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.

Many columnists like to recap the year just ended around this time and highlight the most important events.  One of them was New York Times Op-Ed writer David Leonhardt who covered his top five stories in a series of columns from December 24 to December 31.  He began at the bottom of his list with the tarnishing of big tech — followed by President Trump’s scandals – Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and the fight for democracy as Republican state legislatures passed laws to restrict incoming Democratic administrations.  His number one story for 2018 was climate change.

To me, the most impactful event was his number three — Democrats taking control of the House — because that will greatly influence the other four.  Had Republicans prevailed, there would be less pressure to regulate Facebook, etc.; Trump’s misdeeds would be swept under the rug; Republican state legislatures would feel freer to gerrymander, suppress voters and rig the system to their advantage; and Congress would be ignoring climate change.  So, hey!  I am really looking forward to an exciting year with House Democrats finally able to conduct oversight investigations of Trump and his administration.

One of my big concerns during this past year – which will continue in 2019 — involves the ballooning federal deficits and national debt.  So, I was thrilled recently when the Congressional Budget Office published “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028.”  This very detailed, 316-page behemoth document gives policy makers all they need to know about putting the nation on the path to fiscal stability.  It details the spending cuts (mandatory and discretionary) and revenue increases that would significantly reduce deficits over the next 10 years.

Republicans never look for ways to boost revenues so they will focus on spending cuts, with emphasis on mandatory spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.   The CBO identified a maximum of $3.65 trillion worth of reductions in the mandatory category.  Sure enough, the social safety net programs would get hammered should Congress decide to adopt these deficit reducing proposals.  College education programs, veteran’s benefits and subsidies for farmers could also take a big hit.  Ahh — but any large reductions in mandatory spending would require some really tough, high-profile votes for reelection minded politicians.  So, how many of these deficit reduction proposals do you think will actually be enacted?

Discretionary spending — which is subject to yearly appropriations – could be reduced up to $2 trillion.  Almost half of this amount would involve cuts to defense programs like aircraft and ship purchases.  Other possibilities for significant spending reductions in this category include the head start program — which would be eliminated — international affairs, highway and transit programs (infrastructure), housing assistance for low income people and manned space exploration.  Now, do you think Congress will find significant opportunities to cut deficits by digging around in these options, particularly in the defense budget?  I sure don’t.

Well, guess what’s left – revenue increases.  This, of course, is where Democrats always want to focus; and according to the CBO, it’s a target-rich environment.  Its analysts identified where Congress could boost revenues over the next decade by up to a whopping $15.8 trillion.  The possibilities include raising all individual income tax rates by one percentage point, imposing a 0.01 percent tax on the value of stock transactions, increasing the payroll tax rate for Medicare Hospital Insurance, subjecting earnings greater than $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax and many more.  The largest single revenue increase — over $2 trillion — could be achieved by phasing in a five percent value added tax (VAT) across a broad base of goods and services.

I believe Congress should control the rising budget deficits with a three-pronged attack — eliminate fraud and waste in government programs — craft reasonable spending cuts — and increase various taxes.  Wealthy taxpayers and corporations should applaud this shared sacrifice approach.  They will benefit in the long run because eventually the horrific debt will savage the economy and hurt all of us.

As 2018 began there were supposedly three adults in Trump’s administration, Sec. of State Rex Tillerson, Chief of Staff John Kelly and Sec. of Defense James Mattis.  They were a partial barrier to Trump’s worst instincts for a time.  Yet, each reportedly called him a moron or an idiot in private, sometimes with a strong preceding expletive.  Well, all three are now gone.  And I think only Mattis left after a man to man faceoff with the president.  The weakling in the White House likes to fire people with a tweet.

But read Mattis’ resignation letter and his farewell memo to the troops.  The former outlines where he differs with Trump on the role of the United States in the liberal democratic order that the U.S. primarily created at the end of World War II.  The second subtly advises the military to prevent Trump from undermining the Constitution, which he has been threatening to do almost on a daily basis since January 2017.  Both contain warnings that all concerned citizens should keep in mind during the coming year.

No doubt, the 2018 midterm election was one of the most important in the past two centuries.  Yet, 2019 will likely be a watershed for democracy in this nation.  Still, I believe it will emerge from this crisis and be stronger as a result.

