When Republicans took control of the Senate in 2015 Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proclaimed that serious adults were now in charge.  Well, they sure haven’t proven it.  The Republican controlled Congress didn’t accomplish much in 2015 or 2016 and so far in 2017 they have accomplished even less.  I think their failures were caused by the reasons why the GOP can’t govern.

Reason one is because the party is unbelievably divided.  Although Senate Republicans are somewhat easier for McConnell to control, Senators like Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are quite willing to advocate their extreme positions and disrupt party unity.

In the House the ultra-right Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee comprise more than 170 members, many of whom align with the Tea Party.  Their mission is to cut spending and reduce deficits.  They don’t want to appropriate federal funds for anything except defense.

The intransigence of right-wing House members was apparent in July 2011 when they almost succeeded in causing a catastrophic default on the nation’s debt.  They were also the main cause of the partial government shutdown in October 2013.  As a result of their radical positions on spending there has not been one normal federal budgeting process since Republicans took control of the House in 2011.  Finally they forced Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) to resign from Congress in 2015 because he negotiated with Democrats to pass critical government funding bills and debt limit increases that they opposed.

Now Republicans have President Donald Trump in the White House and majorities in both chambers of Congress.  Legislating should be smooth sailing, right?  Wrong!  In March the Freedom Caucus initially refused to support the GOP’s American Health Care Act (AHCA) because it wasn’t “mean” enough.  Eventually they found a way to make it meaner.

The Senate version of the AHCA may be somewhat softer, but Senators Paul, Cruz and Lee are objecting to the improvements.  More moderate Republican Senators think the Senate version “is not the answer.”  Even if the Senate passes a health care bill next week it will go back to the House where the conservative cabal has already said it won’t pass in its current form.  Is there a clear path to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) this year?  I don’t think so.

Meanwhile tax reform is waiting in the wings.  This is every Republican’s favorite legislation and should be an easy lift.  But the White House and some conservatives are objecting to the border adjustment tax favored by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), perhaps because it is a tax increase.  This brings me to the second reason the GOP can’t govern — Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes on anything.

The vast majority of congressional Republicans have signed Grover’s pledge.  It’s not just some aspirational promise; it is a blood oath that Norquist enforces with ample funding from his Americans for Tax Reform organization.  Republicans who want to avoid a primary challenger in the next election must vote against any type of tax increase.

Consequently there is almost no spending program Republicans will support if it involves increasing taxes or deficits.  Infrastructure is a prime example.  Our roads, bridges, water systems and airports are in desperate need of upgrade and repair.  All citizens should recognize this and be willing to pay a little more in taxes, particularly the wealthy.  Instead, Republicans want to give them a tax cut.

The third reason is the GOP’s reluctance to compromise on issues unless absolutely necessary.   Hounded by conservative media commentators on Fox News and by radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh most Republicans in Congress fear taking a moderate position on legislation or making a deal with Democrats.  The AHCA and tax reform are prime examples.

In 2010 Minority leader McConnell railed against the Democrats’ use of budget reconciliation to pass Obamacare with only Democratic votes.  But now he plans on passing both the Obamacare replacement and tax reform with the same process. Unfortunately for McConnell, reconciliation can only be used twice this year.  It is hard to see how Congress will get any other major legislation passed without dreaded compromises.

Last, but certainly not least, are the GOP’s core policies.   Republicans are anti-gun control, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-climate change, anti-Muslim and some say anti-women.  Republican controlled states have pushed some of these policies but most have not gained traction in Congress.  Trump’s base of mostly older, white supporters may love the GOP agenda but these folks are only around 35 percent of the voting population.

Thankfully the majority of younger and many older Americans do not hold the same views. Poll after poll shows that they favor stricter gun controls and environmental regulations; they agree that climate change is an important issue; they aren’t strongly against abortions; and they are much more accepting of gays, immigrants and Muslims.  Chances are that most voters will push back hard against Republican attempts to legislate their far-right policies like the AHCA.

This legislation clearly shows that Republicans are not trying to solve a health care problem by replacing Obamacare; their objectives are to cut taxes on the wealthy and pay for it by permanently rolling back the Medicaid insurance program that covers nearly one in five Americans.

No political party can govern by robbing from the poor to benefit the rich.

The Crawford Counties of the nation are a big reason why Donald Trump won the 2016 election and probably why Republicans control the majority of state houses.  I think the votes in these mostly rural areas reflect dissatisfaction with Washington and Congress.  And perhaps even white voters were listening when Trump encouraged African-American citizens to vote for him by saying, “What the hell do you have to lose?”

Crawford County borders the Mississippi River in Southwestern Wisconsin.  It is one of the state’s poorest with a 2014 population of 16,392.  Recently Associated Press reporter Claire Galofaro wrote an interesting article on this area entitled, “Voters await economic revival in a part of pro-Trump America.”

Crawford is a small, predominately white, Midwestern county where most of the ambitious young people leave for college or a better job and they don’t come back.  Those who stay carry on the business or the farming that sustained their parents or work in one of the area’s small shops.  Only 15 percent of the residents have a college education.  This area of Wisconsin  appears to be fairly representative of Middle America.

