William Shakespeare could not have written a more riveting drama than that which is unfolding before us.  Two days after receiving Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russian investigation, Attorney General William Barr presented his four-page conclusions letter to Congress and the public.  It dashed the hopes of those who expected that President Trump would be charged with a crime.  Trump, of course, claimed he was totally exonerated.  He wasn’t.

Almost four weeks later, Barr held a press conference prior to making a redacted Mueller report public.  He sounded more like Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, than the chief legal officer of the United States.  Trump was still basking in the glow of Barr’s March 24 letter and having “a great day” as he left for the Easter weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach Florida.  His political high didn’t last long, however, after Democrats and the media had commented on the damning facts about him in Mueller’s 448-page tome.

Mueller’s investigation failed to “establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  Mueller also declined to find that Trump had obstructed justice — but Trump was definitely not cleared of these charges either.  In fact, the report provides incriminating and shocking detail on Russian interference in the election, the Trump campaign’s highly questionable activities related to the Russian efforts and Trump’s frantic attempts to squash the Russia investigation.

At no time in this nation’s history has a foreign government mounted such a sophisticated, pervasive effort to influence a presidential election.  This was unquestionably an attack on our democracy, akin to an act of war.  Yet, the Trump campaign welcomed it, used it and benefited greatly from it.  Was that a crime?  Mueller didn’t establish the necessary evidence to make that determination but that doesn’t mean crimes weren’t committed.

Were the acts of Trump and his associates treason?  Mueller didn’t go there.  But didn’t Trump and his campaign aid in this attack on the United States by a hostile foreign government?  Consider this: If Donald Trump Jr. had gone to the FBI when Russians offered him “dirt” on candidate Hillary Clinton in June 2016 – as most loyal citizens would have done — their efforts could have been made public and stymied.

Other Trump campaign operatives also had numerous opportunities to do the ethical thing regarding Russian interference, including George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and others.  Instead, they willingly played along and Trump brazenly requested that Russia hack Clinton’s emails.  Five hours later – according to Mueller – they attempted to do just that.  Surely that fits at least one definition of collusion.

Referring to the release of Russian hack emails, Trump’s personal attorney and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani recently mused during an interview, “I wonder if there isn’t an argument that the people had a right to know that about Hillary Clinton.”  What unbelievable audacity!  Didn’t voters have a right to know about Trump’s infidelity with porn star Stormy Daniels, his ongoing attempts to cut a deal for a Trump Tower hotel complex in Russia and the many contacts his campaign associates were having with Russians?  Instead, these important facts were kept from the public with illegal hush money payments and lies by Trump and his associates.

Mueller’s report did reveal some good news:  Trump aids don’t always follow his orders, particularly if they’re illegal.  But here’s the thing, evidence shows that Trump has repeatedly directed his staff to take such actions.  Is that the type of president the rule of law and the Constitution abides?  What about his oath to “faithfully execute the office of President,” which requires that “he take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed?”   Can there be any doubt that Trump believes our laws don’t apply to him?

Another spot of good news is that Trump doesn’t appear to have the cunning to pull off the crimes he has been attempting or the viciousness to exact harsh retribution on those who fail him.  So far, he doesn’t seem capable of taking permanent control of the government.  But given more time and a few more loyal henchmen in high positions, like advisor Stephen Miller, that could change.

The bad news we’ve learned, however, is that AG Barr appears to have become a Trump enabler and “fixer.”  Those who have respected Barr in the past have expressed fear that the man they knew has changed.  If he hasn’t, perhaps he will resign sometime this year in order to save what’s left of his reputation.  Well, I’m not holding my breath.

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted: “To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways.”  But is impeachment in the House worth the effort if there is no chance that Trump will be convicted in the Senate?  Warren says yes; she believes it’s about principle, not politics.  I agree; there are compelling reasons to hold Trump accountable.

Some Democrats may be asking if they can politically afford to impeach Trump.  To uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, the better question is — can they afford not to?

Ask business people what they try to achieve in their planning and they will frequently talk about “certainty.”  They seek to know how much tax they will have to pay, what regulations they will have to endure, how stable their markets will be, etc.  With this information they can set prices and more accurately estimate their return on investment.  Insurance companies are no exception.

For over eight years, however, Republicans in Congress have chipped away at the Affordable Care Act in ways that eliminated certainty in the Obamacare market places.  During the 2016 presidential primary campaign, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) even bragged that a provision he inserted in a spending bill would “kill” Obamacare.  This constant weakening of the law made it difficult for insurers to price their products and no doubt caused premiums to be higher.  The uncertainty also discouraged many insurers from even participating in the insurance exchanges, which lessened competition and increased premiums.

President Trump and congressional Republicans made an all-out effort to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017.  It was their number one legislative priority, even before cutting taxes.  The draconian proposals they put to a vote, however, failed spectacularly and the effort collapsed when former Sen. John McCain dramatically turned thumbs down on their last gasp attempt in the Senate.

Undeterred by this failure, 20 Republican-controlled states filed suit in federal district court in Texas early last year seeking to invalidate Obamacare.  They claimed that the law was rendered unconstitutional because the 2017 GOP tax law eliminated the fine for not having health insurance.  Last December the conservative judge in that court agreed with their argument.

