people spoke and the President was elected and the Democrats should stop trying to change that for no significant reason except they didn’t like the outcome.”  (This opinion preceded Trump’s current Ukraine scandal and the impeachment inquiry.)

I responded to Jake and did not challenge his beliefs, nor will I do so here; readers can form their own opinions.  The following paragraph is the substance of my reply:

My legal training helps me objectivity evaluate the facts involving this nation and its issues.  Political parties and political philosophy are not important to me.  Upholding the rule of law, defending the Constitution and protecting the security of the United States are my main goals.  I spend a lot of time researching government statistics and publications for my blogs.  I almost never completely rely on what I read or what I hear from pundits on TV without verifying it.

Bottom line: I think Jake is far too intelligent to believe everything he wrote, but like most Republicans, he refuses to criticize Trump.  Jake’s “reflections,” however, appear to mirror some of the dangerous conspiracy theories and alternative realities that Fox News opinion anchors and right-wing media pundits foist on their audiences.  And it is very scary and shocking to think that millions of voters actually believe them.

If not for a CIA agent whistle blower, we might never have learned about President Trump’s call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 and his illegal request for help in his reelection campaign.  Trump’s top priority was strong-arming Ukraine to investigate unsubstantiated claims of corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.  But he was also seeking evidence to confirm his totally debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton, not Russia on his behalf.

Trump continued his abuses of power on television this week by encouraging Ukraine and China to investigate the Biden’s, repeating the same unproven allegations.  In a typically inarticulate sentence, he advised: “So I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Biden’s, because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked.” Trump added, “I have a lot of options on China, but if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power.”  He keeps daring Republican politicians to challenge his lawlessness but most of them refuse to confront him, cowering in fear of the rabidly loyal base he has so carefully cultivated.  So, Trump takes it a step or two further.

So far, this president has assaulted our democratic processes without incurring legal consequences.  Page one of the tyrant’s playbook probably recommends appointing a chief legal officer who believes his boss is above the law.  Attorney General William Barr fills that role perfectly.  With Barr representing him instead of upholding the Constitution and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report in the rear-view mirror, Trump now believes he’s invincible.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is another skilled lieutenant who any serious autocrat would covet.  This former Tea Party member is ready to support whatever Trump wants to do, including placing illegal demands on Ukraine.  Unlike former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Barr and Pompeo are highly intelligent and savvy political operatives who are totally loyal to the president.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is trying to give Trump control of the federal courts.  He set a record by confirming over 150 Trump-appointed judges since January 2017.  McConnell wants to fill the federal judiciary with far-right conservatives who will help ensure that progressive legislation is struck down and that radical gerrymandering, voter suppression and abortion restrictions in Republican-controlled states will not be successfully challenged.

The mainstream media – which Republicans attack as the “liberal media” – is attempting to make voters aware the president’s devious tendencies.  But the conservative media that supports him is spread across the nation, wide and deep.  Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera recently complemented his colleague Sean Hannity: “You’re the difference between Donald J. Trump and Richard Nixon.”  I believe this is more truth than fiction.  Several commentators have opined that Nixon would not have been impeached if Fox News had been around to protect his back.

Fox is not alone, though; the equally conservative Sinclair Broadcasting is the single largest owner of TV stations in the nation.  Salem Radio Network, Breitbart News Network and several other outlets tenaciously hype Trump’s policies.  Talk show host Rush Limbaugh has a huge listening audience and he is just one of numerous ultra-conservative radio personalities supporting the president.  And don’t forget the many televangelists like Pat Robertson and Robert Jeffress who seem to believe the president is divine.  Robertson’s accolades have literally elevated Trump to a Christ-like status.

Consequently, I’m almost certain that conservative media reaches more voters than the so-called liberal media.  And I believe their programming consistently excludes negative information about Trump so listeners never learn of his misdeeds.   Here’s just one example:

Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) – formerly a Tea Party Republican – told his constituents why he believed Mueller’s report was cause to impeach the president at a townhall meeting in May.  Later, a lady in the audience confessed: “I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report.”  She believed the president had been exonerated.  I think that tells us a lot about what people learn from Fox News and Trump’s other media fans.

Now the U.S. House has commenced an impeachment inquiry of the president’s conduct.  But remember when candidate Trump implied he would only accept the election results if he won? And when he lost the popular vote, he alleged that millions of fraudulent votes were cast for Hillary Clinton.  Recently, Trump has also claimed that his term should be extended by two years due to the Mueller investigation and he has tweeted about serving an unconstitutional third term.  All of this raises my fear that Trump will not vacate the White House without a vicious fight if the Senate votes to remove him from office or if he loses in 2020.  Some legal scholars have the same concern.

What Trump, Barr, Pompeo and McConnell are attempting is so incredibly undemocratic that it’s difficult to believe it’s actually happening.  They are threatening to take down the greatest democracy in the history of the world and most Republicans either actively support them or passively watch them do it.

