My last blog covered the economic woes of the Great Recession, the 2017 budget busting Republican tax cut, the 2018 bipartisan spending binge, the rising interest rates, the low unemployment numbers, the strong economy and the ballooning federal deficits.

But wait!  High employment and a booming economy typically reduce deficits.  More people working means fewer claims on social safety net programs and higher household incomes and corporate profits that boost tax revenues.

Yes, well, based on current tax and spending laws, here are some recent facts and projections that are cause for concern:

• The U.S. Treasury will borrow $1.3 trillion during 2018, the highest yearly borrowing since the depths of the Great Recession in 2010.
• The federal government will spend more on interest on the national debt in 2020 than it spends on Medicaid — more in 2023 than it spends on national defense — and more in 2025 than it spends on all nondefense discretionary spending programs combined.  Estimated interest cost over the next decade will total almost $7 trillion.
• The U.S. economy will begin slowing down in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office and numerous economists.  The global economy is already slowing.  Half of the economists in a recent WSJ survey predicted a recession before the 2020 elections.

Well, what if the economy goes south within the next two years?  A recession would significantly exacerbate the already enormous deficits, just as it did after 2008.  And I think it’s just a matter of time before it happens.

What Results from Huge Deficits?

Ahh — it depends on which economist ventures a guess.  And that’s about all it would be, a guess.  Perhaps the worst scenario would involve rapidly increasing inflation.  That would cause the Federal Reserve (Fed) to significantly increase interest rates, supercharging the cost of financing the national debt and making the cost of expanding a business and buying a new home prohibitive.  All of this would damage the economy.

Regardless, almost all economists agree that large deficits give policymakers less flexibility in dealing with a future crisis, like a recession or a war.  A tax cut can be used to jump start a stalled economy but that card has already been played. Stimulus spending to juice the economy or added borrowing to finance military actions become much more problematic when deficits are already huge.

But even if a recession or war doesn’t occur anytime soon, large deficits will likely prevent Congress from enacting a critically needed robust program to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure.  I believe the $1.5 trillion that Trump and the Republicans wasted on a tax cut would have been much better invested in roads, airports, bridges and much more, i.e., for our future economy.

How Can Deficits Be Lowered?

There’s no doubt, Republicans want to use the ballooning deficit problems to push for huge cuts to social safety net programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security.  That has been their goal for decades.  But as they discovered with their Obamacare repeal and replace efforts in 2017, cutting health care benefits for the 80 percent while proposing tax cuts for the rich won’t fly.

President Bill Clinton produced budget surpluses for 1998 through 2001 with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, including reductions in outlays for defense and social safety net programs.  I believe this two-pronged approach is the only way deficits can be significantly reduced.

Trump, however, has a different opinion.  Conservatives have convinced him — with their alternative reality thinking — that economic growth will solve all the deficit problems.  When confronted by his staff with a projection that deficits will become untenable by 2028, Trump reportedly said “Yeah, but I won’t be here.”

Why Is the U.S. Dollar So Important?

Bad as they are, the nation’s fiscal problems would be considerably more troublesome if not for the U.S. dollar’s status as the primary global reserve currency.  American dollars are required for international commerce in commodities like oil and most of the world’s central banks hold dollars as their rainy-day fund.  This elite status of the dollar has immense advantages for the United States.  The government can just print paper dollars and the rest of the world treats them as if they were gold.  Really.

The dollar’s status, however, is not just an historical anomaly.  The dollar is underpinned by American institutions like the independent central bank (Fed) and the democratic processes established by the Constitution, like the rule of law.  These and other keystones of our democratic republic have earned the trust of global investors who see the dollar as a safe harbor when economic waters get rough.  Consequently, U.S. government bonds are treated as one of the world’s safest investments, which greatly facilitates financing federal deficits.

But Trump called the Fed “crazy” and “out of control” for raising interest rates, thereby eroding its independence.  And Trump is undermining the rule of law by denigrating other institutions like the Justice Department and the federal courts.  He’s being aided by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose operatives use social media to sow mistrust in the U.S. justice system.

These senseless attacks by Trump are sure to shake foreign investor’s faith in the stability of the United States and seriously weaken the dollar’s status in the global economy. But Putin loves what he’s doing and China is attempting to elevate their currency (yuan) to be equal to the dollar as a reserve currency.  Even our European allies chaff at the dollar’s dominance in global finance but Trump treats them with distain.  The “Tariff Man” simply has no clue as to the consequences of his words and actions.

Well, what if our dollars ceased being treated as if they were gold?  What if the U.S. government could no longer solve deficit problems — like it has for decades — by simply printing more dollars and selling its bonds?  The resulting economic consequences for this nation are too catastrophic to contemplate.

Certainly, electing a Democrat-controlled U.S. House will reestablish some checks and balances in our government and restore some of the faith in America that Trump has squandered.  But if the United States is to remain a democratic republic, preserve its financial stability and maintain the elite status of dollar, concerned citizens must overwhelmingly vote Trump out of office in 2020.

We have survived almost two years under his erratic, authoritarian leadership and we can probably endure another two years.  But if he continues as president in 2021, I believe the damage he will do to this nation’s democracy and economy is incalculable.

PS – Congratulations.  I am confident that you now know a lot more about these subjects than Trump.   If you have questions, please send me an email.

You may ask, how does this affect me?  Or, there’s so much news about billions and trillions; how can a person comprehend it?  Well, this is part one of a two-part blog that I hope will help you understand more about some federal fiscal matters that will definitely have an effect on your future financial situation.

But first, it’s helpful to understand a few terms before digging into what it all means.

