Democratic governments rarely collapse with a sudden explosion; they erode – sometimes imperceptibly — as the structure that supports them and the fabric that holds them together slowly weakens until they implode.

The decline in America’s democracy didn’t just start 10 years ago, of course; but it accelerated due to the right-wing reaction when Barack Obama was elected the first African-American president in 2008.  No doubt many white Republican men felt threatened by this milestone event; it was an affront to their political dominance.  And no doubt their irrational backlash was fueled by the conservative media, conspiracy theorists and Internet bloggers.

The Tea Party movement and the politicians they help elect in 2010 demanded dramatic reductions in government spending but I believe their visceral feelings were more about a black president than deficits.  The racial issue, even if subliminal, tainted the discourse on Obama’s policies, making everything he attempted unacceptable.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had his finger in the political wind and assembled his caucus in 2009 for a strategy meeting.  The decision was to carefully obstruct everything the popular new president attempted to do.  In 2010 McConnell even proclaimed that his sole objective was to make Obama a one-term president.  He totally obliterated any hope that the GOP minority would act as the “the loyal opposition” — a concept attributed to the great Republican senator from Illinois, Ev Dirksen.  McConnell’s position severely damaged the comity so important for an effective legislative body and stymied compromise with Democrats.

Republicans took control of numerous state governments after the 2010 census and elections.  They promptly engaged in a gerrymandering process that is still the subject of litigation.  Both parties have engaged in partisan redistricting over the years; but in 2011 Republicans carried it to the extreme.  Using racial demographics, they designed ridiculously shaped congressional districts to ensure the election of more Republicans.   It worked, but the result was an undemocratic skewing of the election results.

The Supreme Court decision in the 2010 Citizen’s United case stifled democracy like no other in decades.  The conservative majority ruled in essence that corporations and unions are people under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and that money is speech.  As a result, super PACs and “social welfare” nonprofits were allowed to spend unlimited amounts indirectly supporting candidates for office.  This gave wealthy special interests – some of them anonymous – coercive power over candidates for office.  Republicans rejoiced; democracy suffered.

McConnell failed with his one-term agenda for Obama but he was very successful in many other ways.  He weaponized the filibuster in the Senate to block Obama’s legislative agenda and appointments.  In the House, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) refused to bring legislation to the floor for a vote unless it was supported by a majority of his caucus.  What ensued was damaging congressional polarization and gridlock.  These types of hyper-partisan political maneuvers poison the democratic processes, inviting equally damaging reprisals from Democrats.

In 2012 the conservative majority on the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Nine — mostly southern — states would no longer be required to get advanced federal approval to change election laws.  Texas, North Carolina and other Republican-controlled states soon enacted strict voter ID laws that shortened early voting days and limited voter registration opportunities.  They made it harder for minorities, the elderly and college students to vote.  You know, likely Democrats.

These laws have also been the subject of much litigation but the Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently dropped a key objection in its case against Texas’ voter ID laws and did a “180” when it switched to supporting Ohio in a case involving an allegedly illegal purging of inactive voters from the rolls.   If the DOJ won’t protect citizen’s rights to vote, will the Supreme Court?  Well, if Trump and McConnell have their way, the “court of last resort” will have more justices who think like Sessions.

The rapid decline in democracy since 2008 can be attributed in part to the erosion of political “norms.”  Harvard professor Steven Levitsky called norms the “soft guardrails for democracy.”  They are unwritten rules of conduct, civility and ethics that keep the democratic processes more grounded — on the straight and narrow so to speak.

Many Americans may not be cognizant of these important guidelines that have shaped U.S. democratic governance for decades.  Here are a few examples:

·       The Justice Department and FBI maintain political independence from the President;

·       Presidential candidates disclose their tax returns and are open about their finances;

·       The president and government officials relinquish control of their business interests         to avoid conflict of interest concerns;

·       Politicians don’t suggest that political opponents be jailed.

Historically norms have been effective because officials who violated them were punished by the voters and their peers.  Democracy stayed strong.  Now, when Trump and Republicans crash through the norm guardrails they are frequently applauded by supporters and ignored by the Republican leadership.  This acquiescence creates a pathway to a corrupt, undemocratic government.

Some want to stop the Republican assault on democracy by impeaching Trump.  Hopefully, he is forced to resign in disgrace, but I don’t believe impeaching him would be good for the country.  It would likely exacerbate the polarization and reprisal politics that can tear a democracy apart.

We need to vote the SOBs out of office.  That’s the democratic way.

Remember all that Republican hoopla last year about their tax reform?  It would pay for itself by spurring economic growth to three or four percent for years to come.  Manufacturing would come back to the United States, millions of good-paying jobs would be created and wages would increase significantly.  Well, the recent 10-year projection of federal budgets and the U.S. economy by the Congressional Budget Office just flushed all that manure down the toilet.

The nonpartisan CBO’s report made big headlines in the media last Monday.  It contains disturbing data that is sure to affect the finances of all Americans.  Unfortunately, the numerous articles about its dire predictions were quickly obscured by the FBI raid on the offices of President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen.

This report sounds the alarm on the burgeoning federal debt that is projected to be more than $33 trillion in 2028 — a 57 percent increase from the current debt.  The GOP tax cut last December and the omnibus spending bill Congress passed in February accounted for most of the increase since the last ominous CBO projection in June 2017.