Thus emboldened, the president continues to ramp up his autocratic agenda.  So I keep wondering – what will save our democratic republic from this tyrant if Congress fails to stop him?

Even some conservatives admit that inequality is a problem.  The rich are sucking up an ever-greater percentage of the wealth and the bottom 50 percent of Americans are struggling.  Manufacturing jobs are not increasing significantly and artificial intelligence and automation will surely convert more of the workforce during the coming decades from flesh to metal and microchips.  Robots don’t earn a salary, drive a vehicle, shop for clothing or need a house.

But wait!  Consumer spending is around 70 percent of the U.S. economy and that’s not likely to change.  Corporations make profits by selling goods and services.  And government pays its bills with taxes it collects.  What happens to the economy when more and more Americans have less money to spend and the lion’s share of the wealth is concentrated in a small percent of consumers at the top?  How many people can be employed constructing huge mansions, mega yachts and private jets?

The last of the baby boomers are now retiring, saddling the Social Security and Medicare trust funds with a heavy burden.  Due to the $1.5+ trillion 2017 GOP tax cut and two large spending bills that funded fiscal years 2018 through 2021, yearly federal budget deficits will exceed $1 trillion for years to come.  President Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure program is floating around in an alternative reality.  Climate change, or whatever you want to call disastrous weather patterns, is creating increasing demands on federal relief coffers.

These facts beg the question:  Will coming generations be able to pay down the massive federal debt and still have the buying power of today’s consumers?

Millennials comprise the largest demographic cohort that is moving up to replace the 75+ million elderly baby boomers.  A 2015 Census Bureau estimate identified this group as the over 83 million born between 1981 and 2000, a massive one quarter of the nation’s population.  Hopefully they will have great paying jobs that will generate huge tax revenue.  Sadly, however, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

According to a New York Times article by David Leonhardt in January – based on Census Bureau and Federal Reserve data – “the 21st Century has resembled one long recession” for those under 40.  They are earning somewhat less than the same age group was in 2000 and their median net worth has nosedived over the past two decades.  In fact, according to accounting and professional services firm Deloitte, student loans, rising rents and higher health care costs have depressed millennials’ average net worth to below $8,000, considerably lower than generations that preceded them.

Leonhardt claims that “a lack of economic dynamism” since 2000 has impeded the formation of new companies and the expansion of existing ones.  Thus, there are fewer good jobs for the younger generations, who struggle to buy a first home or invest in the stock market.  Articles about these young adults still living at home and not getting married until years later than their parents, along with the gig economy, are harbingers of future economic decline.

And government isn’t helping.  Social services like Medicare for older citizens haven’t been cut while programs like education for our youth have gone under the knife.  States – that must balance budgets – cut education funding deeply after the recession hit in 2008.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the average state spent 16 percent less per student in 2018 compared to 2008, after adjusting for inflation.  This reduced funding has caused public colleges and universities to cut services, eliminate course offerings, close campuses – and raise tuition.

In an age when higher education has become a requirement for breaking into the middleclass and above, students have been pressured to borrow whatever amount was necessary to get a degree.  As a result, many of the millennials are shackled by part of the $1.6 trillion total student loan debt.  And those who dropout, for whatever reason, can end up with burdensome debt and nothing to frame.   The shocking truth is, the future engines of the U.S. economy are running low on gas.

So, what must be done to change this scenario?  Republicans would apply their same old perennial policies, lower taxes, less regulation and cuts to federal health care spending.   In an effort to corral deficits they would cut education funding and slash the social safety net for those who can least afford it.  Clearly, these policies would take dollars from those consumers who are most likely to spend them and siphon off more of the fuel that powers the economy.

Democratic candidates for president are making bold proposals to tax the ultra-rich to fund preschool for children, eliminate student loan debt and make college more affordable.  Some would increase Social Security payments by as much as $200 per month.  There is a method to this madness.  These policies would put more dollars into the pockets of the consumers who are the economy’s foundation.  And Democrats support reasonable immigration reform, which would supply the younger working tax payers that are needed to shore up the Social Security trust fund.

Some baby boomers may revel in their tax cuts and other benefits that are depleting the federal treasury and preventing needed infrastructure investments and climate change initiatives.  But the bill for this will come due to younger generations and the enormous cost will be a huge drag on the economy.

The threats to our democratic republic in the era of President Trump are frightening.  He and his administration have launched a banzai attack of corruption and lawlessness against our democratic processes that is unprecedented in modern history.  Consequently, it’s a challenge to focus on the most relevant topic to write about in the midst of this war on our institutions.  But there is one critical issue that predates Trump and will continue even after the glorious day he is gone – the corrosive influence of money in politics.