A.  Federal budget for fiscal year 2019 (October 1, 2018 until September 30, 2019) is around $4.2 trillion.  It has three major components.

1.  Mandatory spending includes Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and many other so-called “automatic” spending programs.  Unless they are amended by Congress, this spending continues year after year.  Along with interest on the national debt, these programs comprise around 70 percent of the budget.
2. Defense discretionary spending, is subject to yearly appropriations.
3. Non-defense discretionary spending is also subject to yearly appropriations and is typically around the same amount as defense spending.  This is the cost of ALL other functions of the government, plus or minus 15 percent of the budget.

B.  Federal deficit is the yearly amount that spending exceeds revenue.  Deficits add to the national debt, which is the total amount the U.S. government owes its creditors.

C.  U.S. Government Bonds are “sold” to the public to finance deficits.  Rising interest rates make financing the national debt more expensive, which adds to the yearly deficits.

D.  National debt is approaching $22 trillion.  Debt owed to the public is approaching $16 trillion.  The difference between these numbers is called intra-government holdings and includes money borrowed from various government trust funds.  Debt owed to the public is the more important number and includes debt owed to foreign countries.

E.  Gross domestic product (GDP) is the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced in the U.S. in a year.  Government spending, revenue and debt are typically measured as a percent of GDP.  Debt increasing as a percent of GDP is a warning sign.

The Great Recession

Tax cuts by President George W. Bush  in 2001 and 2003 greatly decreased the federal tax revenues that allowed President Bill Clinton to balance the federal budget four years in a row from 1998 through 2001.  The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had cost hundreds of billions of dollars by the end 2008 and were ongoing as the economy faltered.

During the early years of the Great Recession (2008-2010), millions of Americans lost their jobs.  This resulted in a huge loss in tax revenue for both the federal government and state governments.  The job losses were exacerbated when states were forced to lay off employees in order to balance their budgets, as 49 of 50 states are required to do.

High unemployment means greatly reduced consumer spending — which is around 70 percent of the U.S. economy — so corporate revenues and profits plummeted.  This meant further job losses and even less tax revenue for governments.  Concurrently, more Americans qualified for social safety-net benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment compensation, which dramatically increased mandatory spending.

Due to reduced federal revenue and more federal spending, deficits exceeded $1.4 trillion in FY 2009 and continued at trillion-dollar levels through FY 2012.  Three things greatly balloon federal deficits, tax cuts, wars and recessions.  All three were at work in 2008 and for several years thereafter.

2017 and Beyond

After the economy slowly strengthened, unemployment was down to around four percent at the end of 2016 and deficits had been cut in half.  But the chances for further lowering deficits still looked grim.  The last of the baby boomers would be retiring between 2018 and 2027, boosting spending on Social Security and Medicare.   In June 2017 the Congressional Budget Office projected that deficits would again exceed $1 trillion per year by 2022.

Then in December 2017, President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress cut taxes – mainly for the wealthy and corporations.  The resulting lost revenue will increase deficits over the next decade by more than $1.5 trillion.  While this law made the cuts for corporations permanent, those for individuals are scheduled to expire in 2025, sending tax rates back up in 2026 for the middleclass and wealthy alike.  No doubt Republicans thought political pressure would eventually force Congress to make the individual tax cuts permanent too.  They could well be right, but that will add another $600 billion to the national debt by 2028 and much more in the future.

Republicans always claim tax cuts boost the economy, which it does — but only for short periods of time.  Many of them even claim that tax cuts pay for themselves or are revenue neutral.  In other words, they profess that tax cuts will not reduce federal revenues.  At least since 1981, however, tax cuts have never even come close to being revenue neutral and have always resulted in higher deficits.

Republicans assured us that corporations would invest their tax savings in new plants and equipment and raise worker’s wages.  But most of it is being used to buy back record amounts of their stock.  This makes the wealthy even richer as it sends stock prices higher — but it does nothing for wage earners or growing the economy (GDP).

After cutting taxes, Congress significantly increased spending.  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 that Trump signed in February is a two-year spending bill that will add at least an additional $300+ billion to the national debt over the coming decade.  It increased defense spending significantly but also added to nondefense spending.  Both Republicans and Democrats were pleased with this unbridled spending binge.

Labor shortages, made worse by Trump’s restrictions on immigration, have caused wages to increase modestly but inflation has mostly eliminated those benefits.  The tax cut and spending charged economy has caused the Federal Reserve (Fed) to increase interest rates, which makes financing the huge national debt even more expensive and exacerbates the deficits.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that deficits will rise to almost $1 trillion in FY 2019 and thereafter exceed that number in the foreseeable future.  But the White House’s Office of Management and Budget projects that the deficit will exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year.  I think the OMB is right.

These things we now know for sure:  The United States is experiencing huge yearly deficits and a growing national debt even as the economy is strong.  Mandatory spending will be increasing dramatically due to baby boomer retirements and the tax cuts are definitely not paying for themselves.

My next blog will delve into how deficits might affect the economy going forward and the importance of the U.S. dollar’s status to this nation and each one of its citizens.

Signing a pledge is not unheard of for politicians.  Almost all Republican members of Congress have signed Grover Norquist’s promise to oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.  It is enforced by Americans for Tax Reform, a well-funded organization that Norquist founded.  Any candidate who dares violate their  commitment will have an ATR backed primary opponent in the next election.  I believe this anti-tax pledge violates a politician’s oath of office and stifles compromise in the political process — but it exists and has been very effective.

Norquist is a Libertarian whose objective is to starve the federal government of tax revenue.  But his efforts have served to further divide our Congress into tribes.  This adds to the animosity among our elected officials that has escalated into vile campaign ads and even personal attacks.