Sixteen, mostly Democrat-controlled, states and the District of Columbia appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.   Initially, the U.S. Justice Department argued that only the provision of Obamacare that protected people with preexisting conditions was unconstitutional.  Last month, however, Trump ordered the DOJ to join the plaintiffs in seeking to strike down the entire law.

Concurrently, Trump encouraged several Republican Senators to begin crafting a “wonderful health care [replacement] package” and claimed that the GOP would become “the party of great health care.”  After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell informed him that health care legislation would not be brought up this year or next, the president promised it would be done soon after he was reelected in 2020.

On Tuesday, the DOJ asked the 5th Circuit for an expedited hearing on the Obamacare matter, with oral arguments to occur in early July.  This court is probably the most conservative appeals court in the nation, so the lower court decision might be upheld.  Either way, it seems likely the issue will go to the Supreme Court for a final decision, perhaps next year in the spring.

But here’s the thing.  If the entire Affordable Care Act is held to be unconstitutional, Republicans seeking reelection in 2020 will be facing a disastrous political problem.  Around 20 million Americans would lose their health care insurance; the opioid crisis, which studies show has been moderated by the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, would get worse; people with pre-existing conditions would be priced out of the market; and more hospitals in rural Trump territory would have to close.

Why? Well, the GOP has no good alternative plan for Obamacare — or for folks with pre-existing conditions.  Republicans in the U.S. House, have been proposing huge cuts to Medicare and Medicaid since 2011.  Even Trump’s recent budget called for cutting $241 billion from Medicaid funding over the next decade.  Yet, I don’t think most voters realize the damage these Republican policies would precipitate, even for many in the upper middleclass.  Here’s just one example.

A New York Times article last month entitled “Nursing Homes Are Closing Across Rural America, Scattering Residents,” chronicled how patients are being relocated far from loved ones.  Frequently the reason is financial.  Medicaid funding provides a substantial amount of nursing home revenue, with estimates I’ve read as high as 60 percent.  Conservative South Dakota — which was featured in this report — provides the lowest level of Medicaid support in the nation for its elderly citizens needing skilled nursing care.  “Five South Dakota nursing homes have shut down in the past three years, and dozens more are losing money because the majority of their residents rely on Medicaid,” according to author Jack Healy.

Costs vary from state to state but $6,000 to $8,000 per month is probably a conservative cost range for a nursing home patient.  How many higher level middleclass families can afford that type of financial burden if a parent can’t?  And Alzheimer’s patients can need this type of care for many years.

There were over 1.3 million patients in nursing homes in 2016, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.   Almost half a million were in the 20 states seeking to invalidate Obamacare.  Six of these states are in the top 10 that are most dependent on Medicaid and other federal funding, according to the personal finance website WalletHub and half are in the top 20 most dependent.

Congressional Republicans who are up for reelection in 2020 are no doubt praying Obamacare survives this constitutional challenge by their state colleagues.  For if it’s struck down, they will finally be forced to defend what they have been trying to achieve for almost a decade — and they will be crushed at the polls.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has presented his report to Attorney General William Barr who hasn’t yet released it to the public or Congress.  The four-page “principle conclusions” Barr produced two days later, however, can’t possibly do justice to the reported 300 plus page document that Mueller delivered to him.  In fact, the special counsel statute doesn’t call for Barr to produce such a summary, per se, much less one that attempts to exonerate President Trump and gives an opinion on the president’s obstruction of justice.  I believe Barr’s letter was intended to hamstring ongoing investigations by the Democrat-controlled House and please Trump.  And he certainly succeeded in the latter.

Immediately, Trump, most Republicans, the right-wing media and even some in the liberal media seemed to take Barr’s hastily prepared conclusions as clearing Trump and his campaign of wrong doing.  Some on the right are even calling for retaliation against those who suggested that Trump was guilty of collusion or obstruction of justice.  Other Republicans want another special counsel to determine whether or not the Russia investigation was legally initiated in the first place.  Me thinks Trump and the Republicans are grossly overplaying their hand.

At a public hearing on Thursday, nine Republicans on the House Intelligence committee launched an attack against chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), calling for his resignation.  It was an unprecedented move in the formerly, mostly bipartisan group.  They appeared to be following up on Trump’s early morning tweet that Schiff “should be forced to resign from Congress.”

Schiff was ready for them, however, and he responded in a way I don’t believe the GOP committee members anticipated.  He laid out in dramatic detail how Trump and his associates lied about the numerous suspicious contacts and connections they had with Russians during and after the 2016 election.  He called these acts unethical, immoral and corrupt.  Acknowledging that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge them with criminal conspiracy, Schiff said “There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise’.”  Schiff’s comments can be read and viewed here.

At a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan on Thursday night, Trump made the best of Barr’s missive, claiming “total” and “complete” exoneration.  He told his supporters: “After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russian hoax is finally dead” and “The collusion delusion is over.”  He railed even more strongly against the “fake news” media and his detractors, saying they “would be held accountable” for backing the Mueller investigation. The crowd obliged with chants of “Lock them up.”   That’s justice in Trumpland — detractors and opponents should be locked up.