What does this mean for the average American?  CBO director Keith Hall said “Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation.”  He added, “In particular, the likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase.”  Hall warned, “The longer you wait, the more draconian the measures have to be to fix the problem.”   Ouch!

According to the CBO, interest on the debt will exceed government spending on defense by 2023 and will approach $1 trillion a year by 2028 — more than triple the 2017 interest costs. Numerous economists believe the rising deficits will drive up interest rates, slow the economy and add even more red ink in federal budgets.  Needless to say, the stock markets will react quite negatively too.

The CBO report dashes the unrealistic hope that the tax reform would pay for itself by spurring economic growth.  Instead it will slash federal revenues over 10 years by almost $1.3 trillion and add almost $1.9 trillion to the national debt, including interest.  The report does project economic growth of 3.3 percent in this election year as Republicans hoped, but that growth will recede during the remainder of the decade and is anticipated to average 1.9 percent.

The Trump administration hyped the tax reform as a job creator and wage booster.  In fact, they claimed it would add a minimum of $4,000 to the incomes of the average family.  The CBO report projects a marginal boost to jobs and wages over the next decade, with a per year average of 1.1 million extra jobs and 0.9 percent added increase for salaries and wages.

But here’s the thing.  Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress have filled the economic landscape with uncertainty.  Republicans claimed corporations would invest their huge tax cut in new plants and equipment.  But businesses are concerned that Trump’s tariffs will cause a trade war and they worry that Trump will upset or back out of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Meanwhile, free trade-loving congressional Republicans simply shrug.

Will companies be eager to invest when the future is so cloudy?  I don’t think so.  In fact, I believe the uncertainty will significantly lower the 3.3 percent growth the CBO projects for 2018.

Critics of the GOP tax plan claimed it was sloppily written and full of errors, that it would do immense harm to the nation’s finances, that corporations would mainly use their windfall tax cut to buy back stock and that Republicans would use the huge deficits it creates to attack so-called entitlement programs.  All of these concerns are becoming realities.

The tax reform’s low corporate rates were supposed to provide incentive for companies keep their manufacturing facilities in the U.S. but the CBO found that certain provisions of the new tax code could encourage multinationals to move plants and machinery off shore.  It’s too early to know if this will happen but it’s another red flag.

Two things, however, are certain at this point.  The recent tax reform and current spending plans have greatly exacerbated the nation’s fiscal problems.  The GOP-led Congress has no realistic plan to correct the current trajectory of the deficits.  In fact, Trump and some congressional allies want to extend the individual income tax provisions that will expire in 2025.  That could add another $1 trillion or so to the deficits.

The GOP model of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have failed in Republican-led states all over the country, with Kansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana as prime examples.  Republican legislators in these states cut funding for education to help solve revenue shortfalls and meet balanced budget requirements.  This deprives their children of the skills necessary to compete in today’s economy.  Dumb!

At the federal level Republicans will attempt to turn Medicare into a premium support program that will put beneficiaries at the mercy of insurance companies, cut funding for Medicaid with block grants to the states and decrease Social Security benefits.  It’s part of their “give to those who don’t need it and take from those who do” philosophy.  Dumber!

So far, 46 Republicans have recently retired or decided not seek reelection to Congress, including Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).  Let’s try to make sure a lot more of them will be retired in November.

The Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index for 2017 shows people across the country are more depressed than they were during the Great Recession.  Despite low unemployment and rising wages, interviews with over 160,000 adults nationwide indicate that overall Americans don’t think their general well-being is improving.  Obviously, they are concerned about more than just the economy.

Twenty-one states had statistically significant declines in well-being last year, with emotional and psychological factors dominating.  Contentment with jobs and relationships has deteriorated in states from Washington to North Carolina and from Arizona to Maine – and no state experienced a statistically significant increase in well-being.  By contrast, the 2009 Index showed that 15 states had declines in well-being when money and financial worries were the major factors and unemployment reached 10 percent.

This report isn’t surprising to me and in some ways, it’s even heartening.  Apparently, voters are not comfortable with the chaos in the White House or the dysfunction in our government.  Commenting on the problem, Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, observed, “We don’t know what is going to happen next. There’s no clear path toward stabilizing either the country or the world.”

It’s obvious that this nation has no long-term foreign or domestic policies other than what Trump happens to feel in his gut on any given day.  He wants to dismantle significant deals and decisions made by his predecessors and his reasons for doing so are not clearly articulated nor are his plans to replace them.  DACA, NAFTA, the Iran nuclear agreement, the Paris climate agreement, you name it, he wants to modify it or kill it.  I think there is a growing fear that the author of “The Art of the Deal” doesn’t know how to negotiate a deal.  And with tariffs and tweets, Trump is screwing up the economy — the most positive aspect of his presidency.  His “ready, fire, aim” approach to governing is not only unsettling, it’s dangerous.