First, however, we need to consider who doesn’t have the money and who does.  The Federal Reserve published a report in May 2018 about the wellbeing of U.S. households that gives us some good data.  Here are a few of its disturbing findings:

• Four in 10 adults could not handle an unexpected expense of $400 unless they sold something or borrowed the funds.
• Over one-fifth of adults are not able to pay all of their current month’s bills in full.
• Over one-fourth of adults went without needed medical care in 2017 because they couldn’t afford it.
• One-fourth of non-retired adults have no retirement savings and more than three-fifths of them don’t believe their savings plan is on track.

A March 2019 report of financial accounts and wealth distribution published by the Federal Reserve Board found the following:

• The top 10 percent of U.S. households controlled 70 percent of total household wealth in 2018, compared to 60 percent in 1989.  Their gain almost mirrored the wealth share loss by the 50th to 90th percentile, which declined from 36 percent to 29 percent.
• The top 1 percent increased their wealth share from 23 percent to nearly 32 percent over these three decades.
• The bottom 50% of the wealth distribution experienced virtually no increase in their net worth over this same period, resulting in a decrease in total wealth share from 4 percent in 1989 to just 1 percent in 2018.

In fact, research by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who study wealth inequality, found that the combined net worth of the bottom half of Americans was negative.  And almost 80 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck according to a 2017 report by employment website CareerBuilder.

Wages have increased somewhat over the past few years and the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gave small tax reductions to most working people.  But studies show that the greatest benefits of this legislation flowed to big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Well, Walmart is among the world’s largest corporations, and the five members of the Walton clan — its primary beneficiaries — comprise the richest family according to Bloomberg’s recent ranking.  Their wealth grew at over $100 million per day since June 2018 and added $39 billion to the Walton family fortune of $191 billion.   And the Walton’s aren’t alone in the top 1 percent of wealthy Americans; estimates indicate there are over a million households in this group.**

These statistics should leave no doubt about who has the money to buy political power — and it sure isn’t the vast majority of “we the people.”

There was an attempt to level the playing field when Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known the McCain-Feingold Act.  Even though he failed to stop it, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) greatly elevated his status in the GOP by ferociously opposing this legislation.  Still, it didn’t survive for long.

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court emasculated the McCain-Feingold reforms with its 2010 landmark decision in the Citizens United case.   It ruled that corporations and unions are people for the purposes of the First Amendment protection of free speech and that money is speech.  This result led to the creation of super PACs and anonymous donors supplying a flood of “dark money” support to political campaigns.

Needless to say, running for Congress is very expensive.  My wife and I live in a district that experienced one of the costliest U.S. House races in 2018.  The total spent was almost $27 million, a shocking $16 million of which was from outside groups.  The truth is, House members must start raising the funds for their next election as soon as they notch their first win.  Most must spend many hours on the phone to donors instead of tending to the people’s business.  Sadly, special interest groups like the National Rifle Association can make or break a politician with their campaign financing decisions.

Sure, there are probably as many wealthy Democrats as there are rich Republicans.  But Democrats typically favor campaign finance limitations, while Republicans oppose them.  I think there is a reason for this; Republicans can’t win with their policies in a fair election so they rely on gerrymandered districts and voter suppression.  Keeping lots of money in politics is just another way they seek to tip the scale in their favor.

But voters still control election outcomes – don’t they?   Well, not necessarily.  Big money in the primary contests can decide who ends up on the ballot come November and this money can whisper warnings in the ear of elected officials before a vote on legislation to control guns, climate change, campaign financing, oil exploration, etc.

It has become clear to me, however, that there’s a sure way to eliminate money in the election process, stop the current corruption at the highest levels of our government and maintain democracy in our democratic republic:  Vote Republicans out of office.

**Trump’s Treasury Department will borrow over $1 trillion this year, part of which is required because the Walton’s and other 1 percenters got a big tax cut.

Actor Dennis Quaid appears in an Esurance commercial where he convincingly says: ”Nobody wants to hear about insurance.”  Well, when it comes to federal deficit details, it’s probably true that nobody wants to hear about them either.  But like insurance, it’s knowledge you might need to help protect your assets.

President Obama was working diligently in 2009 to jumpstart a recovery from the Great Recession.  Yet, Republicans obstructed everything he tried to do and decried his stimulus spending and the federal deficits it was causing.  Now, with a Republican in the White House, it’s a much different story and they believe deficits are more acceptable.  Needless to say, most congressional Republicans are shameless hypocrites but that doesn’t mean we should discount concerns about government spending on a credit card.

Typically, government revenues increase when unemployment is low, like it is today and deficits are moderated when the economy is growing, as it has been recently.  Well, that’s not what’s happening in 2019 and I believe federal deficits are a much bigger problem today than they were a decade ago.

Due to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 that President Trump recently signed, government spending will increase over the next two years by a total of $320 billion.  This law put an end to the sequester spending caps of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which were a Tea Party-forced attempt to limit federal spending through 2021.  Congress, however, lacked the political will to adhere to these caps in subsequent budget legislation so spending and deficits just kept increasing.