Although Barr said he would release a redacted copy of Mueller’s report in mid-April, I think he’s stonewalling.  House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) evidently believes that too; he’s preparing a subpoena for a full, unredacted report that should be approved by his committee on Wednesday.  No doubt, Nadler wants to examine why Mueller failed to give an opinion on obstruction of justice.

Still, according to most legal experts, obstruction of justice is not easy to prove.  It requires a finding of “corrupt intent.”  Since Mueller failed to subpoena Trump to testify in person, perhaps he was unable to establish clear evidence of the requisite intent.  Yet, as outlined in Barr’s letter, Trump was not exonerated of a crime by Mueller.  It was Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who have opined that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction.

I don’t think this was a decision they should have made prior to release of Mueller’s report and certainly not after only two days of reviewing its voluminous findings.  The case for obstruction will probably look much more compelling after we get the facts.

Regardless, there can be no question that our democratic processes and institutions have been weakened significantly over the past three years.  For a fact, Russia significantly influenced the 2016 election, perhaps tipping it to Trump.  Numerous members of Trump’s campaign had contacts with Russians before and after the election — and lied about them.  Even if Trump is not charged with obstruction of justice, he most certainly attempted to do just that by firing FBI director James Comey, badgering Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, issuing hundreds of tweets attacking Mueller, the FBI and the Justice Department and dangling the hope of pardons for those who might testify against him.  If these abuses are allowed to stand without consequences, future presidents will be empowered to exert control over the justice system and remain above the law while directing the prosecution of opponents.   That would be a tragedy of enormous proportions for our democratic republic.

Fortunately though, eight continuing federal criminal inquiries, several state investigations and the ongoing congressional probes are the products of Mueller’s investigation and there may be more that have not been made public.  So, Trump’s legal problems are far from over and he has not yet escaped accountability.

The conclusion of Mueller’s investigation, however, presented Trump with an opportunity to be presidential.  He could have admitted making some mistakes, even apologized for his campaign’s contacts with Russians and tried to move on.  Instead, Trump has chosen to threaten those who oppose him, tell more lies to those who support him and further divide the nation.  All of which conclusively proves once again – Donald Trump is totally unfit for the office he holds.

The entire nation is impatiently waiting for special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian involvement in the 2016 election and any evidence of collusion by then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign.  There are also numerous other state and federal investigations dogging President Trump and several Democratic-controlled U.S. House committees are gearing up for massive investigations that will vex him.

It is difficult to assess if the president fully understands the predicament he is facing.  Perhaps last weekend’s erratic twitter storm from the White House indicates he is beginning to focus on his fate.  Frankly, things aren’t looking too good for The Donald.

Mueller’s report could be a short summary or a huge tome covering collusion, obstruction of justice, criminal conspiracy and more.  We don’t know how much of the report U.S. Attorney General William Barr will release to Congress or the public.  But it may not matter; some legal experts believe that Mueller’s investigation should not be Trump’s main concern.  I totally agree – and here’s why.

The raid on the hotel room, office and home of Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen was a seminal event that was conducted under the direction of federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York.  The Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for that district, Geoffrey Berman, is recused from this investigation.

Southern District prosecutors granted Trump organization CFO, Allen Weisselberg, immunity in the Cohen probe last August and he testified before a grand jury. Weisselberg has been at the heart of the Trump companies for over forty years.  He knows more about the financial dealings of the president, his company and his children than any other person.

Southern District prosecutors are renowned for being the toughest and most competent in the nation and it is obvious the president and his organization are in their sights.  Based on the documents and other evidence collected in the Cohen raid, it is highly likely they will be looking for evidence of money laundering, tax evasion and more.  If crimes were committed, these investigators will find them.

A few days after Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) sent document requests to 81 individuals and organizations with the intent to investigate Trump’s abuse of power, obstruction of justice and public corruption.  Weisselberg was on this list.  He will no doubt be called to testify before one or more House committees.  Will Weisselberg lie and risk jail time to save the Trump family?  I doubt it.

Based on what we know — which is probably a fraction of what prosecutors know — the president could face charges of making illegal campaign contributions, obstructing justice, defrauding banks and insurance companies, laundering money and evading taxes.  Family members Donald Trump Jr., Eric, Ivanka and her husband Jerad Kushner could also face one or more of these charges.

While Justice Department guidelines dictate that a sitting president should not be indicted, this policy could be tested in the courts and legal scholars differ on what the outcome would be.  Clearly, however, Trump’s children have no such protection.

Consequently, this year could well be a watershed regarding the criminal liability of Trump, his organization and his family.  I believe an individual is innocent until proven guilty.  But I would bet heavily that Trump has committed serious felonies that meet the standard for impeachment and warrant lengthy jail time.

It is clear, however, that Trump has abandoned a legal defense in favor of a media blitz against Mueller and the Democrats.  That’s why he keeps claiming “no collusion” and insists that Mueller is on a witch hunt.  He apparently thinks that Mueller won’t indict him so the real threat is impeachment, which is a political process he expects to win.  But does he have his eye on the wrong ball?