The local 3-M plant and a Cabela’s distribution center employ hundreds of workers.  But jobs that pay above $12 per hour are hard to find and the $44,000 median household income is $9,000 below the state average.  Even couples who are both employed find it difficult to make ends meet.

Of the people Ms. Galofaro interviewed many had voted for Barack Obama.  So why then would they cast their lot with Donald Trump?

Well, one 50+ year-old woman who is working in a small factory sewing sports uniforms for $10.50 per hour switched.  Although she still admires President Obama; she can’t afford health insurance.  A dairy farmer whose profits have been plummeting thinks Trump is a jerk but was willing to take a chance with him.  These and others in the area see low wages that aren’t rising and health care costs that are.  They have an uneasy feeling that their situation will not get better while the fortunes of others – perhaps the elite Trump railed against — are improving.

Further east in another depressed area is McDowell County, West Virginia.  According to a Washington Post article, chronic diseases cause this county to have the shortest life expectancy in the nation.  At one of the five clinics operated by the Tug River Health Association a nurse practitioner treats a lot of unemployed coal miners.  Many of them once had good paying jobs and company health insurance.   For now they are able to get free health care due to the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  In fact, last year 61 percent of the 20,000 visits to Tug River’s clinics were covered by Medicaid.

One 54 year- old miner walks with a cane and suffers from diabetes, arthritis, diverticulitis, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.  He may no longer be employable but he listened to Trump’s promises to bring coal jobs back.  He didn’t understand what problems repealing Obamacare would cause but figured that if he had a job that provided health insurance he wouldn’t need Medicaid.  So he joined the 74 percent of the county that voted for Trump.

It is likely that a large percentage of these voters benefit from government assistance of some kind, not only Obamacare and Medicaid but food stamps and Medicare.  Yet a recent survey showed that 36 percent of West Virginians favored the GOP’s American Health Care Act, one of the highest approval ratings among the states.

Swift County, Minnesota is a rural area a couple hours’ drive west of Minneapolis.  In 2010 the Prairie Correctional Facility closed, eliminating more than 350 jobs.  This was devastating for a population of 9,700.  Thereafter the poverty rate increased and unemployment soared.  The local farmers were in a bind because the global commodity markets tanked and so did prices for corn, wheat and soybeans.

Although Swift County voted heavily Democratic in the past, last year Trump beat Hillary Clinton by taking 59 percent of the vote.  These voters believed the recovery hadn’t reached them so they took a chance that Trump’s promises might improve their economic conditions.

Recent statistics show that rural counties are voting for Republicans while urban counties are strong for Democrats. According to researchers at Brookings less than 500 counties across the nation voted for Clinton in the 2016 election; Trump won in around 2,600.  But the counties that voted for Clinton produce an astounding 64 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.

Obviously Trump’s supporters live in less productive areas where folks must wonder how his budget will help them.   Well, here is some of what it calls for over 10 years:  Medicaid cut by $610 billion on top of the AHCA’s cuts of $800 billion, agriculture cut by $46.5 billion, including support for crop insurance, education cut by $143.2 billion and food stamps cut by 190.9 billion.

Not all of Trump’s cruel budget will be included in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations but you can bet Congress will reduce federal spending significantly.  Meanwhile Trump is proposing tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy urban counties and he’s flip-flopping on health care and other promises he made to his rural county base.

So I have to wonder — what does Crawford County think of Trump now?

While most of the nation was focused on former FBI director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday other important issues were brewing.  The investigations of Russian hacking and the involvement of Donald Trump’s campaign may take years to resolve; here is what was on the front burner last week.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put the Obamacare replacement legislation on a fast track and told President Trump that a bill would be passed before the July 4 recess.  Unfortunately we don’t know what’s in this bill.  It is being drafted in secrecy by a dozen or so conservative Senate Republicans.  No problem, Trump will sign it without hesitation and tout it as a huge advancement for health care. 

The Senate will make some improvements to the American Health Care Act that was passed by the House.  Still, the final GOP bill will leave millions of people without health insurance.  Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood will likely be eliminated and those who receive subsidies may be prevented from purchasing policies that cover abortion — same old, same old.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is creating uncertainty in the Obamacare markets that is driving up premiums.  Insurance companies in these markets need assurance from Trump that they will receive payments of cost-sharing reductions next year for those low income policy holders that need help with co-pays and deductibles.  In North Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield would have asked for an 8.8 percent premium increase for 2018 but due to the cost-sharing payment uncertainty the company asked for a 22.9 percent increase. 

One way or another, Republicans are determined to cripple Obamacare and make health care much less affordable for millions of U.S. citizens.  And they are likely to make premiums more expensive for the rest of us too. 

This week the House passed the Choice Act.  This legislation dismantles most of the protections provided by the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed in 2010 in response to the 2008 financial crisis.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) introduced the Choice Act.  He said the Lehman bankruptcy “worked as it should have worked.”  In other words when large financial institutions fail they should not be rescued by the taxpayers or subject to Dodd-Frank’s orderly liquidation authority that was designed to avoid a taxpayer bailout.  The Choice Act repeals that authority and allows bankruptcy chaos to control.

