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.

In a Christmas email to a conservative friend I expressed concern about our democracy.  I didn’t mention President Donald Trump but I suppose it was obvious that Trump was at the center of my angst.  He responded that if I get my information from CNN and MSNBC — 80 percent of which he believes is negative — he could understand my worry about the direction of the country.  His major fear for democracy is the “attempt at a veritable coup d’état that the democrats and left are trying to engage in by trying ‘illegally’ to impeach and discredit this legally elected president.”

My friend has told me numerous times that Fox News is the only channel he watches and trusts; so I knew what influenced his comments.  I could have responded that except for a few commentators like Shep Smith and Chris Wallace, Fox is well known as an unabashed cheerleader and apologist for Trump and his administration.  I could have called out Fox’s primetime anchors Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who rarely utter a discouraging word about Trump but viciously blast progressives at every opportunity.

I also didn’t try to defend the mainstream media that Trump called “the enemy of the American people” or point out that Republicans are in control of the impeachment process and the legally impaneled congressional investigations of Trump and Russian election meddling.  Nor did I mention that former FBI director James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are both Republicans.  In fact, I didn’t respond at all at the time; it was the holiday season.

Actually, I was a bit miffed at the suggestion that I get my information from pundits.  I download publications from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget and from independent think tanks like the Tax Foundation, the Tax Policy Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation.  These are my sources for facts about tax and health care legislation.

When it comes to Trump and his administration I base my opinions on what they say, what they write and what they do.  Trump’s obvious lies are not fabricated by CNN; they come directly from his mouth and from his tweets.  I don’t need MSNBC to tell me that Trump is ignorant of the policies that he touts when he says things like, “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated?” or when he claims his tax cuts are mainly for the middleclass.

A liberal writer didn’t make up a story that Trump refused to produce his tax returns to prevent public scrutiny and created huge conflicts of interest by putting his sons in charge of Trump business interests.  Nor was it a figment of a reporter’s imagination that Trump spent 117 days visiting his properties last year and 91 days likely playing golf.  It may be outlandish, but it’s true.

Should the media ignore the fact that member fees were raised at Mar-a-Lago after Trump became president and that he benefits financially from these trips?  Didn’t Republicans and Fox News blast President Obama for far fewer golf games and vacations?

And what about Trump’s frequent public calls for the Justice Department to investigate the Clinton foundation again or reopen probes into Hillary’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State?  Aren’t those indirect orders to an agency that is supposed to be independent of presidential influence?  Isn’t he setting a precedent that his successor could use to prosecute him when he is out of office?

The news media didn’t invent Russia’s interference in our election process or cause U.S. intelligence officials to verify it.  They didn’t use high-tech animation to display Trump calling on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails or to show him praising Russian President Vladimir Putin during numerous public occasions.  He willingly did that.

I don’t have to listen to CNN or MSNBC to know that Donald Trump is a deeply flawed man who is tarnishing our republic.  The proof comes directly from what he says, what he writes and what he does.  Biased commentators didn’t convince me that Trump is unfit for office or that he displays a level of common decency far below what’s expected from a U.S. president.  He did.

So, I keep wondering, how many times does this president have to embarrass and weaken the United States by insulting our democratic allies and praising despots like Putin?  How many more lies must he utter now that fact-checkers have counted 2,000?  What crazy threat does he have to make with nuclear weapons?  What level of his conflicts of interest will cross a red line?  Or what terrible deed must Trump finally do before his supporters and the GOP say he’s gone too far?

This tendency to ignore how Trump is damaging our nation deeply troubles me.  My conservative friends are all intelligent, decent and honest people.  In short, not one of them is anything like this arrogant, insensitive man with a Mussolini-like pout and an authoritarian bent.  Yet, they still support him, apparently because he’s just cognizant enough to sign a tax bill and issue conservative-pleasing executive orders.

No, my friend, Democrats and the “left” won’t decide Trump’s fate; Republicans will.  And I believe the future of the GOP is in doubt if they put ideology and party before democracy and country – or at least, it should be.

There is ample evidence that Russians were deeply involved in disrupting the 2016 presidential election.  Hackers stole thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee. These emails were weaponized through Wilileaks and released at strategic times to damage Clinton during the summer and fall of 2016.