Perhaps Trump believes that winning reelection will stymie the many other charges that could be brought against him.  That strategy, however, would be a real roll of the dice.  Even if he wins, Republicans must retain control of the Senate and retake the House for him to be safe.  With all of the evidence that will likely come out of the Mueller report, the Southern District investigations and the congressional hearings in the House, it would seem unlikely Trump could achieve that trifecta.

But here’s the thing, if Trump runs and loses in 2020, regardless of the congressional contests, I believe he will be indicted for a number of serious crimes.  One or more of his children could also be charged; his business would be destroyed; and he and one or more of his children could end up in jail.  With a Democrat as president, there would be little chance for pardons.

I believe Trump’s lawyers should advise him to negotiate a deal to resign sometime this year before more damning evidence develops.  He could claim he has done great things but is eager to get back to his businesses.  Newly installed President Pence could grant a pardon for the federal crimes that now threaten Trump and his family and any charges by state jurisdictions could probably be resolved as part of the agreement, perhaps with fines.

The president is showing the stress as the processes of justice are closing in on him.  One way or another, I believe there is a good chance he won’t be running for reelection in 2020.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held its annual multi-day confab at a resort outside D.C. starting last Wednesday.  Needless to say, it was a celebration of President Donald Trump and his policies, which, ironically, aren’t all that conservative.  Neither, of course, is Trump, whose protectionist tariffs, enormous increase in the national debt and embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin would shock the likes of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Not many of the events at this gathering were widely publicized but the speakers and topics chosen for presentation are instructive.  As you might expect, there was ample railing against gun control, big government and abortion, mainstays with any gathering of the “right”.  While the theme this year was “What Makes America Great” — it’s strongly voiced corollary was — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal and socialism will destroy America.

Mike Lindell, the founder and CEO of MyPillow.com provided some evangelical fervor to the CPAC event: “God answered our millions of prayers and gave us grace and a miracle happened on November 8, 2016.”  “We were given a second chance —- to get our country back on track with our conservative values and getting people saved in Jesus’ name. As I stand before you today, I see the greatest president in history. Of course, he is — he was chosen by God.”  Hmm.

Lindell was building on a January Washington Post interview with Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., another ardent supporter of the president.  Falwell believes that it “may be immoral” for evangelical leaders “not to support” Trump based on all the good things Trump is supposedly doing for minorities and the poor.  When asked whether Trump could do anything to lose his support, he simply responded: “No.”  Falwell may well speak for most evangelicals and this type of blind allegiance is frightening.

The American Conservative Union’s Defender of Freedom award was presented to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) at CPAC for “his steadfast leadership in exposing how certain government officials attempted to suppress the election results of 2016.”  Nunes is a Trump loyalist who vigorously defended the president by attacking the FBI and the Justice Department when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee during 2017 and 2018.

Former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, who is featured in Sinclair Broadcasting’s conservative programming, hammered socialism in his CPAC speech.  “What is America’s biggest problem? Not socialism in Russia, but in America!” He claimed the Green New Deal was like a watermelon: “Green on the outside, deep, deep red on the inside.”  His reference to communism was unmistakable.

As CPAC participants were aggrandizing the president on Wednesday, Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was trashing him in public testimony before the House Oversight Committee.  During the hearing, he gave some good advice to his detractors, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans: “I did the same thing that you’re doing now — people who follow Mr. Trump as I did, blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering [prison].”

The ominous warning in Cohen’s closing statement that day, however, overshadowed all that preceded it: “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”  Recall that Trump refused to acknowledge he would concede if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election.  Now, however, he’s the Commander in Chief.

If Trump attempted to stay in power after an election loss – or impeachment – he probably wouldn’t succeed.  It would require support from the military, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.  Still, an attempted coup like this would further damage this nation’s reputation as a democracy well beyond the damage Trump has already done with his hip-shooting, “America First” style.

An article by former White House Counsel, John Dean, the star witness against President Richard Nixon during the Watergate hearings in 1973, added to the concern raised by Cohen.  Dean checked with Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, to better understand what Cohen meant.  According to Dean, Davis responded, “He [Cohen] was referring to Trump’s authoritarian mind-set, and lack of respect for democracy and democratic institutions.”

Mr. Dean had this chilling caution for his readers: “In fact, all Americans are affected by the growing authoritarianism that made Mr. Trump president. These people who facilitated his rise will remain long after Mr. Trump is gone. We need to pay more attention.”

Indeed, the radicals at CPAC who rail against the FBI, the Justice Department and call the Russia investigation a hoax are authoritarians much like Trump.  They act as if Trump is above the law, choosing to malign his accusers instead of facing the real issue, Trump’s alleged criminality.  They confirm that Trump is dominating the GOP.  He and his base have congressional Republicans right where he had Cohen — left with little choice except to follow him and hope for the best — damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Aided by Fox News and the right-wing media, Trump and his Republican enablers are attempting to steamroll the American public with outrageous lies, conspiracy theories and aggressive pushback, casting themselves as victims and Democrats as villains.  They will stonewall investigations, refuse document requests and subpoenas and throw rocks in the wheels of justice.  But they will only succeed — if we let them.

As Dean warned, Americans need to pay more attention.

A decade ago, mounting federal deficits were all Republicans could talk about.  During the early years of President Obama’s administration former Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called deficits the “most predictable economic crisis we have ever had in this country.” He claimed they would result in “the end of the American dream.”