I suspect that there are very few members of Congress who understand what Dodd-Frank does to protect  taxpayers and consumers from uncontrolled financial practices.  But one of its key provisions was to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that consolidated the responsibility for 10 separate consumer protections under one agency. 

The C.F.P.B. has authority to prosecute unfair, abusive and deceptive practices like the fake accounts Wells Fargo created for its clients.  The Choice Act would repeal that authority.  Reports indicate the C.F.P.B. has recovered around $12 billion for 29 million consumers who were damaged by questionable bank practices.  The Choice Act would essentially pull the bureau’s teeth.

Keep in mind that Republicans wanted market forces to correct the growing financial crisis created by the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.  The majority of Republicans in the House (101) voted against President George W. Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program in October 2008.  Without TARP’s stabilizing effects the financial markets could have collapsed, leading to a worldwide depression and a ravaged global economy.  

So what says the GOP; we’ll turn the clock back to 2008, que sera sera.

Although congressional Republicans are still working on a tax cut for the wealthy, milestone tax legislation was passed in Kansas last week.  The Republican controlled legislature overrode the veto of Republican governor Sam Brownback and voted for an income tax increase.

Yes, you read that right; Republicans actually approved a tax increase that will raise Kansas revenues by $1.2 billion over the next two years.  It rolled back some of Brownback’s massive tax cut that took effect in 2013.  At the time Brownback told the Wall Street Journal: “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’ “   And he told TV talk show host Joe Scarborough, “We’ll have a real live experiment.”

Well, Kansas built a tax haven for businesses — but they didn’t come.  Instead Kansas legislators had to slash budgets for state services, including funding for education, libraries, public health programs and court systems.  Reports indicate that Kansas school teachers left the state in droves.  Kansas burned through its $700 million reserve fund and took $1 billion from the highway improvements fund to pay for Brownback’s tax cuts.   Even a large sales tax increase in 2015 didn’t help much.

Since 2013 Kansas credit ratings have been downgraded several times; Kansas gross domestic product increases have lagged the nation’s GDP performance significantly; and private employment growth in Kansas from 2013 through March 2017 was 45 percent less than U.S. employment growth.  In short, the “cut taxes and grow the economy” experiment failed miserably, not only in Kansas but in other Republican controlled states like Oklahoma and Louisiana. 

Obamacare and Dodd-Frank have been beneficial for health care and consumer protection while tax cut experiments have flopped.  These facts mean nothing to Republicans.  They are driven by ideology and can’t be bothered by evidence of which programs actually work.   

Congress has been in session since January 3, with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress and a newly elected Republican president in the White House.  Congressional Republicans were all smiles as they quickly passed a concurrent budget resolution for fiscal years 2017 through 2026.  This would be their vehicle to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with 51 votes under the budget reconciliation process.

That was over four months ago and not much has been accomplished since.  Oh, the House finally passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), but it is wildly unpopular all over the country.

During this Memorial Day week the House is in recess — again.  So far this year the House has been in session for only 67 days.  They will have just 31 total days in session during June and July and they will be off the entire month of August.  No wonder members of Congress will do anything to keep this job.

Well, here is what they haven’t done yet and must get done before October.

Health Care – First, the Senate needs to pass some form of the AHCA, which is not a sure thing.  If the Obamacare replacement isn’t signed by President Donald Trump before September 30, the concurrent budget resolution vehicle they are using could become void.

FY 2018-2027 Budget – Trump has sent his budget proposal to Congress.  It’s called “A New Foundation for American Greatness.”  Several top level Republicans said it was “dead on arrival.”  Still, both chambers must pass a concurrent budget resolution for these fiscal years and start the appropriations process.  This resolution will be the vehicle for another reconciliation process to pass tax reform without needing Democratic votes.  Already they are a month behind.

Appropriations Bills – I don’t think there has been one normal budget process since the GOP took control of the House in 2011.  Typically Congress uses a combination of the president’s budget and their concurrent resolution on the budget – neither of which is binding — to pass 12 individual discretionary spending bills for the fiscal year starting on October 1.  These bills are signed by the president.  I seriously doubt that Congress will be able to produce 12 coherent appropriations bills by September 30 and they may have to kick the can down the road with a continuing spending resolution like they have for the past six years.

Raise the Debt Limit – The federal debt limit was reached on March 15 so there can be no more government borrowing until that limit is raised.  Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin can use “extraordinary measures” to keep the government funded for several more months but due to slow revenue collections since March he has requested a “clean” debt limit increase bill from Congress by the end of July.  Far-right Republican House members may try to obstruct this process with poison-pill amendments like they did during President Obama’s administration.  Hopefully another debt limit crisis will be avoided.

Tax Reform – Tax reform, or at least a tax cut, is the most important item on the Republican agenda, and always is.  Trump has proposed a tax cut plan and so has House Speaker Paul Ryan.  But there is no broad GOP consensus on various taxing issues.  Ryan’s plan includes a border adjustment tax that would raise $1 trillion over 10 years.  Trump and Senate Republicans aren’t on board with this tax.  Ryan wants revenue neutral tax reform that won’t increase deficits.  Mnuchin says Trump’s plan will pay for itself by increasing economic growth.  That claim is laughable.