Along with the lack of planning, there seems to be a new scandal in the Trump administration almost every day.  EPA administrator Scott Pruitt lavishly wasted taxpayer dollars on expensive, luxury travel and a 30-man 24/7 personal security detail.  Trump advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner’s family business got loans of over $500 million after he met with bank officials in the White House.  Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin used military aircraft between the spring and fall of 2017 that cost taxpayers $1 million.  HUD secretary Ben Carson is catching flack for buying a $31,000 office dining table but this pales by comparison to the unethical and corrupt activities of his peers.

The nation’s economic policies are being influenced by right-wing/Libertarian Fox News pundits like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs and Trump knee-jerk reacts to what he watches on Fox and Friends.  That’s one reason why competent people like economic advisor Gary Cohn don’t want to work in this White House.  It is becoming increasingly more obvious that we don’t have a leader; we have a serial tweeter who’s on the wrong course to MAGA.  I think that’s why many working people in America have an uneasy feeling that all this dysfunction will not end well and that they will suffer the consequences just like they did after eight disastrous years of President George W. Bush’s administration.

Polls indicate that a majority of Americans favor stricter gun controls, a robust government response to climate change, comprehensive immigration legislation, effective environmental regulations and even higher taxes on the wealthy.  I believe these polls accurately reflect the preferences of the entire population.  Yet this president and the Republican-controlled Congress are dead-set on passing laws to please their donors and their minority base.  No wonder most people are unhappy.

Just take the Republican “head in the sand” position on climate change.  According to a recent study by the World Bank, rising seas and agricultural disruptions could create 143 million climate migrants.  That would make the exodus from Syria over the past several years look like a small-town Easter parade.  Yet Trump and EPA’s Pruitt eagerly eliminate regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and remove studies on climate change from government websites.

After a contentious election the winner has a duty to heal the wounds and unite the nation.  Instead, Trump has divided this nation like at no other time in my memory.  Friends and even family members are being torn apart by Trump’s divisive rhetoric and agenda.  This polarization is being fueled by unabashed Trump supporters like the opinion anchors on Fox News and conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.  These pundits have a “no compromise” philosophy that started during President Obama’s tenure.  At its core is a belief that conservatives can only win if liberals lose.

I strongly believe that GOP obstruction of Obama caused voter angst in 2016.  They didn’t know which party to blame so they turned to outsider Trump.   Well, now they should know the root cause of their anxiety.  It’s like President Harry Truman once said, “How many times do you have to get hit over the head until you figure out who’s hitting you?”.  Of course, he was referring to Republicans.

So yes, I’m encouraged if voters feel their well-being is being threatened.  It’s probably the only way some of them will get off their duffs and do something about it in November.

Defense lawyer John Dowd resigned from President Trump’s Russia investigation legal team last week. His departure leaves the president without competent legal representation.  It would appear that Trump intends to defend himself in the media instead of a court room.  With the help of Fox News and other right-wing commentators, he is mounting a furious attack on special counsel Robert Mueller. This blitz will focus on alleged Mueller bias and misconduct by the FBI and the Justice Department.  Trump wants to keep his supporters fired up and congressional Republicans in line.  I believe this strategy is a prelude to firing Mueller.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) basically admitted that Republicans haven’t advanced legislation to protect Mueller because they fear a midterm election backlash from Trump’s base.  Corker confirmed that the president’s numbers among his base are very strong and that their support is “tribal in nature.”  He added, “People who tell me, who are out on [the campaign] trail, say, look, people don’t ask about issues anymore. They don’t care about issues. They want to know if you’re with Trump or not.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has expressed somewhat tepid support for Mueller, hoping to prevent Trump from firing him before the midterms.  That would present his Republican caucus with a no-win decision, either they back Trump or infuriate his base.  The midterm elections are driving all decision making in Washington.  It’s a sad commentary on the men and women who have taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  It seems that duty is secondary to getting reelected.

**********

U.S. infrastructure is in serious need of upgrades.  Highways, bridges, airports and the like have gone too long without attention, taking a backseat to a failed effort to replace Obamacare and a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.  Candidate Donald Trump promised to invest $1 trillion in rebuilding America during the presidential campaign.  But now it appears America will have to wait again.

Recently Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Senate Majority Whip, said Congress may not have time to pass Trump’s infrastructure plan this year.  This sent me searching for the legislative calendar for 2018.  The Senate is scheduled to be in session for 174 days — around two-thirds of what most people work.  The House will be in session for 120 days — just 46 percent of what’s required for a full-time job.  That means most of their time will be spent back in their districts raising money and campaigning.  With mounting budget deficits, I doubt if infrastructure legislation will even get passed in 2019.

**********

The Congressional Budget Office won’t be updating its 10-year projection of federal revenues, outlays and deficits until April.  But last June it projected that federal budget deficits would add another $10 trillion to the national debt by 2027, putting it north of $30 trillion.  But wait, deficits are about to get much worse.

The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently estimated that current tax and spending legislation will increase those CBO deficit estimates by $2.4 trillion over the next decade.  And if Congress makes the temporary provisions of the 2017 tax reform permanent — as Republicans are now advocating — deficits would increase by $3.6 trillion. With interest rates on the rise and deficits already alarmingly high, causing the nation to take on trillions more in debt with tax cuts is unconscionable.