Consequently, it might be instructive to dive deeper into the intricacies of the current federal debt of $22.6 trillion.

The smaller part of it is called “intra-government” debt because it’s owed to various trust funds the government maintains, like the one for Social Security.  It’s something like borrowing from your IRA.  You manage this money but it’s in a dedicated account that you can’t normally access for current expenses.  Although intra-government debt isn’t the same as that held by China or Japan, it must be repaid by future taxpayers if these accounts are to fulfill their intended purpose.

The larger part of the federal debt is called “public debt,” which is approaching $17 trillion.  A little over half of this debt is owed to U.S. holders of government bonds.  Most of the rest is held by foreign entities, including China and the largest foreign holder, Japan.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and many economists typically evaluate the public debt as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product or GDP, which is the value of all the goods and services produced in a year.  It’s similar to what mortgage lenders do when considering a loan.  The higher the borrower’s income (GDP), the more debt they can handle.  Currently, federal public debt is 79 percent of GDP.

Last week the CBO published updated estimates of federal revenue, spending and deficits for the coming decade.  This report predicted that the economy – GDP — will grow by 2.3 percent in 2019 and then level off below 2 percent in succeeding years.  These projections are based on numerous assumptions and a change in anyone of them could significantly alter these somewhat mediocre results.  However, I think the chances that economic growth will significantly improve are very slim.

The media has been highlighting the CBO results in numerous articles like this comment from MSN: “According to CBO projections, the federal budget deficit will reach $960 billion this year and average $1.2 trillion in the 10-year period through 2029.”  The CBO is also projecting that public debt will exceed $29 trillion in 2029 and 95 percent of GDP — the highest level since just after World War II.  CBO’s director, Phillip. L. Swagel warned “Federal debt …. is on an unsustainable course.”

I suspect most readers aren’t sure what all of this means to them personally.  Well, that’s not in the job description of the best crystal balls — but some conclusions are valid:

The Trump/GOP tax cut of 2017 is not supercharging economic growth and paying for itself.  The almost $2 trillion it cost would have been much better invested in repairing U.S. roads, bridges, water systems and airports.  Yet, the trajectory of the deficits makes it nearly impossible for Congress to pass a robust infrastructure program or any other legislation requiring large federal expenditures.

The economy has gotten huge amounts of stimulus recently from the tax cuts and the budget acts of 2018 and 2019.  Still, Trump is looking for more juice to boost the apparently sagging economy but there’s not a lot available since interest rates and taxes are already low.

At the same time the president is creating chaos in global markets and supply chains, causing problems that won’t be quickly or easily fixed.  Stock market bears are poised to chase off the bulls.  The eventual recession – and there is bound to be one — will greatly exacerbate the deficits.

So, even if Democrats take the Senate and the White House in 2020, a recession would make significant tax increases more problematic and put a damper on the various ambitious policies they are proposing like expanded health care coverage and climate change initiatives.

It could be like 2009 where Democrats inherit a fiscal mess primarily created by Republicans and then have to battle them tooth and nail to correct it.

Sigh!

During four years of living, working and traveling in Asia, I learned some things about the culture.  Late one afternoon the Australian corporate safety manager rushed into my Hong Kong office seeking legal advice.  Two employees at a small manufacturing facility near Pusan, South Korea had died in a tragic accident.  The plant manager had conducted a causation investigation but adamantly objected to a similar review by headquarters personnel.  Perhaps he believed it would reflect blame on him or weaken his authority.

My recommendation wasn’t based on law: “Just suggest that he tell his people that it was ‘his’ idea to get the Hong Kong personnel involved.”  After a brief phone conversation, the local manager readily agreed to this win, win plan.  He was able to “save face” with his Korean staff by showing that he was in charge of the situation and the corporate safety team was able to do their job.

I don’t think President Trump understands this important nuance of Asian culture.  He seems to prefer using hardball measures to force his opponents into agreements.  Well, there’s no way Chinese President Xi can risk losing face with the nearly 3,000-member National People’s Congress and over a billion of his fellow citizens.  Allowing Trump to bully him into a trade deal would show he’s a weak leader.  I believe Xi would rather remain tough, endure a slowing economy and blame Chinese unemployment on U.S. tariffs.

China’s trade and intellectual property abuses must be confronted but Trump’s strongarm tactics could extend the current trade war into next year, seriously damage the U.S. agricultural exporting business and weaken the overall economy, perhaps for several years.

#########

After the senseless murder of over 30 innocent people on August 3 and 4, I can’t help thinking about the 2008 decision by the Supreme Court that made these deadly rampages more likely.  In Heller v. the District of Columbia the conservative majority held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms” for traditionally lawful purposes.  They rejected the argument that this phrase applies to service in a militia.