With all of these legislative requirements and such a limited legislative schedule, it is almost certain that Congress will not be able to pass tax reform this year.  If anything, they may adjust the rates for corporations and perhaps do some fiddling with the individual tax code and rates.  But simply reducing tax rates will cause deficits to increase significantly and they are already at unacceptable levels.

Infrastructure – During the presidential campaign Trump continuously touted his $1 trillion infrastructure program.  Stock market pundits hailed the “stimulus” that Trump would bring to the economy, along with the tax reform.  (Funny, stimulus was a dirty word when Obama was president.)  Trump’s budget does include language about a trillion dollar infrastructure program. But it actually includes only $200 billion of infrastructure spending over the next 10 years, $5 billion in 2018 and $25 billion in 2019.  I don’t call that stimulus.  At the same time Trump is proposing cuts in nondefense discretionary spending of $1.2 trillion over 10 years.  Those cuts would affect the economy too – negatively.

Watching Trump and the GOP leadership in Congress is like watching an extended showing of the Keystone Kops, a classic early 1900s silent film comedy series.  It featured inept policemen in pursuit of the bad guys, running around in hilarious confusion.  Come to think of it, the policies Republicans are pursuing are early 1900s too.  But what is going on in Congress these days is not very silent and certainly not funny.

There is one joke though, the approach Republicans in Congress take to work.  They are keen to put work requirements on people who receive food stamps and Medicaid but they are loath to put tough work requirements on themselves.

This is a line from a prophetic, 1985 Bruce Springsteen song, “My Home Town.”  It ends with “and they ain’t coming back.”  The song tells the tale of many hometowns across America during the past several decades.  In spite of what President Donald Trump claims about jobs, he won’t bring them back.  The economy and technology have changed dramatically over the past three decades; political slogans, bombast and arm twisting aren’t solutions.

Just look at Amazon.com to see the writing on the wall.  Orders are taken by computer.  A robot goes out into a giant warehouse, picks a product off a shelf and delivers it to a shipping area.  A few days later it arrives at the customer’s door.  Is it any wonder Labor Department statistics show that jobs at traditional department stores have fallen 46 percent in the last 15 years?

A recent study by Cornerstone Capital Group predicts that 6 million to 7.5 million of the 16 million retail jobs in the U.S. will “likely” be lost to robots and other automation techniques in the coming years.  Even these jobs aren’t that great according to a Business Insider bar graph displayed in this study.  It shows that only four out of 29 well-known retailers pay at or above the poverty wage.

Manufacturing has long been a key area for robots and automation.  Any new factory being built or upgraded today will certainly incorporate all of the automation possible.  High productivity is the key to effective competition in the global economy.  No doubt cheap labor is a factor in moving production offshore, but I have read that even Chinese manufacturers are automating.  They are concerned about plants moving to other Asian countries where labor is even cheaper. It is a race to the bottom.

Is U.S. manufacturing in decline?  Not according to a Ball State University study published in June 2015.  It painted a rosy picture of manufacturing in the U.S.  This sector has been robust since the end of the Great Recession and the manufacturing production index has a healthy upward trend line.  However, the study found that automation was responsible for almost 88 percent of manufacturing jobs lost over the last two decades.

In its conclusion the study advocated corporate income tax reform, which I think is needed.  It also put great emphasis on education, stating that federal and state governments should actively support secondary and tertiary level education reforms that provide the mathematical and cognitive skills needed to prepare students for employment in manufacturing,

Unfortunately Republicans don’t show much interest in promoting the education programs that experts propose; Trump’s budget proves it.  It would cut 13 percent from education funding for fiscal year 2018 alone.  One published summary calculated that over 10 years Trump’s budget would cut federal funding for K-12 and vocational education by 16 percent and higher education funding by 41.6 percent.

So what are the GOP proposals to aid the blue-collar workforce?  Well, they are always the same:  Eliminate “job killing” regulations — that protect workers and the environment — and cut taxes for the wealthy.  Instead of increasing funding for job training, Trump’s budget would decrease federal support for these services and shift more funding responsibility to the states.

Question is can the states afford it?  In January the Urban Institute released a study entitled “State Budgets in the Trump Era.”  This study opens with an important statistic that I have used numerous times: Federal funding averages over 30 percent of all state budgets.  State education programs are a significant beneficiary of these funds.

According to the UI study, over 50 percent of state budgets were facing deficits at the beginning of 2017 due to decreased revenue and increased demands on services.  With GOP budget proposals like the American Health Care Act, Republicans are hell-bent on decreasing federal funding for states and increasing the demands on state governments.

Trump is not going to bring many jobs back by threatening manufacturers.  As recently reported in Time Magazine, Rexnord Industries, a Milwaukee based company that makes ball bearings at a plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, will move that plant to Mexico this year.  So far 200 of the 300 employees have been laid off.  Sadly, some of them are training their Mexican replacements.  Going forward the company is investing in automation that could eliminate workers elsewhere.  Trump criticized Rexnord in several tweets.  Management just ignored him.