Now it appears CNBC economist Larry Kudlow will become Trump’s chief economic advisor.  Kudlow said Trump’s tax reform “is going to pay for itself” and predicted an economic growth rate of “3 to 4 percent.”  Few economists agree with him and Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation estimated this legislation would add $1.07 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.  With Trump and Kudlow managing economic policy, what could go wrong?

**********

In addition to tax cuts, Trump took office promising a huge buildup in defense and a strong position against Iran and North Korea.  Does that sound familiar?  Ronald Reagan immediately cut taxes after he was inaugurated, pumped billions into defense and increased the national debt by 187 percent.  President Bill Clinton handed incoming President George W. Bush a balanced budget.  Bush immediately cut taxes, started two wars, almost doubled the national debt and left President Barack Obama with the Great Recession that further exacerbated the red ink.

Well, Trump got his tax cut last December and a massive increase in military spending in February.  Hawkish CIA director Mike Pompeo will soon be Secretary of State.  The former U.N. ambassador — and super-hawk — John Bolton will become Trump’s National Security Advisor.  A war with either Iran or North Korea is unthinkable but Bolton has proposed attacks on both.  If Secretary of Defense James Mattis is pushed out and replaced by a Dick Cheney-like hardliner, it will be déjà vu 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq.

Only Congress has the power to declare war.  But with the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force, Congress gave the president broad powers to conduct a war on terror and to invade Iraq.  If these resolutions are not modified or repealed, Trump and Bolton could use them as authority to attack Iran.  That would be a catastrophic blunder.

Republicans in Congress won’t restrain Trump — but the voters can.  I believe the upcoming midterm elections are the most important in U.S. history.

Numerous U.S. intelligence officials testified before the Senate’s Intelligence and Armed Services Committees during the past month.  They all agreed that Russians interfered in the 2016 election and are set to do it again this year and in 2020.  They also conceded that President Trump had not given them authority or capability to counter these cyberattacks.

Outgoing chief of U.S. Cyber Command, Admiral Mike Rogers, voiced concern because our adversaries haven’t — in his words — “paid a price that’s sufficient to get them to change their behavior.”  His successor, Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, testified during his Senate confirmation hearings along the same lines.  General Nakasone gave his opinion on why our adversaries aren’t reluctant to cyberattack the United States: “I would say right now they do not think much will happen to them.”  Later he added, “They don’t fear us.”

It is clear from this testimony that sanctions aren’t an adequate deterrent.  The U.S. needs a robust offensive cyber deterrence to convince Russians, Iranians, Chinese and North Koreans that punishment for their warlike activities over the Internet will be swift and harsh.  Trump is more interested in building an expensive, useless wall on our southern border.

But the foreign threats go way beyond our elections.  Last Thursday Homeland Security and the FBI announced that Russians have their fingers on the switches of U.S. power plants, some nuclear.  Our intelligence agencies have known about these intrusions for many months but it’s not clear the government has taken any steps to eliminate the threat.  I have to wonder, could foreign hackers disable U.S. nuclear submarines and carriers?  What about our missile sites and command centers?

Congress did pass a bipartisan law imposing strong sanctions on Russia last July, but Trump refused to impose them.  Finally, he was forced to do something last week after special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russians and the power plant hacking was disclosed.  But these sanctions basically followed Mueller’s indictment; they didn’t take the broader course against Russians that Congress envisioned.

Russian President Vladimir Putin piously denies culpability for election meddling but he does it with a smile.  No doubt he’s thrilled that his government was able to affect the U.S. election and that he is given credit for this coup.  It makes him look very strong while America looks helpless and weak.  This U.S. vulnerability will not go unnoticed around the world, either by our friends or our adversaries.

On Friday retired four-star Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey tweeted: “Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the sway of Mr. Putin.”  I totally agree.

So, what are Republicans in Congress doing while Putin gloats over the mess he created?  Well, let’s see.  They are trying to discredit Mueller and the Russia investigation by calling for a second special counsel to investigate the FBI.  The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee terminated its investigation prematurely and declared there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Check out this article by Fox News political analyst Juan Williams entitled, “GOP has sold its soul on Russia.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation continues but that too will likely be concluded without fully getting to the bottom of how Russia influenced the 2016 election and how the Trump campaign might have colluded with them.  That leaves Mueller’s investigation as the only hope the American people have of getting to the truth.

On Friday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions terminated former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, just two days before he could retire with full benefits and a well-earned pension.  Trump was quite pleased.  He tweeted: “Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hardworking men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy.”.

In response to Trump, former CIA Director John Brennan tweeted what many of us would like to say to the president: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America …. America will triumph over you.”

By firing McCabe, Sessions may have held off his termination for a few more months, which is probably good. Trump was emboldened by his firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and he is eager to fire Sessions, who is recused from affecting Mueller’s Russia investigation.  If Trump can oust Sessions he will appoint a replacement who can fire Mueller or deflect the investigation away from Trump and his family.  That would be a disaster for America.

It is clear to me that many Republicans in Congress believe that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses.  Why else would they take such extreme measures to protect him?  And why would the GOP — the party that has always been a strong supporter of law enforcement — aggressively attack the FBI?   Has Russian money coopted the Republican National Committee or some high-ranking GOP Congressmen?

The time is approaching when Republicans will have to make a choice.  Will they back Trump or will they uphold their duty to this nation and the Constitution?  I am not confident they will make the right decision.