Russians were also involved in spreading disinformation through social media that disparaged Clinton and bolstered Trump’s erratic campaign.  During hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee lawyers for Facebook, Twitter and Google admitted that Russian agents surreptitiously established accounts on their sites starting in 2015.  With these platforms they presented false advertisements and spread inflammatory messages during 2016 that reached millions of Americans.  A lawyer for Twitter stated that 2,752 accounts suspected of Russian connections had been suspended – after the damage had been done.

Like drops from a leaky faucet, one after another of the connections between Russians and President Trump’s family members and his campaign staff splashed across the evening news.  Last May the intensifying Russian scandal led Trump to fire FBI director James Comey.  Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions had previously recused himself from the Russian investigation, Trump’s abrupt action caused Assistant Attorney General Rob Rosenstein to appoint Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Hearings by intelligence committees in the Senate and the House have been ongoing for almost a year.  Reports by these committees could be the only official source of information for the public on how deeply Russians were involved in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s complicity with these attacks.

Mueller’s investigative findings will only be made public when charges are filed against persons involved in criminal activities.  Two of Trump’s campaign staff have already pled guilty to lying to the FBI.  And Trump’s former campaign manager and his associate have been indicted for conspiracy and money laundering unrelated to Trump’s campaign.  These initial charges, however, could be just the tip of the iceberg if the investigation continues.

But after Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI in early November it became more obvious that members of the Trump campaign — and perhaps Trump himself – might have been involved in criminal activity.

I believe that Flynn’s guilty plea was a wakeup call for many congressional Republicans.  To maintain control of Congress in 2019 they decided they must protect Trump.  So, Republicans have pushed to shut down the investigations in Congress and are openly trying to discredit the FBI and the special counsel’s team.  Some are even pressuring Trump to fire Mueller.

Trump’s constant haranguing about further investigations of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s emails defects attention from him but also raises huge red flags about his attempts to influence the Justice Department.  Sadly, the FBI seems to be complying.

Justice Department investigations are supposed to be independent of presidential influence.  But Trump thinks he’s above the law and that the attorney general has a duty to protect him.  Clearly when Justice bends to his will a precedent is being set that undermines the very foundation of our system of justice and the Constitution.

In an attempt to cast suspicion on Mueller’s investigation House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) issued unprecedented subpoenas for sensitive FBI investigative documents.  He is backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).   Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have written the Justice Department seeking a criminal investigation of the ex-British agent who authored the damning Trump dossier.   After these blatant attempts to protect Trump — among others — every American should be demanding to know if Republicans are attempting to tip the scales in Trump’s favor.

The public also wants to know how the Mueller investigation will end.  Well, I believe there are several possibilities; and with Republican obstruction I don’t think the result will provide a satisfactory resolution of the issues.

If Trump fires Mueller – which I think is likely — the fate of the Russia investigation will fall to the public and to Congress.  After Nixon fired Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, public outcry forced him to appoint another special prosecutor.  There’s no way Trump would do that and Republicans in Congress would likely have his back.  They are already preparing for that possibility.

If Mueller’s investigation is allowed to run its course I believe it’s likely Trump will be charged with obstruction of justice and possibly criminal conspiracy in colluding with Russians during the election.  Whatever the charges, it appears that Republicans would refuse to impeach Trump in the House if they are still in control.  It appears they are in the process of making a case against impeachment.

The least likely outcome of Mueller’s investigation would be that no charges are brought against any other participants in Trump’s campaign so I won’t even go there.

Trump has Republicans on the horns of a dilemma and maintaining power is their overriding objective.  If he goes down, they fear they will go down with him.  If they can halt the investigations perhaps, just perhaps, they can keep control of Congress.  It is a risky gamble that I believe will leave this nation’s democratic processes in shambles.

In my opinion, the best outcomes – and those we should work diligently to effect – are that Republicans lose control of Congress in 2018 and that Trump either resigns in disgrace or is soundly defeated in 2020.

Exactly one year ago I published my first blog, predicting that 2017 would be a target-rich environment for bloggers.  That, of course, was a “no-brainer” and the year certainly lived up to my expectations.  This is my 43rd endeavor since then but now on the cusp of a new year it’s time to look ahead.