Repealing regulations will not bring jobs back to coal country.  Technology, cheap natural gas and alternative energy have eliminated many of those jobs.  Like the song says, “they ain’t coming back.”  To make matters worse, Trump’s budget would eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, which was designed to strengthen economic growth in Appalachia.

A large infrastructure program would help create good jobs but it won’t solve the systemic jobs problem.  Congress must provide focused funding for retraining programs to help currently displaced workers and support better education for those who will enter the work force over the next decade.  However, instead of making these investments that enhance our economic future, Republicans want to cut funding for them.

I don’t think the GOP’s 1980s tax cutting ideology will solve today’s jobs problems; and Trump’s budget cuts will no doubt exacerbate them.  So those Trump voters who are counting on him to produce a jobs miracle will likely have a long wait.

Republicans revel in President Ronald Reagan’s supply-side theories that critics call “trickle-down” economics.  They believe tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy lead to investments in plants and equipment, which theoretically result in economic growth that trickles-down to create jobs for working Americans.  But huge tax cuts in 1981, 2001 and 2003 helped create mounting federal budget deficits.

In fact, the fiscal year 2009 deficit that resulted from the Great Recession and tax cuts by President George W. Bush was horrendous.  So in 2010 President Barack Obama appointed a fiscal responsibility and reform commission named for its co-chairs, Alan Simpson, a Republican, and Erskine Bowles, a Democrat.

The Simpson-Bowles Commission designed a tax reform plan that repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminated deductions, lowered rates and taxed capital gains and dividends like ordinary income.  Individuals would be subject to three brackets, 28 percent, 22 percent and 12 percent; corporations would be subject to a 28 percent income tax rate.

These lower tax rates might look like a Republican dream.  But unlike every GOP tax plan since Reagan, the S-B plan would significantly raise revenues.  The commission co-chairs reasoned that deficits could only be reduced by a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts; so they proposed significant spending cuts too, including common sense reforms of so called entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

A simpler, fairer tax code that increases revenues would be a good first step in trickle-up economics.  The next step would be implementing the S-B recommendations for eliminating duplicate government programs, providing more resources for reducing fraud in government programs and making government more efficient.

Increased revenues and reduced spending will lower the federal deficits; but that’s only one goal of trickle-up.  Americans must be able to earn a wage that lifts them out of poverty and makes them tax payers instead of welfare recipients.  The current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour subsidizes the profits of Walmart, McDonalds and other low wage employers while burdening U.S. taxpayers with the cost of providing food stamps and Medicaid to their underpaid employees.

So the minimum wage should be raised appropriately and indexed to inflation.  It doesn’t have to be one size fits all; a wage scale could be established that covers teenaged workers and other employees with special circumstances where a lower wage might be appropriate.

Greater federal revenues and controlled government spending would also mean that more robust investments could be made in infrastructure, research and other programs that improve the economy.  Infrastructure projects were advocated by candidates from both parties during the 2016 election cycle. These projects just make sense.  Spending on bridges, roads, etc. creates good paying construction jobs and spending by these workers generates even more jobs.  Contrary to Republican dogma, government spending — which is around 20 percent of Gross National Product (GDP) — does create jobs.

Now let’s talk about trickle-up.  Consumer spending is around 70 percent of GDP.  The economy expands when consumers are doing well and spending.  New car sales improve, construction of new homes surges, Walmart revenues increase and people eat at McDonald’s more often.  Strong corporate revenues and profits cause stock prices to increase, which benefits the wealthy.  Just consider what happened during President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Clinton engineered a significant tax increase in 1993 and he worked with congressional Republicans to reduce government spending.  The result was a booming economy, a soaring stock market and a federal budget that had surpluses from 1998 through 2001.  Clinton left office with unemployment at historic lows and the highest job creation record, on record, easily beating tax cutting icon Ronald Reagan.  But then the Bush administration took over.

After inheriting a balanced budget in 2001Bush cut taxes twice and started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  His tax cuts reduced federal revenues by an estimated $1.5 trillion over 10 years.  The two wars sacrificed over 6,000 American lives and they cost taxpayers an estimated $3 trillion.  Economic growth wasn’t strong under Bush and there was very little trickle-down.  So he ended his eight years in office with the devastating Great Recession, huge federal deficits and the worst job creation record, on record.

Unfortunately Republicans never seem to learn.  This year they again want a massive tax cut and increased military spending.  They have talked about a $1 trillion infrastructure program but recent reports indicate that it is more talk than a plan; and it will take a back seat to tax reform.  Well, we’ve tried cutting taxes for the wealthy.  These cuts left the middleclass hoping that the economic benefits would trickle-down to them; but they didn’t.

So let’s start on a significant, government-funded infrastructure program; the nation needs it.  Then enact a simpler, fairer tax code that increases revenues; we need that too.  And raise the minimum wage to put more money in the hands of consumers; they’ll spend it.  What if Wall Street bankers have to pay a little more to the IRS?  Let them hope that the economic growth from consumer spending trickles-up through the stock market to offset their added tax burden; it just might happen.

To me, trickle-up economics makes just as much sense trickle-down.

Footnote:  I thought it would be a welcome change to write a blog without mentioning the name of — well, you know who.