The political process has always involved a fair amount of nastiness — but it seems to have gotten much more pervasive in recent years.  It is one of the facets of politics that not only divides our politicians and creates gridlock, it divides the electorate.  Another is the funding required to compete in elections and the necessary selling of one’s soul to get it.  Money in politics has shutout competent men and women while enabling special interests to literally buy many substandard, sometimes unethical candidates who are eager to do their bidding.

As a result, Americans are losing confidence in their elected officials, the political process and even in democracy.  Think of it – Congress has an approval rating of only 21 percent and it has been much lower than that.  We must find some way to reverse this discouraging trend — which is the impetus for the following:

A Pledge to Unite Americans and Preserve America

Recognizing that I am human and therefore fallible, to the best of my ability:

I PLEDGE TO

• protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
• put this nation and my constituents above party loyalty and personal political gain.
• uphold and strengthen the separation of powers, the rule of law and the independence of the Justice Department and the judiciary.
• speak no hate and call out hate speech from supporters and opponents alike.
• unite my constituents and never instill false fear in them for political gain.
• be honest, as good as my word and never use my office for personal financial gain.
• work vigorously to eliminate the influence of special interests and money in politics.
• listen thoughtfully to my opponents and supporters alike and never denigrate opponents simply because they disagree with me.
• facilitate voter registration and the right of every citizen to freely vote.
• reject and seek to eliminate discrimination, bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism.
• faithfully discharge the duties of my office in the best interests of my fellow Americans and legislate to improve their health, welfare and safety.

AND FINALLY TO

• admit when I have violated this pledge, apologize and take corrective action.

You’re right – I am totally idealistic and naïve to propose such a pledge and even more so to expect any politician to sign it or to hope any organization would attempt to enforce it.  I plead guilty as charged.  And besides, this pledge would be vigorously opposed by many special interest groups and ideologically oriented organizations, along with white nationalists and neo-Nazis.  But — isn’t that the very reason it’s needed?

The midterm elections were a positive sign; still, this nation is in crisis.  It is divided like at no time in my memory.  Even the tumultuous period of protests during the Vietnam War and the criminal conduct of President Nixon’s administration didn’t seem as threatening to our democracy as what we see in the news almost every night.  This division — that seems to extend widely and penetrate deeply into the fabric of our society — is a threat to our national security that it is being exacerbated by an adversarial foreign power.  And these subversive tactics by Russia are being countenanced by some Republicans at the highest levels of our government.  It’s hard to believe.

Sadly, certain unsavory, even illegal, political practices have become commonplace over the past couple of decades.  Many politicians think nothing of casually lying about their positions and about the policies of their opponents.  State and county officials change the laws and rules to make it harder for some citizens to vote, usually minorities.  To these miscreants, retaining political power has become the overriding consideration, pushing ethics and the Constitution to the side.  Well, dammit, that is not acceptable conduct in a democratic nation.

I agree that corporate revenues and profits are important.  But they shouldn’t be paramount.  No rosy economic outcome is worth what is occurring — the angry rending of our citizenry along partisan lines and the erosion of the rule of law.  The stability of our society and the integrity of our judicial system have made the United States a beacon of hope for all freedom loving peoples around the world.  We must actively and strongly protect these and other critical keystones of our democracy.  And we must promote and support politicians who conduct themselves in the spirit of this pledge.   Working together, I believe we can help heal the divisions.

Today, however, our democracy is not in good hands.  Preserving it will most certainly rest in ours.

On election eve, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman penned an article with a title I wish I had written, “The Last Exit Off the Road to Autocracy.”  He was talking about the looming path to an autocratic government if Republicans retained control of the U.S. House.  Perhaps Paul was being a bit melodramatic — but the voters took that off ramp.  Where will it lead?  Expect some serious oversight of President Trump’s corrupt administration.

Ballots are still being counted, with a number of races still too close to call.  Although the “blue wave” wasn’t quite powerful enough to flip the Senate, Democrats took firm control of the U.S. House, retook over 300 seats in state legislatures and won the majority (27) of the state attorneys general.   They also gained seven governorships and eliminated super majorities that Republicans held in several state legislatures, including North Carolina’s.  Not bad – not bad at all.

According to Michael Cembalest, an executive at JPMorgan Asset Management, Republican losses in the House — when compared to the strength of the economy — are the worst midterm results for a president’s party in at least a century.  And those losses would have been much greater but for the 2011 gerrymandering in numerous Republican-controlled states.

In spite of a large voter turnout for these midterms – always good for democracy — GOP gerrymandering made winning much harder for Democrats running for Congress.  Just look at the results in Ohio:  Although Democrats comprised 48 percent of the vote, they managed to win only 25 percent of the state’s seats in the House, the same percent they have held since 2012.

Still, ballot initiatives resulted in great progress on redistricting reform and other measures to strengthen our democracy.  Colorado, Michigan and Missouri voters approved proposals that will result in fairer redistricting in 2021.  Michigan and Nevada voters approved automatic voter registration, with Michigan also enacting same-day registration.  And with the election of Democrat Anita Earls to the state Supreme Court, North Carolina judges will be able to strike down the GOP’s radical gerrymandering.

Fortunately, some of the worst Tea Party Republicans will no longer walk the halls of Congress next year or infect its processes.  Far-right Rep. Dave Bratt (R-Va.) was defeated.  Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chose not to run this year.  These last three gentlemen chaired the House Committee on Oversight during President Obama’s tenure.  They conducted nasty, politically motivated investigations of Democrats that Republicans will sadly rue when they face scrutiny by that committee come January.