This decision made gun control laws subject to stronger legal challenges and emboldened the National Rifle Association.  For years, this organization has pumped millions of dollars into GOP congressional campaigns, making the ludicrous argument that any law that restricts gun ownership is the first step toward banning all guns in the United States.  In 1996, Republicans even limited the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s ability to study the causes of gun violence.

When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the NRA fear mongering machine went berserk.  Certain rifles and pistols were flying out of stores like milk and bread after a hurricane warning.  In time, dozens of manufacturers were producing military-styled semi-automatic rifles.  Today, an estimated 15 million of these killing machines are owned by the American public.

Now, the slaughters in El Paso and Dayton, have revived strong demands that Congress enact legislation to ban assault rifles and approve the bill passed by House Democrats that requires background checks for all gun purchases.  Trump claims he supports this legislation but he’s consulting with the NRA.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) won’t allow a vote on a bill in the Senate unless he’s sure Trump will sign it.  Trump’s erratic support will make the chances for passing meaningful gun control legislation in the Republican-controlled Senate very slim.

Even when Democrats regain control, however, their agenda will face an uphill battle.  Conservative federal judges appointed by Trump will make sure of that.

##########

Hardly any major legislation that has been passed by the Senate since Trump was inaugurated. Majority Leader McConnell has been using the Senate’s floor time to confirm a flood of Trump appointed judges to the federal courts.  So far, the total is 144, a huge number in a president’s first term and Trump has at least 16 more months in office.  These confirmations include lifetime appointments for 99 district court judges, 43 circuit court of appeals judges and 2 Supreme Court justices, all in their 30s, 40s and 50s.

Past presidents have considered American Bar Association recommendations for judicial appointments.  But Trump takes his guidance from the Federalist Society, an elite organization of conservative and Libertarian lawyers that place a premium on individual liberty and favor a limited federal government.  All five conservative justices on the Supreme Court are Federalist Society members who claim to interpret the Constitution narrowly and as it was written.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, himself a staunch conservative, joined the liberal justices to save Obamacare in 2012, perhaps in an effort to protect his legacy.  Yet, he voted with the conservative majority in the Heller case on guns, the Citizens United v. FEC case that flooded political campaigns with corporate money and the Shelby County v. Holder case that gutted significant sections of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.  I believe these last two were among the most democracy-damaging decisions in the court’s history.

This Supreme Court – and now many federal judges in the lower courts – will likely be antagonistic toward a Democratic president and a Democratic-controlled Congress that enacts laws to control guns, combat climate change or expand health care coverage.

Replacing Trump in 2020 won’t eliminate the damage he’s done – but it’s a good first step.

My last blog provided some thoughts on the ideology and legislative goals that seem to drive the GOP and I promised to flip the page from red to blue this time.  I must confess, however, that I somewhat regret that decision.  One blog is not adequate to shed much light on the many proposals being presented by the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential candidates and the timing this blog would probably be better next July when the party platform has been written.

Still, even now there’s something fundamentally different about the policies several of the Dem hopefuls are championing.  Calling for free college education, government provided health care benefits for everyone and the Green New Deal demonstrates a big shift to the left.

All Dem hopefuls want to significantly raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increase the minimum wage and enact immigration reform.  These initiatives follow from what Democrats have typically championed over the years.  Their proposals this year, however, are much bolder and more controversial.  Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal top the list.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All seems to have moved from the fringes to become a mainstream idea for Democrats.  The millions of underinsured and uninsured citizens facing the high cost of prescription drugs and medical services are driving its popularity.  Sanders’ plan to replace employer provided health insurance that now covers an estimated 155 million employees, however, is being called radical and disruptive.

According to this brief summary (found here), Sanders’ proposal would phase in over four years.  It would cover inpatient and outpatient hospital care, emergency services, primary and preventive services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity and newborn care, pediatrics, long-term care services and dental, audiology, and vision services.  There would be no deductibles, no surprise bills for out-of-network services and no copays, except for brand-name drugs.  Businesses would simply pay a Medicare payroll tax to secure health care insurance for their employees.

More moderate candidates favor a “public option” where prospective insureds could buy-in to Medicare if that is their best opportunity for health insurance.  Every Democratic candidate would, at the very least, attempt to expand and improve the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) if other more expansive health care programs couldn’t be achieved.  Health care will remain a key issue for Dems as the primary season continues.

There have been several cost estimates for Medicare-for-All that run as high as $38 trillion over the next decade.  The big question, of course, is how will such a plan be funded?  Needless to it would necessitate some very serious tax increases.

No problem, Democrats in general favor higher taxes, particularly on the wealthy.  A proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) would establish a 70 percent tax rate on individual earnings over $10 million, which would only apply to a limited number of top wage earners.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed what she calls an “ultra-millionaire tax” of 2 percent annually on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion, going to 3 percent on net worth over $1 billion.  This is a wealth tax, not an income tax.