There is a reality TV show entitled “Naked and Afraid.”  I have never watched it but advertising clips depict men and women in dangerous, wild environments running around au natural and encountering numerous scary survival situations.  Well, after several months of President Donald Trump’s administration I am beginning to understand how the characters in this show must feel, unprotected and vulnerable.

First we have an incompetent, autocratic leader in President Trump.  His constant lying has destroyed his credibility.  What is more unsettling than a president you can’t trust?  Another appointment or two to the Supreme Court could allow Trump to do whatever he pleases to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, particularly minorities.  The pliable Republican leadership in Congress has shown its willingness to do Trump’s bidding, even defending some of his absurd decisions.

Appointing Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general was the first step down a dark path.  Sessions is a right-wing Trump loyalist with a very questionable record on civil rights.  The Justice Department is supposed to be an independent agency with a duty to protect us from an autocratic or corrupt administration.  Sessions will be anything but independent or a check on Trump’s excesses.  His focus will be on immigrant crime and deporting immigrants while voting rights and civil rights will take a back seat.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  That’s disturbing enough, but the experienced deputy leadership at State has been fired and there appears to be no effort to restore it.  Trump has proposed budgets that will cripple the department’s critical functions in national security and weaken our most important alliances.  Meanwhile Trump bumbles along, offending important friends like South Korea while personally congratulating Turkey’s autocratic President Tayyip Erdoğan for winning a referendum that will bring him closer to one-man rule.

Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt distains environmental protection.  He is a friend of big oil and the energy industry in general.  No matter that the majority of Americans support reduction of carbon emissions, Pruitt will do everything he can to erase President Barack Obama’s initiatives on climate change.  And he is carefully carving science out of the equation for determining the health and safety impacts of chemicals and pollutants.   Pruitt’s decisions will likely have significant, long term adverse effects on public health and the environment.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price is a far-right conservative who has opposed the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare since the day it was drafted.  In Congress Rep. Price (R-Ga.) was the chairman of the House Budget Committee who authored budgets that would decimate federal spending for health care and turn Medicare into a premium support voucher program.  Like Speaker Paul Ryan, he has been spreading egregious lies about the eminent demise of Obamacare and the benefits of the GOP’s American Health Care Act.  Our nationwide health care system is sure to deteriorate under Price’s leadership.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is a Wall Street banker who claimed that Trump’s tax plan will, “pay for itself” with economic growth.  When 42 economists from our most respected universities were surveyed about whether they agreed or disagreed with this claim, the 37 that responded all disagreed and 30 of them strongly disagreed.  One called Trump’s plan “a great deficit stimulus.”  Another said it didn’t have a prayer.   Trump’s tax cuts will significantly add to the deficits and the oppressive income inequality the nation has experienced since President Reagan’s administration.

During his confirmation hearings Sessions lied to Congress about his contacts with the Russians.  It didn’t matter.  Pruitt was under a cloud during his confirmation hearings for failing to release emails in a lawsuit against him.  No problem.  During Price’s confirmation hearings it was disclosed that he had made questionable stock trades in companies that he helped with legislation.  Republican Senators didn’t care.  During confirmation hearings Mnuchin was implicated in foreclosing on thousands of hapless homeowners who had mortgages with a distressed bank in California he co-owned in 2008.  He sailed through.

In my opinion Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is an unscrupulous politician who will stop at nothing to cement his power.  His obstruction of Obama proved he cares little about the democratic process.  I fear that McConnell will guide the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russian hacking investigation away from Trump’s complicity.  McConnell won’t throw Trump under the bus for the sake of the American people.   But he will if Trump threatens his position as majority leader.

For all of their chest beating about the flag, patriotism and the Constitution, McConnell and many other Republicans are displaying an unbelievable lack of concern about attacks on our democratic process by Russia.  In my opinion they are double standard hypocrites who apparently think congressional oversight is only for Democrats.

And now Trump has fired FBI director James Comey.  Perhaps he thought this would deflect the media from the damning testimony of former acting attorney general Sally Yates.  Perhaps he thought Comey was managing the Russian investigation too diligently.  Either way, I don’t think Comey’s firing bodes well for this investigation.

Whether it is national security, civil liberties, freedom of the press or corruption at the highest levels of government, I believe Trump is taking the presidency and this nation into dangerous, uncharted territory.

Am I feeling unprotected and vulnerable?  Damn right!

First, several readers commented that 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance by 2026 rather than the 24,000 stated in my last blog.  Of course 24 million is correct.  No matter how many times I edit a blog I frequently miss something that should have been obvious to me.  Sorry about that.  If you are on my blogsite you can scroll down to read my previous blog on the American Health Care Act (AHCA).  The number has been corrected.

Rather than make my May 6 blog boringly long I left out some important points that I will pass along in this update.  They relate to certain provisions in the AHCA that will likely cause significant procedural issues in the Senate.  Representatives like Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) and certainly Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) should have realized the problems they were creating.  They can’t be totally ignorant of Senate rules.

