The Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare is a very complex law that has numerous taxes, regulations and government subsidies, all of which Republicans hate.  In fact the vast majority of them want to simply repeal the law.  But political pressure from 20+ million Americans who would lose coverage without Obamacare caused them to come up with a replacement.

So last Monday House Republicans rolled out their American Health Care Act (AHCA).  The House and Senate conservatives who oppose it call it “Obamacare-lite.”

The GOP leadership is rushing the AHCA through Congress before the Congressional Budget Office has determined its cost and its effect on the number of individuals insured.  Of course the more people who are insured, the cheaper insurance is for everybody.  That was the whole idea behind Obamacare.  So I was eager to analyze how the GOP plan differs from Obamacare and here is what I discovered:

Individual and Employer Mandates – The AHCA repeals Obamacare’s mandates and its penalties for not having health insurance.  This will cause some younger, healthier individuals to exit the market.

Subsidies for out-of-pocket expenses – In 2020 the AHCA repeals Obamacare’s cost-sharing assistance that helps low income families pay deductibles and co-payments.  This increase in out-of-pocket costs could make their policies unaffordable.

Premium subsidies – Obamacare provides tax credits to middle-income Americans on a sliding scale to help pay premiums.  These credits are based on income, age and local health insurance costs.  The AHCA uses age instead of income to grant a flat tax credit amount for individuals earning less than $75,000 and households earning less than $150,000.  A person under 30 would receive a maximum subsidy of $2,000, a person age 40 would receive $3,000 and those over 60 would receive $4,000.

These less generous subsidies based solely on age will no doubt reduce the number of participants in the health insurance market.  And they will penalize older, poorer individuals in high premium markets.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s interactive map, in 2020 a person in Henderson County, NC aged 60, earning $30,000 per year, would lose $10,160 in tax credits under the AHCA.  While the same 60 year old in states like Washington and Massachusetts might lose less than $1,000 in many cases.

Medicaid expansion – Obamacare expanded Medicaid to include some 11 million people in 31 states.  The AHCA would keep Medicaid expansion and continue federal funding as promised under Obamacare for two more years.  Then in 2020 it would cap federal funding per Medicaid enrollee based on state Medicaid spending in fiscal year 2016, with inflation adjustments thereafter.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities the AHCA formula will shift $370 billion of Medicaid’s costs to the states over the next 10 years.  Some states may have to ration care, perhaps having to decide on who lives and who dies.  Nursing homes and hospitals with emergency rooms would no doubt suffer significant revenue loss.

Tax-Free Health savings accounts – The AHCA would almost double contribution limits in 2018 to $6,550 for an individual and $13,100 for a family.  But those who need this law probably can’t afford these contributions and may not even pay much in taxes.

Older Americans pay higher premiums – Obamacare allows insurers to charge older insureds three times more than younger insureds.  The AHCA allows five times more.  This provision will no doubt price many seniors out of the market.

Other provisions in both Obamacare and AHCA – Obamacare and AHCA both require insurers to accept those with preexisting conditions, allow young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26, require insurers to offer 10 essential health benefits and prohibit caps on annual and lifetime coverage limits.

Obamacare taxes – The AHCA repeals most of the tax provisions in Obamacare that were designed to help offset the cost of providing subsidies to lower income individuals.  The Joint Committee on Taxation in Congress has estimated that this repeal will reduce federal revenues by almost $600 billion over 10 years.  So seniors get higher premiums; the wealthy get lower taxes.

Planned Parenthood and Abortions – For one year the AHCA prohibits funding to organizations that primarily provide reproductive health care, which will effectively defund Planned Parenthood.  It also prohibits beneficiaries from using subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.

The American Medical Association has called the AHCA “critically flawed” and it is opposed by the AARP.  Major physician’s groups have said they have serious issues with or outright oppose the plan.  But I don’t think most Republicans are worried about opposition from health care organizations.  The Koch brothers and various right-wing groups also oppose their replacement bill and that’s who they fear the most.