A recent New York Times article reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to rule indefinitely after a change in the Chinese constitution eliminated presidential term limits.  It went on to state that China is bracing for a new cold war with the U.S., due in part to President Trump’s plans to upgrade American nuclear forces.  A Chinese official was quoted as saying, “In the Asia-Pacific, the dominant role of the United States in a political and military sense will have to be readjusted.”   The Chinese believe America is a superpower in decline.

Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to agree with his Chinese friends.  This week he announced the development of two new Russian nuclear weapons that he says can penetrate U.S. missile defenses.  His presentation included an animation showing multiple warheads descending on Florida.  It was like a presentation by North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.  Putin had the audacity to show nuclear warheads descending on our country and Trump’s favorite vacation spot.  Trump had no comment in response.

Several articles have suggested that Russia transferred some of its Soviet-era technology to North Korea, jump starting this rouge nation’s missile and nuclear program.  In time I think we will learn that Putin did exactly that.  Any situation he can orchestrate to harass and challenge the U.S. as a global power furthers his agenda and he will eagerly do it.

Unfortunately, I can understand why the Chinese believe the U.S. is in decline and it didn’t just start with Trump.  President George W. Bush pushed through large tax cuts, bumbled into two horribly wasteful wars and left office in the face of a vicious recession that his incompetent administration helped cause.

President Barack Obama entered office saddled with the Bush legacy.  It was a time for bipartisan action to solve the problems, something Congress had typically done.  But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his GOP caucus wanted none of that.  They obstructed every effort Obama made to turn the economy around and get people back to work.  The Republican Tea Party wave in the 2010 election further exacerbated the congressional dysfunction and partisan divides that are weakening our country.

Then after eight years under Obama’s leadership with the economy on the mend, unemployment low and deficits more manageable, Donald J. Trump was elected president.

No doubt the Chinese watched with keen interest as Putin’s henchmen blatantly attacked the U.S. democratic election process in 2016 and noted that there was no retaliatory response from either Trump or Republicans in Congress.  They must have felt emboldened when America elected a man who is so obviously unfit to be president and Republicans in Congress fell in line to support him.

Against the wishes of his base, Obama negotiated the Trans Pacific Partnership to counter China’s ambitions in the Pacific Rim.  The Chinese no doubt cheered when Trump rejected the TPP on his first day in office.  They were eager to accept an invitation to assume leadership in this huge, strategically important region.  Free trade Republicans were silent.

Trump quickly built on the polarization and dysfunction he inherited from a GOP-led Congress.  Thanks to him, white nationalists were suddenly gaining a voice in U.S. politics.  Immigrants, who have been the strength of American culture, were viewed as threats instead of assets.  And everything Obama accomplished was targeted for elimination, no matter how beneficial it was.

Congress made one effort to punish Russia for election hacking by enacting more sanctions.  Trump simply ignored them.  He preferred to attack the Justice Department, the FBI and America’s judicial system.  Sadly, Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) joined in the effort to discredit these important institutions of democracy.

Putin and Xi Jinping are savvy, ruthless politicians with decades of experience.  They know how to get what they want.  Trump would rather play golf than strategize and tweet about petty issues rather than set sound policies for America’s role in the global economy and power structure.  He runs the government like a reality TV show without a script.

There are countless examples of Trump’s leadership failures, but consider his abrupt announcement on Thursday that the U.S. would impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum next week.  It was irrational, unplanned and poorly executed.  Some believe it was an angry reaction to the chaos that has engulfed his White House.

The tariffs edict will primarily damage our allies and our friendly neighbor, Canada. Perhaps after he finishes playing golf this weekend, someone will have the courage to tell Trump what a bad idea trade wars are.  And if he flippantly decides to change his mind next week, what does that say about America’s leadership in the future?  Is it any wonder the Chinese believe the U.S. is in decline?

Removing Republicans from control of Congress in the midterm elections would be a good first step in telling the world that the Trump/Republican agenda does not have popular support. It would be a rejection of tax cuts for the wealthy, distain for the environment and worship of the gun.

But beyond that, how does this democratic republic — with its system of government that has long been a shining example for the world — deal with the unethical, unstable and inept man who sits in the Oval Office?

I believe the answer to that question will determine whether the Chinese are right or wrong.

unting has been an enjoyable activity for me since I was a teenager.  Still, I have never feared that the “government” would confiscate my guns.  Nor have I ever considered that my guns are needed to protect against a tyrannical government.  These paranoid rantings of conspiracy theorists and the National Rifle Association simply don’t resonate with me.  But I am very concerned about gun violence.

Last week the nation experienced another gun tragedy at a high school in Parkland, Florida, with 17 confirmed dead and many injured.  The death toll could rise, but it won’t matter to those who oppose any type of gun control.  They will rely on the same old tired arguments against new laws to restrict firearms by claiming the problem is mental illness.  That’s what they always do.