As mentioned in several blogs, Republicans want to use the reconciliation process in the Senate to pass the AHCA.  That way they can pass it with a simple majority vote after 20 hours of debate and avoid a filibuster by Democrats that requires 60 votes.  But reconciliation has some restrictions.  The major one is the Byrd Rule, which is named for former Democratic senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia.

Among other things, this rule limits reconciliation to provisions that affect the federal budget, primarily spending or taxing.  And it limits consideration of other matters that are “extraneous” to the budget process.   Even some Republicans have pointed out ways the ACHA might run afoul of the Byrd Rule.  So it is highly likely that Democrats will challenge the following in the AHCA:

·         The MacArthur amendment that allows states to seek a waiver and opt out of the Obamacare’s regulations that require policies cover specific essential health benefits and require insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions at the same rates as other insureds

·         The change to Obamacare that allows health plans to charge older policyholders five times what they charge young adults

·         The 30 percent surcharge on people who let their coverage lapse

·         The elimination of the Obamacare mandate on larger employers that requires them to provide health insurance to employees

·         The reforms to Medicaid, such as imposing work requirements and capping federal payments to states

This reconciliation will be a complex process.  It involves objections (points of order) by Democrats and rulings by the Senate parliamentarian.  It is likely that some of the above provisions will be stricken from the AHCA or require a vote of 60 members to remain.  In other words it could be a battle royal.

Several GOP senators have stated that the Senate will draft a separate bill using the AHCA as a guide.  Regardless, it is unlikely the AHCA will survive as it was passed in the House and could go back to the House for a second vote.

One report indicated that conservative Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) suggested that the parliamentarian’s rulings should be ignored if they get in the way of passing a GOP healthcare bill in the Senate.  But that suggestion evidently didn’t get much traction and it is not difficult to see why.

The GOP leadership has a justification for the AHCA.  I think they have advised their members to just keep repeating that Obamacare is failing and must be replaced.  But even if that were true, Obamacare could be fixed.  It should not amended by this monstrosity of a bill that primarily gives tax breaks to the wealthy while depriving millions of citizens of a health care plan.

or the past seven years Republicans have lambasted the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare as if it were the worst law that was ever passed.  Starting in 2011 the Republican-controlled U.S. House passed over 50 meaningless laws trying to repeal it or cripple it; right-wing organizations spent hundreds of millions on grotesque TV ads trying to discourage people from seeking coverage under it; House Republicans caused a partial shutdown of the government in October 2013 trying to defund it; and every GOP candidate in 2016 vowed to repeal it.

After Trump won the election, Republicans in Congress were forced to start thinking about how they would fulfill their campaign promises.  Both the House and the Senate quickly passed a budget resolution for fiscal years 2017 through 2026 in January.  This would be the vehicle to dismantle Obamacare under the Senate’s reconciliation procedures with only a simple majority vote by Republicans.  The stage was set; all they needed was some language in a House passed bill.  This should have been easy, right?

But in an unbelievably inept process, the American Health Care Act (AHCA) was drafted by the GOP leadership behind closed doors with no input from Democrats and very little input from various factions of their caucus.  They knew Democrats wouldn’t support this bill and they should have known that House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Mark Meadow (R-N.C.) and his 30 or so radical colleagues probably wouldn’t support it either.  What were they thinking?

Then the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report comparing the AHCA to Obamacare provided the following estimates — and the data was shocking:

·         14 million more Americans would be without health insurance in 2018.

·         24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance by 2026.

·         7 million Americans would lose their employer covered health insurance by 2026.

·         Medicaid funding would be cut by $880 billion over the next 10  years.

Due to the way the AHCA calculates its less generous tax credits based on age instead of income and location, the result would be a massive rearrangement of those who can afford health care insurance and those who can’t.  Coverage would be cheaper for younger, healthier people and much more expensive for older, typically less healthy people.   Primarily due to these statistics, the original AHCA didn’t even get to a vote in the House.

Trump initially said he was giving up on health care reform and moving on to tax reform.  But there was a reason he quickly reversed course and pressured House Republicans to press on and pass the AHCA; he needed it for tax reform.

Vice President Mike Pence was tasked with negotiating with Meadows and co-chair of the more moderate House Republican Tuesday Group, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.).  MacArthur came up with the idea of allowing states to waive the Obamacare provisions that prevent insurers from charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions and those that require policies to cover essential health benefits, like maternity and drug treatment.

States that achieve waivers can allow individual insurers to decide what constitutes a pre-existing condition and establish state standards for essential health benefits.  Although those with pre-existing conditions can’t be denied coverage, they can be charged more.  So waiver states would receive $138 billion over a 10-year period to help subsidize high risk pools where these folks can hopefully buy insurance.

The waivers turned off Republican moderates so another amendment was proposed to add $8 billion over five years to the state high-risk pool subsidies. This pitiful amount helped satisfy a few moderates and was enough to turn their no votes to yes.

Speaker Paul Ryan rushed the revised bill through the House without public input and even most Republican legislators didn’t know what was in the bill until the day they voted on it.  Some didn’t even know then.  Worse yet, the revised bill had not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office so those voting didn’t know its costs or its effects on insurance markets.  The process was pure politics, but they got it passed by one extra vote.