Sanders has proposed legislation that would impose a progressive estate tax that would reach 77 percent on those over $1billion.  He has also proposed a Wall Street “speculation tax” on financial investment transactions.  Sanders admits to being a “democratic socialist” and his more liberal proposals are not widely accepted by congressional Democrats.

Neither is the Green New Deal (found here) of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.  Conservatives have their wish list to dismantle the social safety net; the GND resolution is what many liberals hope to achieve.  Ostensibly its purpose is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses to combat climate change but its scope goes far beyond that.  It’s a clarion call to further racial equality, protect natural resources and the environment, provide a stronger voice for labor in the work place, ameliorate inequality, expand health care insurance coverage and much more.

The words “as much as technologically feasible” are used as a qualifier in the GND regarding lowering emissions from buildings, transportation and agriculture; so, it doesn’t call for eliminating airplanes or hamburgers as some claim.  Yet, I believe it would keep lawmakers and regulators busy for a decade or more and that it would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court before it could get off the ground.  The same fate could befall Medicare-for-All legislation should it became law.

To greater or lesser degrees, Democrats tend to support most of what my last blog stated that Republicans oppose or would limit, including L.G.B.T. rights, legal abortion, gun controls, climate change initiatives, campaign finance reform, immigration reform and clean energy programs.

My caveats:  President Trump and many Republican politicians are calling their Democratic opponents radical socialists.   True socialists believe that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government.  No Dem that I know of is advocating for this type of economic system or anything close to it.    But even if they take control of Congress and the White House in 2020, Democratic policies will be constrained by the growing deficits from FY 2019 and beyond and they could be taking power during a recession, just as President Obama did in 2009.  Neither party has a viable plan to control federal deficits and that, in my opinion, is a huge problem.

There is an obvious political reality in 2019; the two major political parties are aligned back to back, engaged in what appears to be a duel to the death between the right and the left.  Since the election of President Obama in 2008, the nation has experienced continuous congressional gridlock.  It appears that no major legislation can get passed unless one party controls both the White House and Congress. I fear that this standoff will continue no matter which party wins in 2020 — unless one party takes complete control.

There is not much more I can write for now about the staggering un-American abuses of President Trump and his GOP supporters.  Consequently, I am devoting this blog to presenting the ideology and legislative goals that seen to drive the Republican Party.  Next blog will do the same for the Democrats.

When boiled down to its essence, I believe the basic philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals is the size and role of the federal government.  Conservatives want very limited federal government; liberals want to empower the federal government to take more responsibility for the health and welfare of all U.S. citizens.  Their respective policies primarily flow from these fundamental beliefs.

The first priority for Republicans is always to reduce taxes.  Cut taxes and grow the economy is their mantra.  Many of them claim that the lost revenue will be offset by increased economic activity.  This philosophy has become so engrained, that the vast majority of congressional Republicans have signed a pledge to never increase taxes on anything, ever.  They even refuse to consider increasing federal gasoline taxes to provide money for much needed infrastructure improvements.

Historically, tax cuts and recessions have created large budget deficits.  Most Republican politicians want to reduce deficits by cutting funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and eliminating many so-called welfare programs.  Their antipathy for the social safety net dominates the GOP platform, the speeches Republicans give and the legislation they craft.  Their campaign rhetoric may not specifically state it, but the underlying budget objective of conservatives is to significantly reduce federal spending for health care, education and government services.

That’s why Republicans and their Libertarian supporters so fiercely opposed Obamacare.  It embodies all the liberal policies that Republicans most abhor.  First, it raises taxes on the wealthy, second, it’s a means-tested entitlement program that increases mandatory spending and third, it adds to the federal bureaucracy.

The Republican proposal for Medicare reveals their plan for health care funding.  It involves a premium support program that would grant eligible individuals a government voucher with which they can purchase health care coverage from an insurance company.  This would eliminate the government’s open-ended responsibility to provide health care for the elderly.

The GOP Medicaid plan has a similar objective, to reduce the federal commitment and cap federal funding.   It would delegate administration of this large health insurance program for the poor to the states based on a per capita, federal government block grant the that would only increase year over year with inflation.

Trump’s fiscal year 2020 budget reveals how most Republicans, particularly the more conservative House members, want to shrink the federal government and rein-in federal regulators, particularly the EPA.  Like typical GOP budgets, it severely cuts funding for most government agencies to achieve deficit reduction.

Trump would cut the EPA, State Department and Corps of Engineers’ budgets by 23 to 31 percent.  Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Interior budgets would be decreased by 11 to 16 percent.  Labor and Justice budgets would be cut by less than 10 percent.  Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Administration, NASA and Commerce budgets would be increased by up to 9.3 percent.

Republican politicians want to eliminate funding for clean energy programs and climate change research, control and preparedness.  They oppose minimum wage increases and want little or no restrictions on campaign financing, free trade or gun ownership.  They would, however, severely limit immigration and L.G.B.T. rights and eliminate legal abortions.