Republican controlled states are among the poorest in the nation and have the most to lose with an Obamacare replacement.  And President Donald Trump’s promise that “his” Obamacare replacement will be better, cheaper and cover everybody certainly won’t be fulfilled by the AHCA.  Yet I wonder if low and middle-income Trump supporters and Republican voters even realize how badly this law will hurt them.

President Harry Truman probably said it best:  “How many times do you have to get hit over the head until you figure out who’s hitting you.”  Of course he was referring to Republicans.

Note:  Click on the link interactive map above to determine tax credit differences in other state counties.

President Donald Trump managed to give a decent speech to a joint session of Congress last Tuesday without the rancor he displayed on the campaign trail or making cringe-worthy statements.  The bar was set very low and he managed to clear it.  But improving the wrapping doesn’t change what is in the package.  As usual he made numerous false and misleading claims; they just sounded more reasonable.

Still, Trump’s night of glory didn’t last more than a day before his newly confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions came under fire for allegedly lying to the Senate about his meetings with Russians during the campaign.  As one commentator put it, there is a drip, drip, drip of bad news about Trump’s connections to Russia that the White House can’t seem to stop.  Perhaps Trump needs to reestablish President Richard Nixon’s “plumbers.”

But Trump has his own method for dealing with bad news; he tries to deflect it onto someone else.  Yesterday he let loose a torrent of tweets accusing President Obama of wire-tapping Trump Tower last October.  No doubt Trump got this information from one of his conspiracy theory friends like Mark Levin, or from Breitbart News where Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon was formerly CEO.  I believe these Twitter rants beg the question:  Is Trump emotionally unstable?

With every passing day we get more evidence that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.  The New York Times Editorial Board reported in a recent op-ed that “President Trump has appointed fewer than three dozen of the top 1,000 officials he needs to run the federal government.”  When asked about the open positions by Fox News he said, “Well, a lot of those jobs, I don’t want to appoint because they’re unnecessary to have.”  Trump and Bannon seem to be organizing a top down administration where they think very little staff is needed.  This is dangerous!

So it’s not surprising that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who holds a very powerful position, seems to be, as one article put it, “invisible.”  He did not attend the high level meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, nor did any other State Department official.  But Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was there.

Meanwhile it has been reported that numerous layoffs have occurred at the State Department and huge budget cuts are planned.  This means key foreign policy issues will be handled directly by the White House, rather than by professional diplomats.  What could go wrong with that?

Trump’s has proposed a military buildup like we haven’t seen since the days of President Ronald Reagan, including a larger nuclear arsenal.  Never mind that the current stockpile of 5,000 nuclear warheads is enough to destroy the entire world; and the U.S. defense budget of around $580 billion was greater than the next 12 countries combined according to 2015 estimates.

Where is the enemy?  Defending against North Korea is no excuse.  And the Islamic State (ISIS) has neither ships nor aircraft except for a few they might have captured.  The military needs to go after them with drones and special ops forces, not nuclear weapons.

Trump apparently wants to cut $1 billion from the Coast Guard’s already strapped budget, perhaps to offset the cost of building a few miles of wall on the 2,000 mile U.S./Mexican border.  This is shocking given Trump’s statements condemning illegal immigrants, drugs and ISIS.  These threats can also enter the country by sea along the 12,383 miles of coastline that the Coast Guard patrols.

And the guardian of our coast has only two icebreakers; the largest of which is decades old.  Russia is reported to have 40 icebreakers, more than enough to take control of the Arctic waters where large oil reserves are believed to exist and where the U.S. has vital national security interests.  Cutting Coast Guard funding not only shows incompetence; I think it is grossly negligent.

It is difficult to tell which of Trump’s policies come from strategist Bannon.  At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Bannon vowed that the Trump administration is in an unending battle for “deconstruction of the administrative state.”  Is he referring to the system of taxes, regulations and trade policies that Trump continuously rails against?  Or is he advocating the “deconstruction” of the federal government?

Bannon claimed that Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”  He believes the current world order should be replaced by a system that “empowers” ordinary people over coastal elites (a.k.a. Democrats) and international institutions.  Well, withdrawal from the TPP and cuts in the State Department budget probably mean that China and Russia are being more empowered.