Happy New Year to all.

When a friend urged me to write a blog on immigration, I wasn’t sure I could add much to the discussion.  But after reviewing some of the history surrounding this thorny issue – my enthusiasm blossomed.

Looking back over the past 25 years, it is clear that the great influx of illegal immigrants occurred during the second term of President Bill Clinton and the tenure of President George W. Bush.  According to a study by the Pew Research Center, the number of undocumented individuals living in the U.S. more than doubled from 5.7 million in 1995 to a high of 12.2 million in 2007.

Democrats regained control of both chambers of Congress in 2007 but held only a slim majority in the Senate.  Bush backed the bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 that was designed to address the growing illegal immigration problem.  This bill included tough border security and workplace enforcement provisions.  It also created a temporary worker program sought by business groups and provided a controversial plan to legalize an estimated 12 million – primarily Latin American — undocumented immigrants.  A majority of Democrats supported this legislation but an overwhelming majority of Republicans were opposed.  The bill died in the Senate when it failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to advance.

During the early years of President Obama’s administration, the number of illegals declined — no doubt due in part to the Great Recession.  After a 44-point advantage among Latino voters helped Obama handily defeat Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, the GOP did a comprehensive election autopsy.  The study concluded that the party needed to be more inclusive of Hispanics, stating: “[W]e must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

As a result, a bipartisan group of Senators – the Gang of Eight – went to work on the immigration issue in 2013.  They produced the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.  This bill provided a path for undocumented immigrants to gain legal status — and eventually citizenship — and promoted talent-based immigration.  An amendment by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-ND) increased the number of border patrol agents to around 40,000 and included other strong border security measures that Corker called “almost overkill.”  According to government estimates, this legislation would add $276 billion to Social Security revenues over 10 years and reduce deficits by $1 trillion over 20 years.

The Senate passed this bill by a healthy margin of 68 to 32 in June 2013 when 14 Republicans joined all the Democrats in favor.  But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his four-member leadership team opposed it.  McConnell speciously claimed it lacked sufficient border security but I believe his opposition was directed at preventing a significant policy win for Obama.

Over in the Tea Party-controlled House, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was struggling with an obstructionist caucus that was mainly interested in taking meaningless votes on repealing Obamacare.  Many of these Republicans feared that wealthy conservatives would fund a primary candidate to oppose them if they voted for immigration reform.  So, because the Senate bill wasn’t supported by a majority of his caucus, Boehner refused to schedule it for a vote.  Again, Republicans poured salt on an immigration wound that continued to fester.

Later, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who had supported some piecemeal immigration proposals, was defeated by Koch brothers backed Dave Bratt in the 2014 primary.  Republicans understood the message; oppose immigration reform or lose your job.

Donald Trump obviously knew that the Republican base opposed being inclusive of Hispanics when he chose immigration as the signature issue for his 2016 presidential campaign.  Without evidence, he claimed that Mexicans crossing the border illegally were causing a crime wave and he hammered on it relentlessly.  Yet, a comprehensive, four-decade study published that year entitled “Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration” negated the proposition that increased immigration was associated with increased crime.

As Trump was railing about illegals during campaign rallies and promising his supporters he would build a “magnificent” wall to keep them out, the number of undocumented immigrants in 2016 was dropping to 10.7 million, the lowest level in a decade according to the Pew study.

I totally agree that thousands of immigrants crossing the southern border present a significant challenge for the border patrol.  But in truth, we could have had comprehensive immigration laws and enhanced border security years ago but for GOP obstruction.   And search the Internet for Republicans in Congress who support Trump’s border wall and you’ll find it’s mostly far right conservatives, certainly not a majority.

But Trump’s agenda goes far beyond the people that are stacking up across the Rio Grande River.  He and his advisor Stephen Miller — a guy whose persona begs for a fascist military uniform – have rescinded the temporary protected [resident] status of 60,000 Haitians and 200,000 Salvadorians who have lived here for a decade or more.  And they’re trying to deport thousands of Vietnamese who have lived in the U.S. legally since the 1970s.