By the midterm elections in 2010, the deficits were joined by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as the villain in Republican campaign messages. Remember the “death panels” some Republicans claimed it authorized?

The GOP rode these two horses rather successfully for the next six years.  But Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare crashed and burned after President Trump was elected and their 2017 tax cut flopped with voters.  Democrats ran on health care issues in the 2018 midterms and crushed the Republicans to retake the U.S. House.

Now – too soon I might add – the 2020 presidential election campaign has begun.  When Democrats published a controversial policy called the Green New Deal (GND), Republicans quickly pounced on it as their next Obamacare-like issue to make voters afraid.  They called this boogeyman – a socialist takeover — and its face would be Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).  AOC, as she is called, fits their attack profile perfectly; she’s a female minority.

In the coming months there will be much written about the GND.  But in a nutshell, it’s an eight-page, nonbinding congressional resolution that calls for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 2030.  It also contains ambitious goals to eliminate inequality, upgrade infrastructure, improve air and water quality and provide justice and equality for minorities, disadvantaged peoples and neglected communities.  It’s a quick read that can be found here.

The drafters did not put a price tag on this proposal but no doubt the cost would be enormous.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has acknowledged that the GND will be expensive.  But she boldly contended the plan will pay for itself through economic growth — perhaps mocking the Republican’s similar claim for their tax cut.  Some experts believe its objectives are technically feasible but not attainable within the next decade.  Many Democrats have called it “aspirational.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to bring the GND to the Senate floor for a debate.  His objective is to divide Democrats and force their 2020 presidential candidates to cast a vote that Republicans can use to brand them as socialists and extremists.  But Mitch might want to exercise caution.  According to a recent survey and report by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Americans who believe global warming is occurring outnumber those who don’t by more than five to one.  Six in ten are aware it is mostly caused by human activity. And many are very concerned about its effects.

Climate change, however, is just one of several issues Democratic politicians are discussing in the current election cycle.  Raising taxes on the wealthy is also getting a lot of attention.  AOC is suggesting a 70 percent rate on individual incomes over $10 million.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren is advocating for a 2 percent annual tax on household net worth that exceeds $50 million, with an additional 1 percent on wealth that exceeds $1 billion.  Warren’s plan would affect around 75,000 households and raise approximately $2.75 trillion over the next decade according to two economists who evaluated it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ social democratic platform in the 2016 primary election — Medicare for All, free college tuition, and a $15 minimum wage — was attractive to a lot of younger voters.  His ideas were once thought to be too radical but some are being adopted by most of the current Democratic presidential candidates.  And polls show they are appealing to a large percentage of Americans, even some Republicans.

So yes, the GOP will raise the specter of socialism in the coming months but that’s nothing new.  Republican politicians have used fear of “the left” to garner votes for decades.  They don’t run on conservative economic policies except tax cuts because they aren’t popular.  They prefer to run against liberal policies, like higher taxes or universal health care and paint Democrats as “left-wing radicals.”  It’s a way to position themselves as the lesser of two evils and they have been quite successful at it.

One of my concerns, however, is that GOP ideology is actually pushing this nation toward a more socialistic state by preventing compromise on centrist policies that benefit working-class Americans.  Republicans won’t even consider minimum wage increases; they oppose unions that bargain for employee wages and benefits; their top priority is to repeal Obamacare and cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid; and yes, they will even cut Social Security benefits if they get the chance.

The major accomplishment of the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress was a tax cut that benefits the wealthy and corporations. It was an absurd policy at a time when wealth in the United States is being concentrated in the top 20 percent of the population and workers are getting meager wage increases.  Inequality is smacking Americans right in the face and it’s just a matter of time before they revolt.

Voters should reject Republican fearmongering about the Green New Deal and other liberal policies Democrats are presenting.  These proposals will serve to focus the conversation on climate change, inequality and other pressing problems that this nation needs to address.  And that’s a good thing.

Berda was a 62-year-old widow in 1945 when she taught grades K-3 at a two-room country school in central Iowa.  Her husband Frank had died in 1941 and they had no children.  She was a tall, rawboned lady, very Nordic looking and not what anyone would call pretty.  No matter, she was the general-in-charge in her small classroom, stern but very caring.

Berda’s teaching environment was a real challenge; drinking water was pumped from a well on the playground; heat was supplied by a coal burning furnace; and toilets were two outhouses behind the building.  A couple of her students were mentally impaired.  Still, it was a magical place during the holidays. Berda would decorate the four windows on one side of the room with seasonal characters that had moveable arms and legs — witches, black cats and skeletons in October — pilgrims and turkeys in November — and Santa and reindeer in December.

One Valentine’s Day, most of the students didn’t come to class.  The five or six who did were rewarded with a very special treat.  Berda loaded them in her big, blue Buick and drove down town to the ice cream shop of a local dairy.  Each kid got an ice cream cone with their choice of flavor.  For a couple of them from poor families, this was a rarely enjoyed luxury.

Sometimes Berda would read fascinating stories to the whole room of 30 or so kids.  Most days, however, she would move from one row of desks to the next, making assignments and checking the children’s work.  She made sure her students had a good foundation to be educated adults.  I was fortunate to have been one of them.