Choosing what to cover in my blog these days is like trying to pick one of Baskin and Robin’s more than 31 flavors of ice cream.  But here are a few other things I need to include:

• Reviews of court documents by the Guardian indicate that Attorney General Sessions used his position as U.S. Attorney for Alabama’s southern district to bring thin prosecution cases against Democratic politicians.
• In February the Justice Department dropped its position that Texas intended to discriminate when it passed its strict voter-ID law. This was one of the Department’s strongest claims.

But above all one thing seems clear to me:  The truth about Donald Trump is worse than the lies Republicans continuously spread about Barack Obama.

We are on the cusp of a new era in U.S. politics.  Over the course of the next four years some very different policies will unfold.  Some will be hard to understand and we won’t always know what they intend to accomplish. But perhaps if we look into the philosophy of the Republican Party — the soul of the beast as it were — we can gain some insight.

Immigration was on everyone’s tongue during the 2016 presidential campaign. So President Donald Trump has attempted to move quickly on his signature issue with executive orders, stepped up enforcement and deportations of illegals.  And he is still talking about the border wall.

In the Senate, Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton is pushing a bill that would reduce “legal” immigration by 50 percent over the next decade.  The GOP claims that their immigration policies keep Americans safe and protect American jobs.  But there is no doubt in my mind that the real reason the GOP wants to limit immigration is because Latinos, Asians and other immigrants tend to vote for Democrats.

Tax reform is a high priority for Republicans this year.  Both Trump and the U.S. House initially proposed tax plans that would add significantly to the deficits.  Since increasing deficits is not popular we may hear Speaker of the House Paul Ryan talk about a plan that will be “revenue neutral” and that will “broaden the base.”  Revenue neutral means that federal revenues will neither increase nor decrease.  Broaden the base means that revenue will be collected from more sources like the border adjustment tax that ends up being paid by middleclass and lower income consumers.  But one thing is certain; the wealthy will get a big tax cut.

The GOP mantra has always been that cutting taxes grows the economy.  I’m sorry; the economy doesn’t always work that way. President George W. Bush engineered large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 but they mostly resulted in much higher deficits.  And Bush ended eight years in office with the country going headlong into the Great Recession and with the worse job creation record, on record according to the Wall Street Journal. 

And then there is Kansas Tea Party Gov. Sam Brownback, the poster child for disastrous tax cuts.  Kansas budgets have been drowning in red ink under his tax plan and the legislature projects a $1.2 billion revenue shortfall over the next two years.  Way to go Sam!

But I don’t think Republicans care about such clear examples.  In my opinion their goal is all about limiting the size of the federal government; and their mentor is Grover Norquist.  Grover is the architect of the pledge to never raise taxes on anything, and he loves tax cuts.  Libertarian Norquist’s objective is to shrink government by cutting off its revenue and forcing drastic spending cuts. Most congressional Republicans have signed his pledge. 

So as Congress begins to legislate next month on tax reform, an Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) replacement or Trump’s infrastructure plan, here are some political realities that will affect negotiations:  There are 200 or so members of the far-right House Republican Study Committee (RSC) and the House Freedom Caucus, which is chaired by North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows.  They are totally against increased federal spending for anything other than defense and they so strongly reject to deficit spending that they voted to default on the nation’s debt in February 2014.

Last March the RSC rolled out an “alternative” fiscal year 2017 budget that would cut taxes significantly, cut spending by $8.6 trillion over the next 10 years and grow defense spending every year.  These cuts would reduce government spending by almost 17 percent. 

But never mind the numbers; the point is that these conservatives won’t be enthusiastic about a costly Obamacare replacement or Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan. And they have the clout to block any legislation in the House that requires almost total GOP support.

Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich is understandably very concerned about what happens to Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion.  Together they provide health care to 700,000 of his constituents.  And he knows all about the Freedom Caucus and the RSC.  In his opinion the House conservatives will not likely vote for an Obamacare replacement plan if it retains any of the key components of Obamacare.  In fact, he believes they want to trash the entire law, period.