Obviously, this election rattled Trump.  The next day he effectively fired U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and appointed one of his loyal operatives, Mathew Whitaker, as acting attorney general.  Critics are arguing that Whitaker is not only biased and unfit for the job, his appointment was unconstitutional because he was not confirmed by the Senate.  Again, Trump dares Congress to check his abuse of power.  Will that happen?  It may depend on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).  He is totally focused on appointing more conservative judges so I don’t have high hopes.

The fear is, of course, that Whitaker will curtail special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.  That’s exactly what Trump wants.  McConnell, however, has consistently refused to allow a vote on legislation to protect Mueller, audaciously claiming that there is no need for congressional action. But retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Az.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that approves judicial nominations, is not buying that.  He promised to vote against all nominees unless McConnell allows a vote on a measure to protect Mueller.  We shall see.

Although the Trump sycophants that currently control Congress would probably let Whitaker do his dirty work on Mueller with faint objections, come January it will be a much different story. Democrats will command the powerful House Judiciary Committee.  Whitaker’s record of nefarious activities and crooked business ventures show that he’s not very smart but he surely knows the perils of hamstringing Mueller and obstructing justice.  We’re talking possible jail time here — so I don’t believe Mueller will be thwarted.  It’s probably too late for that anyway.

There is no doubt in my mind that 2018 will be noted as the year democracy began to fight back against Trump and the GOP.  If Republicans had retained control of the House, Trump would be king of Capitol Hill.  But they didn’t — they were crushed.  As a result, Trump is feeling threatened and acting erratic.  He may no longer be seen as an asset Republicans feel compelled to support.  In the Senate they have 12 more seats to defend in 2020 than Democrats.  I believe these GOP senators would rather throw Trump under the bus than lose their cushy positions.  The Donald is in trouble and this nation will be the better for it.

Make no mistake, we are not out of the autocratic woods yet.  Much work will be required to remove the cancer that is infecting this presidency and threatening our democracy.  But that fight has been well started and I’m confident it will succeed.

According to former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, one Russian newspaper reacted to the Democrats winning control of the House by complaining that “our agent in the White House failed us.”

All together now: THANK GOD!!

The polls are showing many very tight midterm races across the country, a sign that Republicans could retain control of Congress in 2019.  The thoughts of another two years of President Trump — with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and likely Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) doing his bidding on Capitol Hill — are too frightening to contemplate.  But if that occurs I believe it will be due in no small part to Republican efforts to suppress voters.

In 2013 the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutted a key section of the Voting Rights Act that required prior federal approval for voting law changes in some — mostly southern — states. Republican-controlled states immediately began passing voter ID legislation to make voting more difficult for minorities and other voter segments that typically favor Democrats.

Republicans use voter fraud as a reason for voting restrictions even though multiple studies show that illegal voting is almost nonexistent.  They don’t care; they simply lie about the statistics and continue taking extreme measures to prevent something that rarely occurs.

Voting is probably the most fundamental and important right we have as American citizens.  Without it, we have no voice in government and our fate is decided by others.  Republicans want to make sure those “others” are older white people.

Many Americans believe voter ID laws are appropriate.  A picture ID is required to fly, cash a check and even see a doctor.  Why shouldn’t everyone have to show one to vote?  Well, there are millions of people who don’t have a driver’s license, who never fly and who don’t have a bank account.  Some are elderly, some are in college and many are poor minorities.  But these laws always go much further than simply showing identification; they limit voter registrations, cut early voting days and much more.

The 2013 North Carolina voting law was a classic attempt to suppress typically Democratic votes.  It was struck down by a federal court in 2016 because the judges found that its provisions “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”   The Republican-controlled legislature did a study on when North Carolina’s black citizens vote; then they crafted the law to limit those opportunities, including Sunday voting.

Republican secretaries of state like Georgia’s Brian Kemp and Kansas’ Kris Kobach – both current candidates for governor in their states — have been aggressively purging voter rolls for years. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, 1.5 million were eliminated in Georgia alone.  Purges have also occurred in Texas, Florida and other states formerly restricted by the Voting Rights Act — and many voters were eliminated secretly and without notice.

In North Dakota, which has a substantial native American population, the Republican legislature passed a law that picture IDs must have a street address to be valid for voting purposes.  They knew that Indian reservations don’t necessarily have streets marked out and that residents don’t have addresses.  I believe their intent was to limit voting by this group who mostly support Democrats, including Sen. Heidi Heitkamp who is on the ballot this year.   I think this is criminal.

In Georgia, the Republican legislature passed an “exact match” law that allowed the secretary of state’s office to reject voter registration and absentee ballot applications where the name and address did not precisely match records the state had on file.  Secretary of State Kemp was holding up 53,000 applications under this law.  Even an extra comma or space would invalidate an application.  How ridiculous can an attempt to suppress voters get?  Fortunately, a judge blocked this law from taking effect.

Closing polling places or positioning them to make voting more difficult is popular in Republican-controlled states and counties.  Examples abound in Georgia, Florida and in other – mostly southern – states. Moving polling places off college campuses is typical; so is closing them in counties with a large minority population.  A report by the Leadership Conference Education Fund found that Cochise County, Arizona, which has a 30 percent Spanish-speaking population, shutdown 63 percent of its polling places after the 2013 SCOTUS decision on voting rights.  In 2016 there was only one polling place for every 7,200 residents.