**********

The small apartment complex where my wife and I lived with our two daughters in the early 1970s was something like an old-style Holiday Inn.   Its two stories completely surrounded a swimming pool and a small courtyard with a few metal tables and chairs.  Among our neighbors were an elderly couple from Fargo, North Dakota.

Harlow had been a rural mailman for 40 years, retiring after he turned 70.  If there was ever a postman who epitomized the saying associated with that service — “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds” — it was Harlow.  His tales of winter mail delivery in bitter cold and deep snow were both fascinating and harrowing.

Before becoming a postman, Harlow served with the United States Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War I.  He didn’t talk much about his experiences “over there” but sometimes he would tell me about their rations and the terrible canned meat that was mostly fat and gristle.  Occasionally he would describe the muddy trenches and the debilitating problems the doughboys had with their constantly wet feet.  It was a rare opportunity for me to vicariously experience what it was like in the “War to end all wars.”

Most warm mornings Harlow would come out with a cup of coffee and have his breakfast by the pool.  After our older daughter went off to school, our younger daughter, who was a toddler, would go out and crawl up on his lap and he would share part of his donut with her.  It became an enjoyable morning ritual for both of them.

Harlow’s wife died after a few years, leaving him alone in his late 80s.  Still, he remained the same gentle soul, always friendly, always caring.

We made Harlow’s birthday a special event on December 7, which until 1941, was just an ordinary day.  We continued that practice after we move away, calling him on the phone every year until he passed away at the age of 96.  I was privileged to know this quietly courageous gentleman.

**********

At the age of four and a half, Viola was more or less orphaned when her mother died of a problem related to a pregnancy and her father put her and several of her eight siblings in foster homes.   She grew up in a rural Iowa farming community without experiencing a traditional family life or having the love and support from parents that a child needs to develop.

Viola was a “boarder,” until the age of eleven and during most of her early life she was a “hired girl,” working for her keep.  She never enjoyed warm Christmas holidays or memorable occasions with her family like most children.  Yet, in spite of these deprivations, she became a loving wife and mother.  In every way, Viola was a strong lady and a woman to be admired, hard-working, honest and a productive member of society.

At the age of 85, Viola lost her husband Bill, a great guy and the love of her life.  Still, she soldiered on for another 10 years, cooking her famous pot roast and enjoying her family. I was proud to be her son.

Sometimes when I start thinking the world is going to hell and there’s not much I can do about it, I recall the special people in my life who were the heart and soul of what made America great.  And because I know there are still a lot of these stalwarts all across this great nation, I feel confident that there is a brighter future for our democracy on the horizon.

Remember “The Poseidon Adventure?”  This 1970s film dramatizes the events after a large passenger ship is capsized by a 90-foot ocean wave.  The ship’s captain didn’t see it in time to take action.  That’s the way I see today’s Republican Party, facing a giant electoral wave that they either don’t see coming or are choosing to ignore.  No doubt the GOP will suffer a Poseidon-like fate when it hits — unless they’re planning to prevent it.

Just look where GOP support lies and which demographic comprises its base.  Well, let’s see. Republicans aren’t very popular in urban areas – where the good jobs are — and their votes come substantially from older, white men – who won’t live forever.  In the 2018 midterms they lost substantial support from suburban women.  Gee, I wonder why?  Could it be the blatant misogyny of President Trump and his supporters?

Instead of seeking solutions to immigration issues — as the GOP autopsy of the 2012 presidential election suggested — Republicans doubled down on blocking reform and denigrating immigrants.  Trump and his close advisor Stephen Miller are attempting to hang a giant “Keep Out” sign on the Statue of Liberty. And rather than find a place for minorities in their congregation, they work diligently on ways to suppress their votes.

Few things in life are certain but here’s one that is:  Not one more person will ever be born in 2018.  While that fact is laughingly obvious, it has some rather profound implications.  It ensures that the number of U.S. citizens eligible to cast their first vote in 2036 is more or less set.  But the number of nonwhite babies born in the U.S. has exceeded white babies in recent years.  This demographic predicts that in a few decades white people in the U.S. will be in the minority.  Since a majority of nonwhites typically vote for Democrats, that doesn’t bode well for the GOP.

Millennials are the generation of Americans born between 1981 and 1996.  They are 83.5 million strong according to U.S. Census data examined by the Center for Generational Kinetics.  This large, influential group now exceeds the 75.4 million baby boomers who form a significant part of the Republican base.  So, as these older folks pass on, they will be replaced by a much different group of voters.

Census data also reflects that 44.2 percent of millennials are minorities or part of an ethnic group, more than twice the number in the over 65 cohort.  This increasing diversity of the American population is not encouraging for Republicans either.

Surveys of millennials and the following Generation Z — even those who identify as Republican – show they are much more tolerant and not as religious as their forefathers. This indicates that the social issues that attract older generations to the GOP, like abortion and gay marriage, are not a big concern to the younger voters who will take their place.