I believe we can expect a year when almost anything can happen, including a constitutional crisis requiring resolution by the Supreme Court, a change in control of Congress and President Donald J. Trump’s resignation.  Mind you, I’m not saying any of these events will occur; predicting anything in the age of Trump is a fool’s errand.

Still, there are a number of certainties that are on the horizon: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Republican-controlled Senate will confirm as many right-wing federal judges as possible this year.  McConnell will likely change the rules to speed this process just in case the GOP loses control of the Senate in 2019.

Another sure thing is that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will cause great confusion because the Internal Revenue Service is  poorly equipped to implement it.  I have been following the GOP’s war on the IRS for several years but many readers are probably unaware of the damage Republicans have done to this agency.

My research was validated by a recent New York Times editorial board article.  It confirmed that the IRS budget has been cut by almost $1 billion and its staff reduced by 21,000 since 2010.  Another report revealed that the IRS lost 6,801 of its permanent staffers in the first nine months of this year alone.  At the same time, it is processing ten million more returns with “decrepit” computers that operate using ancient technology.  Worse yet, the IRS compliance staff has been cut by one-third.  This means fewer audits and billions less revenue recovered from tax cheaters.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), one of the primary authors of the new tax law, was asked about more funding for the IRS to handle the changes.  He said: “[I]f they can make that case in conjunction with Treasury, we’ll listen.  But the assumption’s not, we’re opening up the pocketbook.”  Perhaps Brady doesn’t remember how President Ronald Reagan significantly increased IRS funding to cope with his 1986 tax reform.

Now, with precious little lead time and during its busiest four months of the year, the service must give guidance to employers in deducting withholding taxes next month and then write rules and design forms for a complete and complex overhaul of the tax code.  It will be a daunting task.

No doubt tax attorneys and accountants are spending this holiday weekend scouring the new law for loopholes they can implement for their clients.  Knowing that the IRS will struggle to do audits on 2018 returns, they will test the limits of the new regulations to the fullest.

The GOP tax bill was rushed through Congress, with changes made on the fly.  The inevitable mistakes will cause unintended consequences requiring technical corrections and perhaps significant revisions.  Complex legislation like the TCJA and The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) always necessitates corrections.  Republicans have so far refused to take any action to improve Obamacare.  It will be interesting to see how Democrats react when asked to shore up the TCJA.

Regardless, I believe there will be a significant reduction in federal revenues next year and a much larger increase in the deficits than analysts have projected.  This will be Speaker Paul Ryan’s excuse to cut entitlements even though McConnell seems reluctant to touch Medicare and Medicaid in an election year.  Both, however, are eager to offset their tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting benefits for our most vulnerable citizens.

But entitlement reform will have to wait on other critical legislation that Republicans neglected in the panic to pass tax reform.  Bills to fully fund the government and raise the debt limit, among others, must be passed by January 19.  Look for a legislative free-for-all in both chambers next month.

While Congress wrestles with contentious legislation, Trump will likely retreat further into his alternative reality as the Russian investigation puts pressures on him and his family.  His impromptu interview with a New York Times reporter last Thursday is a prime example.

Although Trump has frequently demonstrated ignorance of most issues, he told the reporter, “’I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest C.P.A. I know the details of health care better than most, better than most.”  He also bragged, “I’m the one that saved coal. I’m the one that created jobs. You know West Virginia is doing fantastically now.”

The Washington Post fact-checked this interview and found that Trump made 24 false or misleading statements in just 30 minutes.  But perhaps the most disturbing claim was when he said, “I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department.”  Does he mean he can fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller at will?  Does he think he can order the Justice Department to terminate the Russian investigation?  Perhaps we will find out before summer.

Yes, almost anything can happen this year with Trump in the White House.  The big question is, how will voters react come November?

++++++++++

I hope your holidays were filled with happiness and that the New Year brings you good health and prosperity.  Please continue to watch this space.

It appears that the Republican-controlled Congress is on the threshold of finally passing a significant piece of legislation this year.  President Trump is eager to make a huge deal out this so-called accomplishment, surrounded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and a gaggle of widely grinning Republicans.