Perhaps the most egregious example of poll manipulation has recently occurred in Dodge City, Kansas.  The 13,000, mostly Hispanic, registered voters had their polling place moved a mile outside the city.  There are no bus stops nearby or sidewalks from the city to the polling place.  In a state where the average number of voters per polling place is reported to be 1,200, the voters in Dodge have only one.

Enacting discriminatory voter ID laws, purging voter rolls without informing those involved and eliminating polling places to make it harder for minorities and college students to vote should be a crime.  And those — mostly Republican — officials who have committed these acts should be prosecuted.  Intentionally destroying ballots is a crime, why shouldn’t intentionally suppressing voters call for jail time too?

If Republicans retain control of Congress after Tuesday’s election, I believe it will be primarily due to two factors — Fox News and the pervasive right-wing media as outlined in my last blog — and the undemocratic efforts of Republican officials to suppress the votes of those who support Democrats.

Instead of adopting winning policies on things like health care, Republicans try to change the rules to disenfranchise opposition voters.  I say, lock’em up.

In eight short days the results of the midterm elections will be tabulated.  Many early votes have already been cast and today I’m wondering what is influencing the moderates from both parties and the independents in this critical contest.  Is it health care, the economy, immigration or a radio/ TV talk-show host?

There are many single-issue and straight-ticket voters out there who have a mindset.  They aren’t likely to be swayed by lies, facts, logical arguments or even the character of the candidate.  But what about those who aren’t totally aligned with an issue or a party?  What motivates them?

I didn’t follow politics that much in the 1980s and the 1990s — but some transformative things were occurring then.  President Reagan infused the GOP with a tax cutting fervor that is the primary motivator of the Party to this day.  He also continued President Nixon’s efforts to bring the south into the Republican fold by courting evangelicals like Pat Robertson and televangelist Jerry Falwell.

Falwell was the primary founder of the Christian conservative Moral Majority in 1979.  Robertson had earlier founded the Christian Broadcasting Network where he has appeared on “The 700 Club” show for almost half a century.  Both had a strong media persona and millions of followers who vote.  Today, evangelicals are predominantly Republican.

Conservative radio talk-shows were gaining popularity when Rush Limbaugh began broadcasting in 1988.  He is now heard on hundreds of stations.  Talker’s Magazine compiles a list of the most listened-to radio programs.  The leaders in 2017 were Limbaugh, with 14 million weekly listeners, and Sean Hannity, who had 13.5 million.  Hannity is also a Fox News prime-time TV anchor.  Of the top 23, eight were conservative shows with over 80 million total listeners.  There was one progressive show on the list with 6.5 million listeners.  Humm!

While our house was being built in the 1990s, the carpenters would frequently listen to Limbaugh on the radio.  And I suspect numerous auto mechanics across the nation are tuned in to Rush as they service cars and many Midwest farmers on their tractors are listening to conservative talk-show hosts as they cultivate row after boring row in their fields.  These commentators make an impression and it’s entirely anti-liberal.

President George H. W. Bush actually raised taxes in 1991, violating his party’s pledge to never to do that.  Some say that’s why he lost the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.  Then the midterm elections in 1994 ushered in a real turning point in politics.  Republicans regained control of Congress in 1995, taking the House for the first time in 40 years.

Newt Gingrich, a firebrand conservative from Georgia, became the speaker of the House and initiated a tough brand of conservatism.  He was power-hungry and nasty, preferring name calling, confrontation and combat to compromise.  Sound familiar?

The Fox News Channel began its programming in 1996, primarily adopting Gingrich’s hardnosed style of politics.  Both painted Democrats as socialists or maybe communists.  The “left” was often cast as a violent radical group being supported by Jewish billionaire and perennial liberal boogieman George Soros.  Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts were part of the chorus.

Today most Fox News anchors strongly support President Trump and Republicans.  But little-known Sinclair Broadcasting is the nation’s largest owner of local television stations, with almost 200 in 81 broadcast networks nationwide.  Pro-Trump, conservative content airs daily on their local stations, which viewers tend to trust more than the national news outlets.  And with hundreds of stations, iHeartMedia is reportedly the nation’s largest radio station owner, mostly airing news/talk shows by conservative Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and/or Hannity.

After crude explosive devices were sent to CNN and a dozen or so prominent Democrats, including Soros, many conservative commentators called it a fake (false-flag) operation conducted by liberals to get sympathy for Democrats.  Limbaugh unbelievably claimed “Republicans just don’t do this kind of thing.”  Really?  Even after the perpetrator was identified as pro-Trump, no doubt many Republicans will continue to believe as one Trump supporter put it “Obama probably sent his to hisself. [sic]” “And Hillary Clinton probably sent hers to herself.”

It follows, because after numerous GOP-led investigations and no proof found, many Republicans still believe Clinton told the military to “stand down” from defending our diplomates in Benghazi, Libya.  And many still claim Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim.  Do they simply want to believe these things or are they still hearing them on their local radio station?

Based on every statistic I have found, conservative media outlets are spread further and deeper across America than the so-called “liberal media” Republicans have railed against for decades.  Fox News, Limbaugh and others support Trump’s conspiracy theories and echo his fear-mongering warning of a dangerous immigrant hoard.  Some commentators attack the Democrat “mob” while either ignoring the violence-promoting, far-right Patriot Prayer group — or giving them airtime.

One bright side I could see after the 2016 election was that Republicans would quickly show they don’t know how to govern.  So far, their major accomplishment is a budget-busting tax cut they fallaciously claimed would pay for itself.

I am still confident that GOP lies will catch up with them at the polls.  But right-wing media present a substantial bulwark against those who want to put the brakes on Trump’s autocratic ways.  We will soon know if it has been breached.