Well, maybe Republicans can garner the support of these newcomers with their policies.  The GOP favors tax cuts for the wealthy, greatly reduced federal health care benefits, smaller government, weak environmental regulations, elimination of abortion and a gun in every pocket.   And many Republicans oppose marriage equality, LGBT rights and liberal immigration policies.  Hmm, I think the Republican National Committee needs to read a recent Pew Research report and some polls.

Pew’s results show a significant majority of Gen Z and millennials think government should do more to solve problems and that increased racial/ethnic diversity is good for society.  They aren’t concerned about same-sex or interracial marriage and they are more likely to believe climate change is caused by human activity.  A recent Fox News survey showed 70 percent of Americans favor higher taxes on the rich, including 54 percent of Republicans.

But these two generations are facing some significant financial problems due to student loans and credit cards.  According to an NBC News/GenForward survey, a quarter of millennials are over $30,000 in debt, 11 percent face debt of over $100,000 and only 22 percent are debt free.  On top of this, they will be left to pay off the massive national debt, either with higher taxes or decreased federal benefits.

To make matters worse, American workers below the age of 50 are facing ever-decreasing job opportunities due to automation and artificial intelligence.  Cutting health care and other government benefits to provide tax cuts for the wealthy won’t resonate with these voters.

So, the current demographics and more liberal voter attitudes could mean that Republicans will be struggling to remain relevant in a decade or two.  Ah, but they may have a plan.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is attempting to pack the federal courts with as many right-wing judges as he can.  If he can put one more Trump-appointed justice on the Supreme Court, conservatives can still hold sway for a generation or more.

Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states have raised gerrymandering and voter suppression to an artform.  They’re trying to tilt the playing field in their favor by changing the rules and subverting democratic processes.  And with Trump as president, they have a leader who believes independent democratic institutions like the Justice Department should protect and defend him instead of the Constitution.

Yes, younger generations threaten the GOP.  But beware — with their policies in decline and their base waning, Republicans will ruthlessly attempt to retain power and endanger our democracy.

In case you haven’t noticed, the supreme deal maker hasn’t made very many good deals.  President Trump opened negotiations with the vicious dictatorship in North Korea by halting military exercises with South Korea and expected them to reciprocate in kind.  They didn’t.  Later he gushed that he and Chairman Kim Jong-un had “fallen in love,” a relationship Kim’s wife probably wouldn’t claim.

Trump accepted responsibility for the government shutdown in opening negotiations with Democrats the day before the lights went out in some government agencies.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just looked down at the floor, struggling to contain his glee.  The only thing I can write about the reaction of congressional Republicans is: Expletive Deleted!

Even with the overwhelming influence of the greatest economic power on earth at his back, Trump struggles to score trade victories.  In fact, I was amused – although it’s really not funny – when I read the title of an article by John Hohmann, author of The Daily 202: “From Brexit to NATO and the shutdown, Putin is winning so much he might get tired of winning.”

And it’s true.  What more could Russian President Vladimir Putin want?  Even the suggestion that Trump advocated a U.S. withdrawal from NATO weakens that organization.  Trump’s distain for our most important allies in Europe, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, plays right into Putin’s hands, as does Brexit, the UK’s break from the European Union.  The Trump-forced shutdown not only weakens our national security it allows autocrats like Putin to tout why our democracy doesn’t work.   But perhaps the greatest gift to Putin is Trump’s overt efforts to divide Americans, pitting white people against people of color and Latino immigrants.

Trump doesn’t care what damage he inflicts on the nation or who gets hurt in the quest to get his way — and neither does his chief enabler, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  Trump creates a humanitarian crisis then offers to alleviate it if his demands are met.  McConnell refuses to act unless Trump approves.  I’m not sure what their endgame is other than self-aggrandizement and power — but if McConnell is the gravedigger of American democracy as Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has suggested, Trump is its undertaker.

So, what are the real facts about border security?  Republican congressman Will Hurd of Texas is a 41-year-old former undercover CIA officer who represents one of the largest congressional districts in America, Texas’ 23rd.  It’s a vast expanse around the size of Georgia with almost half of the U.S border with Mexico, 820 miles.   In an interview with Rolling Stone Hurd said Trump’s border crisis is a “myth” and a cement or steel slat wall all along its length is a “third-century solution to a 21st-century problem.”

Why aren’t Trump and Republicans listening to Hurd?  Well, they aren’t listening to the U.S. Coast Guard either.  It’s been reported that these guardians of our sea borders — who are not being paid during the shutdown — intercept half the illegal drugs confiscated by the government.  And budget restrictions prevent them from pursuing four of the five targets identified by intelligence.  Most of the remaining drugs come through tunnels under the border or are smuggled in at legal points of entry, carried in cars or mixed with cargo in trucks.

Let’s face it, Trump’s wall is not about border security, it’s about a promise to his base and right-wing hatred for the federal government.  By all accounts it’s a waste of budget dollars that are getting evermore scarce.

The latest Congressional Budget Office baseline report projects growing yearly deficits and national debt due to the GOP/Trump tax cut and last April’s huge spending bill.  This heavy fiscal burden will only get much worse with rising interest rates and the economic downturn that is being predicted by most economists.  Large deficits impair America’s ability to react to a crisis like a full-blown recession or a major military conflict.  And it makes the nation beholden to its creditors, the largest being China, a confirmed adversary.