There are around 239 GOP representatives in the U.S. House and 52 Republican senators in the upper chamber, plus thousands of staff members and more committees than I care to count.  Legislation and the legislative process are tightly controlled by the Republican leadership.  And there were some very important issues to resolve this year.

Let’s see how many were completed in 2017:  Opioid crisis relief funds legislated?  No!  Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) reauthorized?  Nope!    Undocumented “Dreamers” status resolved?  Nein!  Obamacare insurance subsidies passed?  Nyet!  Government funded and debt limit raised for fiscal year 2018? Not yet!  Hurricane disaster relief fully funded?  Maybe next year!

Well, how the heck did Republicans spend their time?  Trying to deprive millions of Americans of their health insurance?  Absolutely!  Pouring more money into our bloated, wasteful defense system?  Of course!  Working as fast as possible on a budget-busting, unpopular and unneeded tax cut for corporations and the rich?  Oh YES!

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah), who worked so diligently to craft a debt-funded tax bill, said that CHIP was held up because “we don’t have money anymore.”  Can you believe that?

But Speaker Ryan knows where to get the money for the military and tax cuts.  He wants to loot Medicare and Medicaid funding and reduce Social Security benefits.  Ryan readily admits these goals in legislation he has proposed.  To him it’s the most obvious thing to do and he discounts the human consequences.  He’s like Willie Sutton, the famous bank thief.  When asked why he robs banks Willie casually said, “That’s where the money is.”

Well, Ryan is right; so-called entitlement programs also have a lot of money to steal.  And most Republicans are convinced it’s being wasted on the poor.  They believe that if someone needs help with food, health care or housing or if they don’t have a job. it’s because they won’t work and want to live off the government.

Sen. Hatch stated this mindset perfectly after complaining that we don’t have the money for CHIP funding:  He said, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves – won’t lift a finger – and expect the federal government to do everything.”

Both Trump and his Republican enablers want to tackle welfare reform next year.  They claim their efforts will just involve “transitioning” people into the workforce.  What that means is they’ll cut entitlements in an attempt to force the “lazy” unemployed to get a job.  Problem is, many people receiving food stamps and Medicaid insurance already have a job; they just don’t make enough money to escape the poverty level.  And many others are children, elderly or disabled.

But like the Obamacare repeal and replace, when the public is apprised of how draconian the  GOP welfare reform legislation is and how it might affect them, they will oppose these changes as if their life depended on it – and it will fail too.  So not to worry; Democrats will sweep many of these right-wing radicals out of office before they can accomplish their worst objectives.  Most voters aren’t as naive and ignorant as Republicans think they are.

Even so, we are facing fiscal challenges for the next year or two and I’ve been giving a lot of thought to tax cuts and what motivates those who seek them.  During this ruminating something popped into my head that I hadn’t thought about in years – a quasi-religion called the “cargo cult.”

As I remember, the cargo cult evolved when a World War II twin-engine supply plane crashed on a remote Pacific island populated by a primitive tribe.  It was filled with amazing goods the villagers had never seen, clothing, food and wondrous metal tools.  They thought this largess must have come from a powerful deity and they developed a religion focused on encouraging the god to reward them again with more “cargo.”  This blessing never repeated, of course, but the sect flourished despite this failure.  I can’t be sure but believers probably ostracized doubters.

Now, I certainly don’t want to insult primitive peoples by comparing them to Republicans – although the two groups share some characteristics — but the GOP seems to have a cargo cult mentality on tax cuts.  Once upon a time — they can’t tell us exactly when – the GOP gave tax cuts to the wealthy and created an economic boom that flowed down to the middleclass and greatly benefited all Americans.  This “cut taxes for the wealthy and grow the economy” fairy tale — let’s call it the “tax cut cult” — became engraved on the political alter where Republicans worship.  And despite prodigious facts that dispute the cult’s validity their faith has been unshakeable.

So, even after this latest offering to the tax cut gods fails to produce results or causes a recession, the tax cut cult will regain prominence again someday.  Americans aren’t stupid, but they do have short memories.