Many of the GOP’s wealthiest supporters are basically Libertarians who believe the main responsibility of the federal government is national defense and those functions specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  They believe individuals and corporations should be free to conduct their lives and their businesses without interference from government.

The Heritage Foundation budget proposal from 2017 totally aligns with Libertarian and GOP goals to shrink the federal government.  It provides a good summary of what most conservative Republicans would support: “Congress should put the budget on a path toward balance in order to reduce debt —-, while reducing the tax burden and strengthening national defense.”   This organization urged Congress to repeal Obamacare and reform Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs.  They want states and localities to be primarily responsible for funding infrastructure improvements, education and welfare.

My caveat:  I have found no empirical evidence to support Republican claims that tax cuts create strong economic growth that offsets revenue losses.  They simply want to defund the federal government.  Significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren’t politically viable.  Most red states and some blue states are too poor to cope with conservative proposals on Medicaid, education or infrastructure.  Republicans have no new policies for solving mounting domestic problems like affordable health care and income inequality; so, they campaign against what Democrats propose.

Okay, we all know that President Trump and his Republican lackeys, particularly Attorney General William Barr, have created an ominous forecast for our democratic processes, but there are also some good reasons for optimism.  One of them is the skill and tenacity of many Democratic newbies in the U.S. House.  These freshmen – most of whom are women – are kicking butt and taking names.  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) gets a lot of attention, of course, probably too much.  But another less noticed star is Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.).

Ms. Porter was educated at Yale University and Harvard Law School and is a tenured professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.  She is also a single mother with three children and an author with specialties in banking and consumer protection.

Many observers probably didn’t expect this fresh-faced member of the House Committee on Financial Services to make much of an impression during her five minutes to question JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon.  After all, he’s a giant of the banking industry, the leader of a company that reaped $3.7 billion in extra profits from the Trump/GOP tax cuts and a billionaire who enjoys a $31 million salary.  Well, she gave a superb performance.

Using JPMorgan’s starting hourly wage and cost of living numbers, Porter showed Dimon how his bank wasn’t paying a hypothetical, newly-hired single mother a living wage.  Noting that this employee would be short $567 at the end of the month, she asked what he would suggest she do.  Knowing he was trapped, Dimon said “I don’t know. I’d have to think about that.”  Katie made her point.

Porter had other opportunities to tenaciously question wealthy bankers, including Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan whose company set up fraudulent accounts for its customers.  She virtually destroyed his credibility, using a poster that contrasted his promises to restore consumer trust in the bank with his lawyer’s courtroom assertions that these statements were just “puffery,” not to be taken seriously.  There are numerous examples of how Katie and other freshman are putting “we the people” above the interests of powerful corporations; these are just two of them.

Still, they reinforce my long-held belief that women in Congress will be a driving force in saving this nation from would-be corporate oligarchs and chest beating militarists.  Certainly, they are just as smart and tough as the men, if not more so.   Yet, they are much more likely to believe that educating our children, providing health care for our citizens and establishing a living wage for working Americans will strengthen the nation more than cutting taxes for the wealthy and spending extra billions on the military.

Fortunately, the 116th Congress that convened in January included 42 newly elected women, 38 of whom are Democrats.  I believe we can expect big things from them going forward.

Let’s not forget, however, that one of the main reasons Democrats won so big in 2018 was their focus on health care issues.  Three years ago, candidate Donald Trump and most other Republicans were still bashing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Conservative media like Fox News and billionaire GOP donors like the Koch brothers had helped them cast this landmark legislation as a government takeover of health care, convincing many voters it would destroy the economy and eliminate jobs.  This was a total ruse.

Encouraged by their own deception, Trump and his GOP supporters in Congress immediately set about making good on their campaign promise to rip up Obamacare, “root and branch.”  Well, guess what happened?  Their failed attempt schooled the public on just how draconian their alternative was.  Voters came to realize that Republicans had no good plan for health care, which enabled Democrats to retake the House.

Next Trump and company pivoted to their tax cut, lying about its likely effects on federal deficits and the economy along the way.  Now that most voters have come to realize it was a huge gift for corporations and the wealthy, Trump’s single biggest legislative achievement is a nothing burger with the middleclass and most Americans who aren’t rich.

Perhaps that is why Trump has turned his focus back on immigration, hoping to stoke continuing anger in his base.  Almost daily we are learning how inhumanely his administration is treating asylum-seekers, particularly innocent children.  It’s as if they are promoting cruelty, both as a policy and a political strategy.  I have to believe that many of those who once applauded Trump’s efforts to protect the borders are repulsed by his methods.  He is creating a public relations disaster for the United States, an image that most Americans do not want to project.  That’s not who we are or the way we want to be seen.

I believe there are lessons voters will learn from the failed GOP tax cuts, Trump’s immigration policies and Republican campaigning during the coming months, just like they were educated by the efforts to repeal Obamacare.  Republicans oppose most legislation that Americans favor, whether it’s providing more citizens with health care, protecting against climate change, raising the minimum wage or reversing inequality trends.  Their ideology simply doesn’t include these policies.