Strained federal budgets can also inhibit the robust spending necessary to enhance national security.  A recent report by U.S. intelligence organizations outlined numerous situations where the United States has significant security weaknesses vis-à-vis some foreign adversaries, particularly Russia.  Immigrants crossing the southern border was not one of them — federal budget uncertainty was.

Most Democrats, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have tried to avoid a discussion of impeaching Trump before special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is completed.  But an article in The Atlantic by Yoni Applebaum advocates that Trump should be impeached NOW!  It argues that he has violated his oath of office in numerous ways, including denigrating the separation of powers, the rule of law and the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution.  It cites Trump’s divisiveness and his preference for autocrats, among many other abuses.

A competing New York Times’ article by Michael Tomasky suggests that the 2020 election is the best way to remove Trump.  He has a political perspective on the Trump problem and believes rejection at the ballot box will do more long-term damage to the GOP.

I tend to agree; unless Mueller finds clear evidence of impeachable criminality, the best solution to Trump’s transgressions is at the polls.  But his plummeting approval rating suggests this shut down might convince a strong majority of voters that either way – Trump must go!

In his 1981 inauguration speech President Ronald Reagan stated emphatically that “government is not the solution to our problem – government is the problem.”  He claimed that government had grown beyond the consent of the governed and that he intended to “curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment.”  Even though Reagan didn’t actually accomplish this objective, it became the mantra of the Republican Party for the next four decades.

The Republican administration of President George H. W. Bush that followed failed to curb big government too, although they paid lip service to its evils.

But during President Bill Clinton’s two terms in the 1990s, a paradigm shift in Republican orthodoxy occurred when the GOP took control of the U.S. House in 1995 and Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) became its Speaker.  He was a vicious, no holds barred politician who counseled against compromise with Democrats and attacked the government at every opportunity.  In order to force cuts in government spending, Gingrich engineered the longest government shutdown that had occurred until this year — 21 days – and he threatened to put the U.S. in default of its obligations by refusing to raise the debt limit.

Wherever I look for the origin of what the Republican Party has become over the past two decades, one name always pops out, Newt Gingrich.  He wrote the playbook for the Tea Party Republicans that gained control of the House in 2011 and set the stage for the gridlock that occurred during the eight years of President Obama’s administration.

But it was another ruthless politician – Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – who actually carried out the obstruction of Obama’s agenda.   As Minority Leader he weaponized the filibuster to the point that almost every piece of legislation required 60 votes to pass, even bipartisan bills.  Like Gingrich, McConnell concluded that Republicans had nothing to gain by compromising with Democrats on anything Obama could claim as a win.  In fact, in 2010 he said his number one objective was to make Obama a one-term president.

Over in the House, a group of radical right-wing conservatives were carrying out Reagan’s anti-government policies with a vengeance.  Using their power of the purse, they slashed the budgets of the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, among others, seriously degrading the service these agencies provide.  Although they railed against Obama’s deficit spending, Republicans added to the government debt by greatly weakening the IRS’s ability to carry out audits that recovered billions from tax cheats.

In an effort to shrink the bureaucracy, the Republican Study Committee and the House Freedom Caucus spent endless legislative hours trying to defund or repeal Obamacare.  The result was dysfunction and chaos, particularly related to funding the government.  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — who was budget committee chairman at the time — even proposed eliminating two out of every three federal employees (except national security) through attrition.

The internal workings and procedures of Congress are not well understood by the public.  All they knew was that nothing was getting done and they blamed both Republicans and Democrats.  I believe the dysfunction caused by McConnell’s obstruction and Tea Party attacks on the federal government weakened the voter’s faith in our democratic processes [the establishment] and enabled Donald Trump to lie his way into the presidency.

Now the nation is facing a prolonged partial government shutdown – à la Gingrich — because Trump refused to sign a government funding deal unanimously passed by the Senate.  And the longer it goes on, the more Trump seems to like it.  He claims a wall is needed for border security but I think he’s trying to score an early victory against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled House.  The conflict also deflects attention from the mounting scandal about his ties to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

Senate Republicans, including McConnell, are feeling some pressure to end the shutdown, but they’re keeping one eye on the sentiments of Trump’s base in their state.  Trump’s “tribe” is his ace in the hole against defections by congressional Republicans and it seems to be working.

Many House Republicans like Freedom Caucus members Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are backing Trump to the hilt.  They don’t care that much about the wall; they want to weaken the federal government, which they oppose with a passion.

The partial government shutdown is causing great hardship so I think a bipartisan group of lawmakers should propose the following to end it:

• The president would sign the funding legislation originally passed by the Senate in December and recently passed by the House, immediately reopening the government.
• An independent commission of experts would be appointed to determine within 90 days where a wall, physical barrier or a fence should be constructed along the border for better, cost-effective security.
• Funding for the commission’s proposal would receive a guaranteed up or down vote by both chambers, with no filibusters allowed in the Senate.
• The House Democrats would pass a bill providing a significant amount of additional funding for other types of border security, including additional border agents and surveillance equipment.

If this fight is about border security then those who are concerned about that issue should find this proposal satisfactory – and those who have another agenda or just want to cripple the government will be outed.

Let the chips fall where they might.