Most House Republicans were all smiles, even giddy with their victory.  Then a House leadership group was bused to the White House to meet with Trump in the Rose Garden.  After literally signing the death warrant for some Americans who will lose their health care under the AHCA, these Republicans celebrated.  Trump was ecstatic too; he finally got a major piece of legislation passed, if only by one chamber.  That was his major objective.

Now the AHCA moves on to the Senate where it will be significantly revised or replaced by a Senate bill.  It could be months before Trump gets legislation to sign — or maybe not.  This bill is the launching pad for reforming the tax system to benefit the wealthy, turning Medicare into a premium support program and dismantling the social safety net in the United States.  Republicans are eager to balance the federal budget and they will do it on the backs of the elderly and less fortunate if they can.

Obama wanted to solve a health problem with the Affordable Care Act; Republicans want to begin the process of enacting their radical agenda with the AHCA.  If the American people let them get away with this first step they will only have themselves to blame for what comes after.

Last December after being chosen by Donald Trump to be Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin was interviewed on CNBC.  He had this to say about Trump’s tax cut:  “Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions, so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.”  Some commentators called this statement the “Mnuchin Test” for any tax plan.

Recently Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said that President Trump’s tax plan will “pay for itself.”  In government parlance a tax cut is called a “tax expenditure.”  Cutting taxes is like spending tax dollars on a government purchase except the dollars go to the taxpayer.  The cost of a tax cut is the amount by which it reduces revenues.  What Mnuchin said was that Trump’s plan will not reduce revenues.

It became clear when Mnuchin rolled out Trump’s one-page tax plan on Wednesday why he said it would pay for itself.  He believes this plan will spur economic growth, increase hiring and collect more revenue from businesses and individuals to offset the revenue lost by cutting taxes.  Needless to say, if that were true all politicians would want to cut taxes.  More jobs mean happier voters.

Mnuchin did not provide enough details to fully evaluate this plan.  Still, most experts have opined that it would greatly favor the wealthy and thereby violate the Mnuchin Test.  And some thought it would increase deficits by as much as $5 trillion over 10 years.  In my opinion it was a publicity stunt and not a serious proposal that deserves careful analysis at this time.

My research indicates that there is only one type of tax policy that arguably pays for itself and it is not a direct cut in taxes.  Rather it is a deduction that allows small businesses to offset income by the expense of up to $500,000 in new equipment purchased.  In effect this reduces the company’s taxes while the purchase of equipment enhances economic growth and creates jobs.  This tax policy creates a direct correlation between the burden of revenue lost and the benefit of increased economic activity.  House Speaker Paul Ryan’s tax plan includes this type of provision; Trump’s doesn’t.

On the other hand when tax rates are reduced for individuals or corporations it is difficult to predict what the beneficiaries will do with the extra money.  Individuals may put it in savings or invest it in China.  Corporations may increase dividends, buy back stock or invest in China.  Consequently the effect on the U.S. economic activity is far from certain.

Meanwhile, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Speaker Ryan has his own ideas on tax reform. He proposed a border adjustment tax that would put a 20 percent tariff on imports and provide an additional $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years.  This extra revenue would offset the revenue lost by reducing rates on individuals and corporations.  Ryan wants to insure that any tax plan passed by the House is revenue neutral so that it doesn’t increase deficits. 

Why is revenue neutral important?  Well, Republicans want to pass their tax plan in the Senate with a simple majority vote via reconciliation and avoid a filibuster that would require 60 votes. They also want their plan to be permanent.  In order for reconciliation legislation to be permanent, the Senate rules require that its provisions not increase deficits beyond 10 years.  Revenue neutral tax reform complies with these rules.

Ryan knows that Trump’s plan to lower the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent would result in increased deficits beyond 10 years, which would prevent it from being permanent.  But Mnuchin doesn’t seem to be concerned about that; he thinks a tax cut that only lasts 10 years like those of President George W. Bush is better than no tax cut.  This had to frustrate Ryan to no end. 

But adding to the deficits is a problem.  The Congressional Budget Office is currently projecting a deficit of $9.5 trillion over fiscal years 2018 through 2027.  Even if Republicans achieve a revenue neutral tax reform, the deficit projections will not change.  Consequently, in order to achieve the GOP goal of a balanced budget, federal spending must be drastically cut. 

How much would spending have to be cut?  Well, if the entire defense budget of $6.87 trillion were eliminated there would still be a 10 year deficit of over $2.6 trillion.  And if the entire budget for nondefense discretionary spending that funds the rest of the government were eliminated there would still be a deficit of $3.38 trillion.

If Trump gets his way with taxes, deficits will almost certainly increase; plus he wants billions of more spending for defense and $1 trillion for infrastructure.  Republicans in Congress love tax cuts and military spending but they also want a balanced budget.  Needless to say balancing the budget with Trump’s agenda will be impossible without draconian cuts to the mandatory spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other so-called entitlements.

During President Obama’s administration Republicans made bold claims about turning Medicare into a premium support system and cutting entitlements.  Now they finally have a Republican president and control of Congress.  The question is, will they put their legislation where their mouth is?

I’m betting that they won’t have the political courage to do it.