Republicans are busy engineering a debt-financed tax cut.  That’s right; the federal government will be borrowing to pay for tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy and cash-rich corporations.  GOP politicians spent eight years lambasting President Barack Obama for deficit spending.  But they have no concern about running up huge deficits under President Donald Trump.  They just casually lie and say the tax cut will pay for itself with economic growth even though tax experts scoff at their claim.

This is what I want to know:  Why should our children and grandchildren be saddled with more debt in order to give corporations a tax cut?   Interest rates are relatively low.  If the demand for products and services is there, why shouldn’t companies be willing to borrow to expand their businesses?  I’m betting that House Speaker Paul Ryan and his caucus don’t have a good answer.

With unemployment around four percent and the economy perking along, Wall Street economists are concerned that more economic stimulus will result in higher inflation and Fed rate hikes.  This would increase interest payments on the national debt and add to the deficits.  But here’s the thing; runaway deficits don’t concern many conservatives.  They will use them as a pretext to slash spending on entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  But that’s another story.

Fortunately, the tax cuts can be fixed in the future; and unless the GOP is able to fill Congress with senators like Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, I don’t think they will be able to accomplish their goal to decimate the social safety net.  But Trump’s Friday night speech in Pensacola, Florida raises concerns of a much higher level.  And it should chill all democracy loving Americans to the bone.

Trump’s ramblings were mostly to support Roy Moore. This is the guy who allegedly preyed on teenaged girls while he was in his 30’s.  If true, this alone should bar him from the Senate.  But there are many other good reasons to make sure Moore is never elected to Congress:

He was twice-removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to obey a federal court order and a law regarding gay marriage.  Over the years he has expressed his beliefs that homosexual conduct should be illegal, that kids in drive-by shootings are acting like animals because evolution taught them they come from animals, that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. House because he is a Muslim, and that Obama was not born in the United States.  Another statement he made mirrored one made by Trump; he put the U.S. on the same level as Russia in doing “bad things” and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Of course, Trump didn’t highlight any of Moore’s faults.   But he did mock Hillary Clinton — which of course prompted the crowd to chant, “lock her up!  lock her up!”  In that context he told the crowd, “Look, it’s being proven we have a rigged system.  Doesn’t happen so easy. But this system, there will be a lot of changes.”

Referring to Washington he said, “They will lie and leak and smear, because they don’t want to accept the results of an election where we won by a landslide.”

He criticized the Democratic “resistance” to his presidency saying, “They’re resisting the will of the American people — that’s what they’re resisting.”  Later he said, “They are resisting progress. They’re resisting change. Because the only thing they really care about is protecting what they have been able to do, which is really control the country and not to your benefit.”

But worst of all was Trump’s disgraceful take-down of American institutions: “This is a rigged system. This is a sick system from the inside. And, you know, there’s no country like our country, but we have a lot of sickness in some of our institutions, and we’re working very hard. We’ve got a lot of them straightened out, but we do have — we really do — a rigged system in this country, and we have to change it. Terrible. Terrible.”

It is difficult to know what Trump is talking about when he speaks.  His mashed-up logic and fractured sentences defy analysis.  At rallies like Pensacola he likely says whatever pops into his head.  And his mouth is as disorganized as his thoughts.  So when he talks about sickness in “our institutions” is he referring to the courts, the media, the Congress, what?  Well, I think he’s referring to any institution that challenges his will.

David Brooks, the well-known conservative columnist and talk-show guest, published a column last week entitled, “The GOP is rotting.”  In it he wrote, “There is no end to what Trump will ask of his party. He is defined by shamelessness, and so there is no bottom. And apparently there is no end to what regular Republicans are willing to give him. Trump may soon ask them to accept his firing of Robert Mueller, and yes, after some sighing, they will accept that, too.”

Brooks may be right about firing Mueller.  And if so, I think our only chance to remain a democracy is if the GOP becomes so rotten it crumbles.  Let’s pray that Trump and his Republican enablers don’t destroy our republic before that happens.

My last blog attempted to inject a little humor in the news, which admittedly is abysmal.  It is my sense that people are getting so depressed by the news that they can’t deal with it anymore.  But we can’t let a feeling of hopelessness prevail or Republicans will succeed with their egregious policies like cutting taxes for the wealthy and politicizing the federal judiciary.