These conservatives received support from a January 2017 report from the Congressional Budget Office that encouraged President Trump and the new Congress to make deficit reduction a top priority.  No doubt they will use this report as a cudgel in upcoming negotiations.

President Trump will be speaking to Congress tomorrow night.  It could be a scolding because he wants faster action on a number of issues.  But listen to what he says about his budget that is due in Congress soon.  If he talks about trillions in spending cuts and a huge tax cut we will have some idea of his agenda.  But either way, March should be a political knock down drag out month.

Last week was a real problem for me.  I wrote several blogs but couldn’t convince myself to post them.  There was not much new to write about.  After all, how many times can you document President Donald Trump’s lies, his administration’s chaos and his attacks on the media?  If you keep doing that, after a while it all becomes normalized.  Well, Trump and his administration are not normal.

But an interesting article by The Washington Post surfaced later last week that may not have been covered in the regular news.  What prompted the article was Trump’s third consecutive weekend trip to Mar-a-Lago.  I call these “ego” trips because Trump can surround himself with admiring friends.  This past weekend he stopped in Melbourne, Florida where he gave a long campaign speech to his supporters, more salve for his ego.

Presidential trips are very expensive and we taxpayers get the bill. According to several articles on this subject, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization that seeks to expose misconduct by government officials, estimated that President Barack Obama’s travel expenses totaled almost $97 million over eight years.  That is around $12.1 million a year.  If you recall, conservatives were constantly hammering Obama for his vacations to golf or whatever.

Estimates for Trump’s three weekends at Mar-a-Lago, plus his son’s business trips during that period are estimated to have cost taxpayers $11.3 million.  Then there is protection for First Lady Melania and their son Barron living in Trump Tower in New York City.  This is estimated to cost the city $500,000 per day according to the WP article and could cost as much as $183 million a year.  No doubt that cost will be paid by the federal government.  Of course the government must rent space in Trump hotels when Trump or his family stay in those facilities and the Secret Service is discussing renting space in Trump Tower where leasing a floor can cost $1.5 million per year. 

Republicans and conservative organizations called Obama the “Vacationer in chief,” the “Divider in chief,” the “Spender in chief,” etc.   They held Obama to a very high standard.  It remains to be seen if Trump will be held to any standard at all.

Also last week some policy proposals surfaced from the U.S. House.  As you recall repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and tax cuts are high on the GOP agenda.  So Speaker of the House Paul Ryan ventured over to the other side of the Capitol to discuss his tax proposal with GOP senators.  This plan includes the controversial 20 percent border adjustment tax that would be applied only to imports and would collect more than $1 trillion over 10 years.

Of course retailers, oil companies and businesses that import other products like vehicle parts are not happy.  Ryan wants the border tax to offset the tax cuts his plan gives to the wealthy.  Needless to say the border tax will be paid by John Q. Consumer in higher prices.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that Ryan’s plan wouldn’t get 10 votes in the Senate.  We shall see.

Last Thursday House Republicans rolled out a preliminary proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare.  It has taken them over six years to get their act together and by all accounts it isn’t quite together yet.  You would think that Obama’s health care plan would be a snap to replace if it is actually the “disaster” Republicans and Trump say it is.  Replacing a program so bad and so detrimental to the public should be really popular too, right?

Well now congressional Republicans are terrified about being reelected because their replacement plan could result in millions of Americans losing their health care coverage.  And Trump keeps adding to their misery by promising that the replacement will provide better coverage for less money and cover more people. 

According to an article by The Hill, the latest GOP plan will include tax credits, an expansion of health savings accounts, funds for high risk pools to provide insurance for those with preexisting conditions and restructuring of Medicaid to cap federal payments.  In addition it would repeal all taxes included in Obamacare; immediately repeal penalties for violating Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates; and phase out the Medicaid expansion over time.  . 

Insurers say that the individual mandate is critical for getting healthy people enrolled and with no penalties that won’t happen.  And according to a CBO report, if the individual mandate is repealed “premiums for policies in the individual market would increase by roughly 20 percent relative to current law in all years between 2017 and 2025.”  Ouch!