Republicans finally got their messiah in 2017, a president who will implement their dogmatic policies no matter how harmful they are to the planet, the economy or the wellbeing of our citizens.  If they continue to control Congress, they will change America in ways that will even appall many conservatives.  We can’t let that happen on November 6.

When I think about the outrages that have occurred under President Trump and his congressional enablers – attacks on the press, the Justice Department, the FBI, etc. — it’s easy to speculate on what will happen if this trend continues for another two or more years.  The dire scenarios are too numerous for one blog, but where better to start than the results of last December’s massive tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.

As critics predicted, revenue losses from Trump’s so-called tax reform are massive.  Yearly federal deficits are spiking into very dangerous territory – more than a trillion dollars year – with the national debt growing toward 100 percent of the nation’s yearly economic output (GDP) by 2028.  This level of debt has not occurred since the end of World War II.  Yet, House Republicans recently passed a second round of budget busting tax cuts that will become law if they have their way.  Runaway deficits will become their excuse to severely cut Medicare, Medicaid and other social safety net programs, even Social Security.

Those voters who think Trump has brazenly abused his power since the inauguration better brace for what will come in 2019.  After the midterms he is likely to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions and deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.  Trump’s objective, of course, is to further obstruct justice by shutting down special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.  With a Trump sycophant speaker of the House like California Republican Kevin McCarthy, Mueller will be gone.  Consequently, if Democrats don’t take control of the strong oversight powers of the House next year, we may never learn what crimes Trump and his campaign committed during the 2016 election.

A recent report by the United Nations scientific panel on climate change predicts horrific consequences for our planet due to greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps as early as 2040.  The U.S. is the second largest emitter of these harmful pollutants.  Rising seas, drought and exacerbated food shortages would cause massive poverty and destabilizing refugee problems as tens of millions are forced to evacuate areas that are under water or will no longer support human populations.

Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and has begun withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.  His EPA is axing regulations intended to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants and other sources.  Yet, the U.N. report is clear, according to Drew Shindell — a Duke University climate scientist and an author of the report — “There is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid of coal.”  To make matters worse, U.S. rejection of climate science and emissions regulations gives other countries license to do the same.

So long as Republicans control Congress, their head-in-the-sand attitude on global warming will prevail as government policy, as will Trump’s war on immigrants and his nationalistic foreign policy.

Seven million job openings in August show that our domestic industries and farms need immigrant workers, even illegal ones.  U.S. colleges and universities aren’t producing sufficient skilled citizens to fill the vacancies at high-tech companies and most Americans aren’t willing to supply the low-skilled labor for our farms.  Trump’s immigration policy is not only cruel, it doesn’t make economic sense.  But Republicans don’t care so long as it minimizes the nonwhites who frequently become Democrats.

Globally, Trump is withdrawing from the leadership of the free world and the protector of the liberal democratic order established by the United States after World War II.  This will open the door for other dictators like those in Venezuela and Syria.  These depots could send even more immigrants fleeing into Europe and clamoring at our borders for asylum.

Comments by conservative Republicans who have left the GOP tell it all.  Columnist George Will was one of the first to go in June 2016.  “This was not my party anymore,” said Will, when Speaker Paul Ryan(R-Wis.) endorsed Trump after he attacked a Latino judge in Indiana.

After strongly criticizing the Democrats’ handling of the Kavanaugh nomination, conservative Tom Nichols, a U.S. Naval War College professor, observed: “Republicans, however, have now eclipsed the Democrats as a threat to the rule of law and to the constitutional norms of American society.  They have become all about winning.”  Like Will, he is now an independent.

Conservative columnist and writer Max Boot gave his reason for leaving the GOP: “The Republican Party will now be defined by Trump’s dark, divisive vision, with his depiction of Democrats as America-hating, criminal-coddling traitors, his vilification of the press as the “enemy of the people,” and his ugly invective against Mexicans and Muslims.”  Boot sees extremism as the governing ideology of the party and strongly advocates voting for Democrats.

I believe the current leaders of the GOP — and most of their caucus — are more focused on their power as a political party than the strength of the nation’s democratic institutions and more protective of an unfit, autocratic President Trump than the Constitution.  The best way to preserve our democracy is to vote them out of office.

Footnote:  Click here to see what Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said about cutting Medicare, Medicaid and SS to reduce deficits.

They were celebrating at the White House Saturday after the confirmation of Judge Bret Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican members of Congress will tout this as a huge victory for conservatives.  And millions of President Trump’s supporters, particularly evangelicals, will now be salivating for the end of constitutionally protected abortions and gay marriage.

But for the rest of us — hopefully the majority of Americans — Kavanaugh’s confirmation means our democracy has been seriously undermined.  Republicans will control all three branches of government if Democrats don’t take the House and/or Senate in November and the separation of powers as designed by the Founders in the Constitution won’t exist.

Republicans railed against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee for attempting to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation.  But remember, McConnell aggressively blocked President Obama’s appointments to the federal bench and he refused to even hold hearings in 2016 when Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.  The many obstructive actions taken by McConnell during Obama’s tenure poisoned the atmosphere in the Senate.

So, it’s not surprising that the Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings were filled with drama highlighted by partisan maneuvering and heated rhetoric.  It all started with McConnell’s rush to judgement on filling the vacancy left when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June.  He was desperate to get Kavanaugh seated on the Court before the end of September.  McConnell no doubt thought it would improve Republican chances in the midterm elections and he probably feared they might lose control of the Senate in November.