The gun rights advocates have numerous stock answers for their position:  They’ll say that Chicago has very strict gun control laws but shootings there are the worst in the nation.  Or they’ll claim that if we take guns away from law abiding citizens only criminals will have guns.  The NRA’s favorite is: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

I’ve heard usually reasonable columnists argue that any type of gun control law will lead to banning of all guns.  They oppose taking that “first step.”  But previous legislation provides no support for this theory.  Fully-automatic weapons have been tightly controlled in the U.S. for many decades but these laws didn’t lead to gun confiscations.  So-called assault rifles were banned for 10 years in 1994 and that law didn’t cause significant erosions of other gun rights.  I think the first step argument is totally specious.

Republican politicians will tout their membership in the NRA and vow that they will “protect Second Amendment rights.”  But what are those rights?  The Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

These somewhat vague 25 words have been the subject of untold pages of legal documents and tense political debates.  But what do they really mean?  Well, I have a theory as to why they were added to the nation’s founding legal document:

“Militia” appears more times in the Constitution than “army.”  The Founders were very familiar with the long history of militias in the colonies, and how valuable they were in the Revolutionary War.  In the late 1700s state militias were seen as a primary defense against insurrections and invasions.   And they had displayed their worth at Concord, Massachusetts   I believe the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced to the seminal battle that occurred there.

As tensions between the colonists and the British heightened in 1775 the King’s soldiers were ordered to march on Lexington and Concord to capture and destroy the local militia’s guns and ammunition.  This started the American Revolution with the “shot heard round the world.”  The citizen soldiers there forced the invaders to retreat back to Boston.

Is it any wonder that the Founders wanted to make sure “militias” couldn’t be disarmed?  I believe they would be shocked at how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.

The NRA and gun rights advocates go way beyond simply opposing laws that control the types and uses of guns.  They pressured Republicans in Congress to prevent the Centers for Disease Control from studying the health effects of gun violence and to prohibit national records of gun ownership.  They make the ridiculous claim that the government might use the records to confiscate all guns.

There is no way the federal government could roundup the estimated 270 million guns in the hands of private U.S. citizens.  Republicans who say this could happen are totally ignoring the rule of law.  To begin with, such an operation would be an impossible task that would require complicity by the military, the Congress and the Supreme Court.  Even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union would fight it tooth and nail.

But I would submit that the debate should not be totally about regulating assault rifles or any other gun-related activity or device; it should also be about preventing organizations like the NRA from “buying” the legislators who pass our laws.

The donations that various high-profile Republicans get from the NRA were documented Thursday by MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle on her “For Fact’s Sake” program.  These numbers are simply appalling.

Bill Cassidy (R-LA) – $2,800,000

Rob Portman (R-OH) – $3,000,000

Joni Ernst (R-IA) – $3,100,000

Marco Rubio (R-FL) – $3,300,000

Cory Gardner (R-CO) – $3,900,000

John McCain (R-AZ) – $7,700,000

President Donald Trump – $21,000,000+

It’s clear that gun rights groups and their conservative supporters flood the congressional races with tainted donations.  Money is the life-blood of political campaigns and special interest support can make the difference between winning and losing.  Let’s face it, the number one objective of politicians is reelection.  Anyone who presents a politician with a large check owns a piece of him, and the larger the check, the larger the piece.

Until we have strong, enforceable laws to limit contributions to political campaigns, special interest groups will continue to unduly influence elections.  And the wishes of “we the people” on guns and other issues will be suppressed by organizations like the NRA and the officials they help elect.

President Trump spent a lot of time on immigration during the STOU address and his divisive language has been chalked up to recharging his base.  After all, that’s the way he began his campaign last year, demonizing illegal immigrants.  This speech, however, was just the latest of many appeals to his ardent, right-wing supporters.

Most of Trump’s appointments to high-level government positions have been conservative, anti-abortion and anti-immigration individuals.  He strongly supported repealing Obamacare and he recently threw red meat to anti-abortion participants in the March For Life.  Trump attacked the mostly black NFL players who kneeled in protest during the National Anthem and he attempted to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States.  Whatever his base wanted, Trump delivered it.

The question on many minds, however, is why does Trump keep doing this?  Shouldn’t he be trying to unite the nation?   Doesn’t he care about moderate Republicans and Democrats?  Is this the right strategy for a reelection run in 2020?

Well, Trump has a much more pressing challenge to face — the Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.   The well documented facts known to the public indicate that Mueller has a case to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.  He may also have sufficient evidence to prove that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russians.  Remember — Mueller has a lot more information than we have.  I think those who claim this is a witch hunt based on fake news are deluding themselves.

I believe Trump’s objective with the “always-Trump” group is to keep them fired up and make sure congressional Republicans toe the line.  Hardcore Trump supporters would be enough to defeat any Republican candidate that goes against him.  Trump’s base is his insurance policy if he decides to fire Mueller or Assistant Attorney General Rob Rosenstein.  And they’ll discourage House Republicans from considering impeachment charges if it comes to that.  Trump uses his base to keep Republican politicians “on his team.”

Senator Jeff Flake (R-Az.) was an outlier.  He criticized Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and challenged the president early in 2017, so Trump turned against him.  Knowing that a well-financed candidate would oppose him in the primaries and seeing his low polling numbers, Flake dropped his reelection bid.   This lesson was not lost on other Republicans who learned to fear Trump’s ire and the wrath of his base.

Early in 2017 many congressional Republicans were relatively neutral.  The Senate and House Intelligence Committees opened bipartisan investigations of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.  Last May Republican Robert Mueller had bipartisan support when he was appointed as special counsel.