Federal courts are the keystone of the Constitution’s separation of powers.  When the executive branch or the legislative branch infringes individual rights we citizens have the courts to redress our grievances.  But what if the courts become tools of the controlling political party?  That not only could happen, it’s already happening.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is an unscrupulous, power-hungry politician who will do anything to retain his leadership status and promote the Republican Party, mostly in that order.  After Barack Obama was elected in 2008 Minority Leader McConnell devised a plan to thwart everything President Obama attempted.

For years McConnell blocked many of Obama’s choices for executive branch positions and federal judgeships.  Finally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) implemented the so-called “nuclear option” in 2013 for executive appointments and lower court nominations.  This prevented McConnell from using a filibuster to obstruct Obama from filling federal court vacancies for a time.

When Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014, however, McConnell had complete control of the agenda.  This culminated with his blocking of Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Anthony Scalia’s death.  Some Republicans in Congress even threatened to block Hillary Clinton’s nominations to the Supreme Court had she won the presidency.

McConnell’s strategy paid off big when Donald Trump won last November.  President Trump has an unprecedented opportunity to appoint hundreds of federal judges, including several Supreme Court justices.  In fact, Trump’s only significant win after a year in office has been Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Now Trump and McConnell are attempting to fill federal court vacancies ASAP and the primary qualifications seem to be white, male and very conservative.  The Trump administration no longer allows the American Bar Association to vet nominees before they are announced and several approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee under chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) were evaluated by the ABA as “unqualified.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have tended to nominate justices that were more inline with their political philosophies over the years but never in such a blatant attempt to ensure that judicial decisions are based on politics instead of the law.  Moreover, today’s conservative objectives are less about small government, fiscal restraint and balanced budgets and more about outlawing abortions, quashing gay rights, preventing immigration and promoting so-called religious freedom.

Republicans have switched from controlling spending to controlling peoples’ lives and imposing their social conservative views on the populace.  That is a dramatic and ominous pivot and I believe they intend to totally use the courts to accomplish their objectives.

Loading the federal courts with unqualified, far-right conservatives is threatening enough but congressional Republicans may attempt a much more ambitious goal by expanding the number of judges on the appellate courts.  That would enable Trump to appoint conservative majorities on all of them.

Steven G. Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and board chairman of the conservative Federalist Society, has authored an article entitled “Proposed Judgeship Bill.”  In it he recommends that the Republican-controlled Congress double or triple the number of judges on the federal appellate courts and add hundreds of federal district court judgeships.  Calabresi brazenly stated his objective: “undoing the judicial legacy of President Barack Obama.”

Conservative media is rife with conspiracy theories and no doubt there are some from the left too.  Well, here is one from the center — and I think it has legs:  Conservatives are conspiring to virtually eliminate the Democratic Party and all liberal influence on government policies.  They are seeking a one-party government of the wealthy, a plutocracy.  And there is ample evidence of this.

Republican controlled states used the 2010 census to engage in radical redistricting that almost guaranteed Republican control of state congressional delegations.  After the conservative majority on the Supreme Court substantially gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Republican-controlled states enacted strict voter ID laws that make voting harder for minorities and other typical Democrats.  And now the Justice Department under far-right Attorney General Jeff Sessions has stopped challenging these states’ efforts to suppress voting rights.

The Supreme Court currently has a conservative majority but just think of what will happens to our constitutional rights if all federal appellate courts have conservative majorities?  The answer is quite clear.  Radical conservative policies will be imposed on we the people.

The political upheavals of the 1960s, with Vietnam and assassinations, were horrific; Watergate revealed corruption and criminality at the highest levels of government; and the costly invasion of Iraq was probably the worst foreign policy decision in the nation’s history.  But none of these past earth-shaking upheavals fundamentally threatened our democracy.  What Trump and the GOP are doing to undermine the Constitution by politicizing the courts definitely does — and it’s a clear and present danger.

So Don’t be anxious, be angry.  Don’t be depressed, be dedicated to challenging Republican legislative abominations; and donate to organizations that oppose them.  Now is a time for redoubled action, not resignation.