Most readers know the chronology of Kavanaugh’s confirmation process so I won’t repeat it in detail here.  But McConnell’s plan seemed to be working for the first few weeks and he was ready to schedule a vote after Democrats were blocked from a comprehensive review of Kavanaugh’s extensive paper trail.  Then the bombshell letter from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford surfaced, claiming that a drunken Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school in the early 1980s.

Kavanaugh gave an unprecedented interview on Fox News to plead his case.  Some friends and acquaintances signed letters that were supportive of the judge but others wrote articles and gave interviews that seriously contradicted Kavanaugh’s drinking denials.  After Ford’s emotional, compelling and credible testimony, many observers began to wonder how Kavanaugh could recover when it was his turn to testify.

Reports indicate that Kavanaugh was told to show how he really felt about the hearing process and it was very revealing.  Reading from his own written statement he said:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” He almost snarled “This is a circus.”

After the backlash to this highly political defense, Kavanaugh wrote an exculpatory op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, again, unprecedented for a nominee.  Even so, a letter opposing his confirmation was signed by 2,400 law professors and former Justice John Paul Stevens — a Gerald Ford nominee — said Kavanaugh was not qualified to serve on the Court.  But this opposition didn’t matter to McConnell and his Republican caucus.

The FBI supplemental background investigation that was forced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Az.) was depicted as sham by many, no doubt restricted by the White House.  Kavanaugh and Ford were not interviewed.  Numerous persons with knowledge of Kavanaugh’s high school and college escapades attempted to contact the FBI but were rebuffed.  So, Republicans, including Flake, called this incomplete FBI report “thorough” and ignored all other evidence.

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was telling the truth.  And it is entirely possible that Kavanaugh has no memory of the party or the attack on Ford.  Perhaps the night’s events left no lasting impression on him; heavy, possibly binge, drinking can do that.

It seems clear from the facts and testimony, however, that Kavanaugh did not tell the truth about his past and his drinking.  It is also obvious to me that his written and spoken statements show a lack of judicial temperament and a strong conservative bias that should disqualify him to serve on any court.

Kavanaugh was confirmed by the narrowest margin of any justice since 1881 — 50 to 48.  Throughout his tenure there will be as asterisk by his name and his opinions will be dissected for political bias.  Robert Post, the former dean of Yale Law School where Kavanaugh graduated in 1990, said in an op-ed that Kavanaugh will “undermine the [Supreme Court’s] claim to legitimacy,” calling his confirmation “an American tragedy.”

This fiasco by Republicans could scar the Senate for decades.  The FBI’s reputation has suffered.  And Kavanaugh’s highly partisan, unsubstantiated accusations of a “political hit” will further divide this nation.  But the biggest losers are the millions of women who are sexually assaulted and fear being ridiculed like Dr. Ford was for speaking out.

If there is any glimmer of hope for the future of the Court and its independence it is Chief Justice John Roberts.  He could – I say could – become the swing vote in order to preserve his legacy as Chief Justice and protect the reputation of this critically important institution.  We shall see.

After all of the books about President Donald Trump – the latest being Bob Woodward’s “Fear” – is there any doubt that the man in the Oval Office is unfit?  We don’t need $30 books, however, to form a reasonable conclusion that Trump has no business running this country; he proves it almost every day with his tweets.  No doubt Trump is weakening our democracy but I believe there is a much more ominous threat – the conservative-controlled Supreme Court.

Warren Burger was Chief Justice when Roe v. Wade was decided and he was still presiding when I was sworn in to practice before this prestigious body.  It was simply a box checked on my resume; I never argued a case before the Court nor planned to.  Still, it was a sobering experience.

The session began promptly at 10:00 AM with the traditional chant by the Court’s Marshal (bailiff).  This short recitation is repeated each day the Court is in session and ends with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”  Then the curtain behind the elevated bench opened and the nine robed justices stepped out in unison to take their seats.  It’s a very formal ceremony and quite intimidating for lawyers waiting to argue their cases.  For this is the most powerful institution in the nation — the court of last resort.

No doubt that’s why Republicans have placed such great emphasis on filling Supreme Court vacancies over the years.  And if Judge Bret Kavanaugh — the current nominee — is confirmed, conservatives will have the most rock-solid, five-member majority on the Court in the past 30 years.

Many Republicans, particularly evangelical Christians, have worked tirelessly to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that provides women with a constitutional right to an abortion in the United States.  Recent polls indicate that their efforts conflict with a majority of Americans that don’t want this landmark decision eradicated.  It’s an emotional, polarizing issue.

Four Republican-appointed justices on the Court are members of the Federalist Society, an elitist organization of pro-life conservatives and libertarians whose members believe the Constitution should be interpreted as written.  Kavanaugh would make it five.  They are all “originalists” — judges who attempt to divine how the Founders intended the Constitution to be interpreted and make their decisions accordingly.  So, I believe there’s a good chance Roe v. Wade will go down.

But I don’t think that’s the worst this Court can do.  Just look at some of the decisions conservative justices have made during the past 20 years.  In the 2010 Citizens United case, they took a narrow issue involving a 2008 video critical of former First Lady Hillary Clinton and issued an unnecessarily broad opinion.   The Court essentially held that corporations and unions are people under the Constitution’s First Amendment and that money is speech.  As a result, wealthy, even anonymous, special interests can unduly influence elections with unlimited amounts of money.

In 2013 the conservative majority struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states to get advanced federal approval for changes to voting laws.  The involved states, including Texas, North Carolina and others that were controlled by Republicans, immediately enacted or implemented strict voter ID laws that were specifically designed to make it harder for those who typically vote for Democrats to cast ballots.   These laws went far beyond simply showing a picture ID to vote.  They shortened early voting days, restricted voter registration and much more.