But last October Mueller charged former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates with conspiracy against the United States and money laundering.  Later Mueller announced that Trump’s former foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos and former national security advisor Michael Flynn had plead guilty to lying to the FBI.  Republican bipartisan attitudes began to change.  Many of these politicians are lawyers and some are former prosecutors.  They were well aware that the cases against Trump were serious threats to his presidency and they reacted.

Republicans became more critical of the FBI, the Justice Department and the Russia investigation.  But none were more aggressive than House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), a close Trump ally.

On Friday Trump authorized the release of a classified, partisan memo drafted by Nunes.  It chastises the FBI for the way it obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance warrant in October 2016 targeting Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, an American citizen.   The memo alleges that the warrant application was primarily based on an unsubstantiated “dossier” prepared by Christopher Steele, a British agent who was being paid by the Democratic National Committee.  It further alleges that the DNC involvement was omitted from the application and that Steele was biased against Trump.

But with all the GOP hype, I don’t think this memo contains anything shocking or the bombshell many Republicans wanted.  It is essentially an attempt to implicate Steele, the FBI and various Justice Department officials, including Rosenstein, in wrongdoing.   In a rare statement the FBI said it has “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”  Democrats on the Intel committee drafted a counter memo, which has yet to be approved for release.

In my opinion, this memo is not justification for firing anyone, let alone Mueller or his boss Rob Rosenstein.  It certainly doesn’t reveal an “American disgrace” that our fleckless President bemoans nor does it in any way vindicate him.  It’s just another attempt by Trump to undermine the independence of federal law enforcement agencies.  If anyone is doing anything shocking here, it is Trump.

Regardless, right-wing media cheered the memo’s release and demanded that the Mueller investigation be terminated.  So even though Nunes failed to deliver what he promised, he further stoked Trump’s base and reinforced their desire to shield Trump from impeachment.

Years ago, I was a computer programmer at the FBI in Washington.  Back then it was a tightknit organization that fiercely protected its untarnished reputation.  I don’t think that has changed.  Trump may discover it’s not wise to punch the guys who know where the bodies are buried.

The results of Mueller’s Russia investigation will out and I don’t believe Trump’s base can protect him from the consequences.

In the summer of 1968 I was working on the final few college credits I needed for a degree in mathematics and looking forward to a vacation with my wife and two-year old daughter.  Then one of my professors gave the class an impossible assignment; write a paper on an “original” mathematical theory.

I was floored.  How could I “invent” a mathematical concept from scratch?  But after considerable anger, punctuated with copious expletives, I tried to think outside the box.   My paper would describe how complex mathematical equations could be solved by a computer, sort of nascent artificial intelligence.  I had no idea how it would be received, but a B+ helped me pass the course.

Well, I believe researchers must think outside the box to deliver more effective health care at lower cost.  And artificial intelligence (AI) could greatly facilitate that effort.

Why is automation the number one eliminator of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.?  It reduces costs. But while U.S. manufacturers are making cheaper products to meet competition, health care gets more expensive every year, in part because there is less automation and little competition.

Computer power and AI have come a long way since the 1960s.  Initially smart technology in appliances like rice cookers was called “fuzzy logic” to dumb it down for the public.  Now it pervades our daily lives — but more is needed in medical facilities.

During my recent physical exam, a nurse practitioner – we need more of them too — discussed my medications, listened to my heart and lungs and ordered my yearly blood tests.  Why couldn’t an AI machine listen to my organs and assess how they are functioning?  I’ll bet the result would be as good as most specialists.  A smart phone or similar device could be used as a stethoscope at rural medical facilities and the signals transmitted to a central computer hundreds-of-miles away for analysis.

I have no doubt that a robot could take my blood sample and provide better information than a printed report that only shows if my blood chemicals are within healthy parameters.  And what if there was a computer database that contained blood analyses from patients all over the country, along with their medications and clinical history?  Could AI use such a resource for early detection of cancer, diabetes and other diseases?  I think so; and the result would be lower treatment costs and better medical outcomes.

The United States has the most expensive health care system among developed nations, with total costs exceeding $3.3 trillion in 2016 and administrative costs estimated to exceed $300 billion.  Yet Americans don’t use more health care than other countries or have better health.

Filling out four pages of forms every time I see a new physician frustrates me.  Paper shuffling doesn’t improve health care.  It just means more wasted effort and expense when my information could be maintained in a national database.  Does the doctor ever look at it, much less try to evaluate it?   Some are too busy seeing 50 or more patients every day.  One physician I considered had 85 patients on his daily schedule.

What if Medicare and Medicaid maintained a database on every beneficiary that included medical history, medications taken and historical blood test results?  I’ll bet it would result in more effective and less expensive health care.  Yes, there are privacy issues, but those can be handled.

Actually, a similar project called the Precision Medicine Initiative was started under President Obama’s administration by the National Institute of Health.  The NIH is assembling genomic information from a million volunteers for the world’s largest genetic library. It will be widely available to scientists and researchers in hopes of making faster advances in gene-based medicine.

Data like this is the raw material for dramatic medical discoveries.