No doubt, Trump is focused on appealing to his base and Miller may have white nationalist objectives.  But I believe power-obsessed Republicans want to limit immigrants — particularly people of color — out of fear they will strengthen the Democratic Party.  Their goals are just that underhandedly partisan.

Here’s hoping you had a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a great day, whatever holiday of family, peace and love you celebrated.

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Congratulations on your retirement at the end of this Congress.   It presents a good opportunity to reflect on your 20 years of service as a representative of the great state of Wisconsin and the legacy you leave behind.

Your career as a congressman has been illustrious.  Before taking the gavel as Speaker, you chaired both the powerful House Budget Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means.  For a politician who was elected at age 28 and has not yet turned 50, that was a very impressive accomplishment.  No doubt you had a lot more going for you than the sparkling blue eyes and boyish good looks that made you the darling of the beltway press for almost two decades.

In so many ways, I see your career as representative of the hard-right turn of the Republican Party in the 1990s.  As you were entering Congress, former speaker, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), was resigning in disgrace.  Still, the no compromise, corrosive partisan atmosphere he created remained among many GOP members and no doubt influenced you too.

You were a leading advocate of President George W. Bush’s failed plan to privatize Social Security in the mid-2000s.  After the Tea Party sweep of the House in 2010, you began drafting budgets for the GOP that would implement the party’s grand conservative scheme — eviscerate the federal government, repeal Obamacare, cut taxes for the wealthy and dismantle the social safety net.  Your legislative mission was to balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens by slashing funding for so-called entitlements.

I suspect you would agree with an email I received from a conservative acquaintance who had a unique way of cutting Medicare costs: “If you don’t have the money to pay at least a significant portion of your final years for care and costs, don’t have a long term care policy or a family that can help defray the costs, you may be placed in a large facility specifically to offer only palliative care.  If that happens, you will be kept pain free until you die.  But no money will be spent for long term care, surgeries, emergency room visits or efforts to make you well, because it will simply be too costly, and our nation won’t be able to afford it.”

This gentleman went on to describe what he believed Americans should be entitled to: “We can have and spend what we have created, and feel free, without guilt, to use for ourselves and our loved ones.  Those who have earned their wealth by their hard work, ingenuity and yes, luck, are not required by law to be their “brother’s keepers.”

The various federal budgets you drafted that cut trillions from health care, education and social services supported theories like these.  But in the end, however, almost none of the policies you advocated over two decades have been adopted except the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.  So, after years of railing against President Obama for using deficit spending to help bring the economy out of the Great Recession, you thought nothing of increasing deficits by $1.5 trillion to give tax cuts to those who didn’t need them.

Recently, you said that “history is going to be very good to this [GOP House] majority” because of the tax overhaul passed and increased funding for the military.  Well, history is only one short year now and it’s already not “very good” for you and Republicans.

In fact, you have pretty much been a total failure for the conservatives that have supported you.  How have you failed?  Let me count a few ways:

You portrayed yourself as deeply religious, but you fired Rev. Patrick Conroy, Chaplin of the House of Representatives, because one of his prayers was mildly critical of your precious tax cut bill.  Even Republicans trashed you for that small-minded decision and forced you to reverse it.

As Speaker you strongly supported Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, as he attempted every procedural maneuver and underhanded trick he could use to undermine the Justice Department, the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

You have had the high honor of holding an office that only 52 men and one woman have succeeded in achieving since 1789, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representative — the people’s house.  As the third most powerful person in government, you could have been a leader revered in history, a campion of immigration reform, a protector of the rule of law and a bulwark against a mendacious, authoritarian President Trump and his far-right supporters in your caucus.  Instead, after getting your long-desired tax cut you are — as the Brits might say — “buggering off.”

So, go, and good riddance.  You are leaving a legacy of cowardice and shame, a stain on the high office you held.  According to Business Insider you could receive a lifetime annual pension of almost $85,000.  But no doubt that will just be pocket change compared to what you will receive as a conservative speaker, lobbyist and right-wing think-tank member.

In the end, however, your conservative, heartless goals weren’t draconian enough for the far-right House Freedom Caucus; and as partisan as you were, I don’t believe you are even well respected by the GOP.

Let that be the summary of your political career.