But the future could be even more problematic.  Republican’s continue to attack the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Kavanaugh’s vote may be all they need to scuttle it.   Medicare, Medicaid and other social safety net programs could also be in jeopardy from GOP attacks.

Legal issues involving the president are sure to come before the Court.  If Kavanaugh is confirmed, we can almost be certain that his decisions will favor Trump.  Can he be subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury?  Can he be indicted as a sitting president for the crimes he has likely committed?  Should he even be the subject of an investigation?  Kavanaugh would probably decide: No!

Republicans have focused on appointing conservative federal judges for decades and Trump could appoint hundreds more.  I fear that in time these jurists will rubber stamp conservative policies on government regulations, climate change, religion, health care and immigration while erecting roadblocks for progressive legislation.  In fact, that is exactly what Republicans want.

Let me be clear; liberal justices should not dominate the agenda either.  The Court should be balanced and definitely nonpartisan.  And the majority should not be wedded to an originalist ideology that applies 18th century thinking to 21st century issues.

Trump has divided this nation like no other president in modern history.  If this continues, progressive legislation passed by a Democratic controlled Congress in the future will likely face unrelenting conservative challenges.  Likewise, liberals will challenge conservative legislation and policies.  In this scenario, the Court could actually become the de facto government, virtually dictating what the executive branch can do and what Congress can legislate.  I believe Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be a step in this direction.

Hopefully, the polarization of the Trump era will subside and voters will unite under centrist, progressive leadership.  But the conservative Court could hold sway for an entire generation — and there’s not much we citizens can do about it.

The two-room country schoolhouse where I learned to read and write was demolished decades ago and the site is now a vacant, weed-covered lot that speaks not a word of its past.  Yet, it’s all very clear in my memory.  I can picture the dirty-white, clapboard building – the two privies near the cornfield out back — the swings and the teetertotters on the playground where my classmates and I frolicked during recess — and the hand pump on the well near the porch that was our only source of water.

Our teacher, Mrs. Mershon, took a picture of her 30 students in grades K-3 and put it in a small picture album as a gift for her third-grade graduating class.  Many of these students were products of a hardscrabble existence in the rural Midwest.  I was among the more fortunate ones.

My friend Larry was a victim of the endemic poverty in this area, a small kid, kind of frail looking, but quite smart.  He could have been a teacher or a doctor — but I have been unable to find that he even graduated high school.

One summer day following second grade I was playing at Larry’s home around noon.  His mother invited me to have lunch with Larry and her two other children.  She served a piece of bread flavored with melted bacon grease, a small amount of home fried potatoes and a like amount of creamed corn.  I was not accustomed to such fare and when I left most of it on my plate, the siblings fought over it.

These memories all came rushing back as I was reading an article about the 2018 farm bill that recently passed in the Republican-controlled House.  This five-year, $867 billion legislation is one of the most important actions Congress takes and it is usually a bipartisan process.  But House conservatives frustrated the negotiations this year by including provisions to revise the eligibility formulas for the 42 million recipients of food stamps and adding work requirements for that benefit.

The nonpartisan research firm, Mathematica, used data from the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service to determine that almost two million low-income Americans — including 469,000 households with young children — would be purged from the program due to the changed qualification criteria.  A separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that an additional 1.2 million would lose food stamp benefits due to the work requirements.

Mathematica also found that seniors in 677,000 households would lose benefits, along with one in 10 people with a disability, another 214,000 households.  The elderly, the disabled and children comprise two-thirds of food stamp beneficiaries.

As the House was narrowly passing its farm bill, the Agriculture Department announced that 15 million households reported being “food insecure” in 2017.  This means they struggled to put adequate food on the table.  We don’t know how many children are in these families but no doubt there are millions.

Like most Americans, I can’t stand the thought of a child going most days without adequate nourishment or going to bed hungry.  My wife and I have frequently joined our neighbors, conservative and liberal alike, in providing foodstuffs for backpack programs.  They provide needy school kids with supplemental provisions for the weekends when school lunches aren’t provided.  Hungry children have difficulty concentrating on their studies and paying attention in class.  As a result, they fall behind and many don’t grow up to be productive adults.

Now the House and the Senate are negotiating over their two competing farm bills.  Both provide billions in subsidies for agricultural states that have been hit hard by President Trump’s tariffs and falling commodity prices — the less onerous Senate bill is expected to prevail.  But Trump has called for the final passage of the House version of the legislation, particularly the section on work requirements.  His political base abhors government “welfare,” and they are his main priority.

The food stamp program didn’t exist when I was a child but I’m sure many of my elementary school families would have easily qualified for it, along with Medicaid and other government programs.  These benefits might have helped my friend Larry realize his full potential.  But all I can do is speculate and think – what a waste if he didn’t.

Conservatives constantly rail about the excesses and fraud in government safety net programs and seek arbitrary ways to purge beneficiaries from the rolls.  Sure, they may eliminate some adults who shouldn’t qualify for food stamps and Medicaid.  But what about the tens of thousands of children who lose critically needed benefits in the process?

I keep asking myself, what motivates Republican politicians like Freedom Caucus radicals Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), to name a few.  They eagerly give trillions in tax cuts to the wealthy and throw money at defense contractors that squander tens of billions on expensive weapons systems.  Yet, they want to cut funding for food stamps to save a few billion.  Are they bought and paid for by greedy plutocrats — or is it just the result of their ultra-conservative mindset?

To me it’s so obvious — children are our future.  We should do everything we can to enable them to grow up mentally and physically strong and healthy.  We should help them to become winners in our society – instead of losers to right-wing ideology.