But instead of greatly increased investments in medical science and other health care technology, most Republicans and many Democrats keep throwing money at the military. The Congressional Budget Office projects that defense will cost almost $7 trillion over the next decade.  This will exceed the discretionary spending for all other government functions.  And Republicans want further reductions in nondefense spending.

Republicans also favor turning government functions over to private industry.   But let’s face it, corporations are focused on making profits; they don’t give a damn if Americans have to pay more for health care.  In fact, some gain from it.  And many in Congress don’t care either so long as they can get reelected.

Medicare and Medicaid are two of the most expensive items in the federal budget and these programs simply aren’t sustainable long term with costs going up every year.  But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his colleagues in Congress have only one solution in mind — turn Medicare into a premium support system and reduce funding for Medicaid.  These GOP plans would cut health care benefits for millions of Americans and I don’t think they are politically viable.

Health care is critical for everyone, regardless of political party.   Voters need to be like my math professor and give politicians an impossible assignment; provide better health care at lower cost or you won’t graduate to another term.  Only then will legislators start thinking outside the box and find a way to get it done.

Exactly one year ago Saturday Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.  It was a day when our new president was more concerned about the size of his inaugural crowd than uniting the country.  It was also a day when former President George W. Bush gained a lot of respect from yours truly when he described Trump’s speech as “some weird s—t.”

President Trump had planned to fly off to Mar-a-Lago on Friday to celebrate his first year as president at a gala fundraiser with his rich friends.  They had paid $100,000 a couple for the pleasure of attending, or $250,000 to be seated at the main dinner table.  So much for Trump’s populist rhetoric and being the president of the working man.  But pity the poor stiffs who hoped to be showcased by actually sitting with “the man.”  Oh well, they won’t miss the extra $150,000 they shelled out.  As Trump told them over the Christmas holidays after signing the tax bill, “You all just got a lot richer.”

It is entirely fitting that Trump’s first anniversary as president was celebrated with a partial government shutdown; Trump has been working to shut it down with staffing and budget cuts since he took office.  But this impasse was over providing a solution for over 700,000 so-called “Dreamers,” the adults who were brought to the United states illegally as children.  President Obama had protected them in 2012 with an executive order called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  It has been a hot issue ever since.

After Mitt Romney’s stunning loss to Obama in 2012 — due in part to the Latino vote — a number of Senate Republicans suddenly became very interested in immigration reform.  That led a bipartisan group of eight senators, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), to draft an immigration reform bill.  It passed by a vote of 68 to 32 in the Senate.

Fourteen Republicans joined all Democrats in the vote, but all five Senate Republican leaders rejected the bill.  Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) claimed it didn’t provide sufficient border-security measures to stem future illegal immigration.  That was a ruse, just part of his continuing effort to thwart any type of an Obama victory.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), who was under pressure from far-right members of his caucus, never brought the Senate bill to the House floor for a vote.  The immigration issue was left to fester.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), along with several other senators from both parties, had been engaged in a bipartisan effort to solve the DACA problem for over six months when Trump decided to terminate DACA last September.  He gave Congress until March 5 of this year to provide a legislative solution.

With the deadline to fund the government approaching on Friday, both Democrats and Republicans knew that resolving DACA would complicate negotiations.  But Trump began giving encouraging signals to Democrats on Jan. 9.  He told a bipartisan group of congressmen that he favored a DACA deal and even immigration reform.

But when Trump set up a meeting on Jan. 11 with Durbin and Graham to discuss their proposal, several immigration hardline conservatives were there.  Trump’s earlier support turned into a profanity filled bruhaha during which Trump allegedly referred to Haiti and African countries as “s—tholes.”  Hopes for a compromise on DACA disintegrated.

Then Trump called Schumer to have lunch with him alone on Jan. 19, just 12 hours before a shutdown would occur.  Schumer said he agreed to put full funding of the border wall on the table, a concession his caucus hates.  And he left the meeting thinking a deal was close at hand.  His hopes were dashed when Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly called a few hours later.

I think this background is important in understanding why Schumer and Democrats decided to make failure to resolve DACA a deal breaker during Friday’s negotiations.  They probably sensed that if they didn’t get some agreement then, the DACA grace period would expire in a few weeks, paving the way for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to begin deportations.

Of course, Democrats are not blameless in this shutdown.  Perhaps they misjudged the situation.  But Trump opened the door to a DACA deal twice and then he slammed it in their faces.  Who can blame them for being angry and forcing the issue?

But Democrats were not the only ones riled by Trump’s vacillating.  McConnell showed his frustration during a news conference on Jan. 18 when he said “I’m looking for something that President Trump supports.  And he’s not yet indicated what measure he’s willing to sign.”

Lindsey Graham was also perturbed after Trump talked compromise at the Jan. 9 meeting and then abruptly backed away when he and Durbin went to the White House on Jan. 11.  Referring to the earlier meeting Graham said, “Now I don’t know where that guy [Trump] went. I want him back.”

On Saturday Trump’s campaign put out a video on illegal immigrants that accuses Democrats of being “complicit” in murder.  Does Trump think that will pave the way to a compromise?

This confrontation over funding the government and protecting Dreamers is Trump’s first real test as the President, both as a leader and a negotiator.  So far, he seems to be failing it miserably.