That doesn’t mean, however, that this coming year won’t present significant challenges for those who want to reverse the course set by Trump and his supporters.  But Republicans don’t do well when voters know the truth and they can’t hide from it forever.

Some may remember the House Un-American Activities Committee that was active during 1950s and 1960s.  At the height of the Cold War much attention was being focused on communists in our government, particularly by the alcoholic Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy.  McCarthy’s vehicle to conduct vicious inquisitions, however, was the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Assisted by his chief counsel Roy Cohn – later Donald J. Trump’s attorney – McCarthy’s browbeating hearing tactics destroyed the careers of many innocent people who had nothing to do with communists.  In fact, it was really McCarthy who was engaged in un-American activities.   And over the past quarter century I’ve watched numerous Republican politicians emulate him, as the GOP moved further and further to the right.

Neither party is perfect, of course.  But for over two decades, the GOP has been abandoning the precepts that enabled members of Congress to compromise and work together across party lines for the good of the nation.  I believe the roots of this sharp-edged ideology can be traced to the 1990s and the leadership of then-Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).  His name appears in almost every article I’ve read about divisive partisanship in the House and the dictatorial role of its Speaker.

Gingrich mounted an outright hate campaign against Democrats, encouraging his Republican colleagues to brand them as “traitors, corrupt, sick, radical, and intolerant.”  He orchestrated a 21-day government shutdown beginning in December 1995 because President Clinton refused to slash spending for Medicare and Medicaid – and, Gingrich openly admitted, because Clinton made him exit the rear door of Air Force One after a bipartisan flight to attend a politician’s funeral.

Gingrich launched spurious ethics investigations to weaken political opponents and was the driving force behind impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998 over a sex scandal.  He created a playbook for the Tea Party that took control of the House in 2011 and provided examples for the later obstruction strategies of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Yet, I can’t think of any politician during my lifetime who has done more to weaken the pillars of our democracy than Mitch McConnell.  He virtually destroyed comity in the Senate by weaponizing the filibuster and using his power as Majority Leader to obstruct President Obama.  He even brags about his unprecedented refusal to allow Obama to fill a vacant position on the Supreme Court in 2016.  Now, McConnell is blocking critically needed bipartisan election security legislation, inviting renewed Russian meddling in 2020.

True to form, Republican-controlled states have followed the examples of their national leaders.  They severely gerrymandered congressional districts in 2011 in an effort to control state legislatures and Congress.  After the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted key provisions the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Republicans quickly enacted strict voter-ID laws specifically designed to make it harder for minorities and Democratic-leaning voters to cast ballots and conducted questionable purges of voter rolls that were intended to disenfranchise minorities.  How un-American can you get?

Over the years GOP malfeasance paved the way for a candidate like Donald Trump.  While promising to make America great, his conduct is taking the nation in the opposite direction. Trump doesn’t understand that the United States is great because its leaders have fundamentally followed the rule of law for over 200 years and complied with their solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  Trump scoffs at these presidential obligations.

Trump has adopted all of the GOP‘s worst anti-democracy tactics and is taking them to a higher level.  He doesn’t just bash the media; he calls it the “enemy of the people.”  Trump not only skirts the nation’s laws, he treats them as mere guidelines that he can ignore.  Recently he admitted that he would take “dirt” on his political opponents from a foreign government and may not inform the FBI.  This is not only against the law, it makes a mockery of the Constitution and the ethical standards it requires.  But Trump doesn’t care and neither do his slavish Republican supporters in Congress so long as they can retain power.

Trump’s recent campaign kick-off speech in Orlando told us exactly where we are headed with Republicans in control – lies and conspiracy theories.  When he wasn’t praising himself – always the crux of his rantings – he was whining about the “deep state” that supposedly perpetrated the Russian ”witch hunt.”  And he vilified Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, as if they weren’t fellow Americans, claiming they are monsters who “want to destroy our country.”  He smiles approvingly when the crowd yells “lock her up.”

These aren’t isolated incidents by a few Republicans; they are part of a consistent, pervasive pattern in the GOP.  It hasn’t been the party of Lincoln for decades but now it is totally the party of Trump, even sanctioning the cruel mistreatment of migrant children at the southern border.

Our nation can’t go on like this, divided and full of anger stoked by a lying, demagogic president and a complicit, power-hungry GOP.  Un-American activities by Republicans are leading our democratic republic down a dark, forbidding path toward authoritarianism.  If their tactics succeed, the United States of America will cease to be a beacon for democracy-loving people around the world and a haven for those who seek freedom.

Trump is an abomination, but in defending him, the GOP has become the real enemy of the people.

I recommend a thoughtful, (click here) January 2019 article by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) on what ails Congress.  Every voter should read this assessment of the “people’s” House.