Over the weekend Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich said that phase out of Medicaid expansion “is a very, very bad idea.”  Ohio and 30 other states expanded Medicaid under Obamacare thereby providing coverage for an estimated 11 million low income citizens.

I will focus on GOP budgets, tax plans and Obamacare replacement plans as they unfold over the next several months.  But it is obvious to me that House Republicans are intent on benefiting corporations and the wealthy.  They do this in the name of growing the economy and adding jobs, but don’t be fooled.  Their ultimate objective is to dismantle the federal government’s safety net for the elderly and low income citizens.  We must not let that happen.

Wary of an autocratic British King, the Founding Fathers established a political system that was designed to help insure that this nation would remain a Constitutional Republic.  They set up three branches of government with offsetting powers, executive, legislative, and judicial.  Although the Constitution does not specifically mention “separation of powers,” it contains checks and balances to prevent the executive branch from becoming all powerful, with Congress as the primary check on the president. 

Over the course of the ensuing 230 years since the Constitution was ratified in 1788 it has been tested many times.  But I believe it is about to be tested like never before.

The forces that would diminish our democratic government have been building for decades, mostly in the shadows.  The halls of Congress have become infested with hundreds of lobbyists that represent powerful special interests.   The perks they lavish on legislators and the support they provide to political campaigns gives them a seat at the table when policies are made and legislation is drafted. 

Unfortunately, money is the lifeblood of politics.  To be viable, candidates must have a large campaign war chest.  This means politicians can literally be bought by the highest bidder.  To make matters worse the conservative majority of the Supreme Court held that corporations and unions are people and that money is speech in the 2010 Citizens United case.   This decision opened the flood gates of anonymous (dark-money) funding of politicians.         

But money isn’t the only threat to democracy; there are numerous others.  Partisan congressional redistricting is certainly one.  And although both parties have abused the process, the 2011 redistricting (gerrymandering) in Republican controlled states was particularly egregious. 

Another threat is the strict voter ID laws that have been enacted in most Republican-controlled states.  These laws go far beyond simply requiring voters to show a photo ID.  They were designed to make it harder for minorities, typically democrats, to vote.

In the presidential election Hillary Clinton carried less than 500 counties while Donald Trump carried almost 2,600.  So it is obvious that Republicans are taking control of the state capitols in many of the more rural states.  And with gerrymandered districts, Republicans have retained control of the U.S. House even though nationwide more votes are frequently cast for Democrats.  We experiencing a tyranny of the minority.

According to a November 2016 Washington Post article, Republicans will totally control 25 states and partially control 20 others in 2017.  And conservative billionaires like the Koch brothers have set up complex political organizations to pour millions into state legislative and judicial races to further cement GOP control over state governments.  With this power, Republican states could one day force conservative Constitutional amendments.

During the next four years Trump will likely appoint two or more conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  And a radicalized Republican Party has demonstrated during the past eight years and the early weeks of the Trump presidency that congressional Republicans will only apply checks on the executive branch if the president is a Democrat.

Now we have President Donald Trump who attacks the judiciary when its decisions go against him and the media if they publish something he doesn’t like.  Why?  With Congress in his pocket, these are the only remaining institutions that can limit his power.   And it has become increasingly apparent to me that Trump has little appreciation for the rule of law or any understanding of the Constitution and its checks and balances.

We have a Republican-controlled Congress that wants to decimate the federal government except for defense.  They think climate change is a hoax, that money in politics is just fine, that corporations should be left to regulate themselves and that the nation can afford to give tax cuts to the wealthy but can’t afford to provide adequate health care for its citizens. 

Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want reasonable gun controls, higher taxes for the wealthy, affordable health care, limitations on climate change and better education for their children.  And they want Medicare and Social Security left untouched, as Trump promised.  Do these statistics impress Republicans in Congress?  NOT IN THE LEAST.  They are charging ahead to do exactly the opposite of what most people want.

So here are my questions:  What has happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people?  Has it become a victim to gerrymandering, voter ID laws, special interests and big money in politics?  And what is happening to the separation of powers that the Founders carefully set up in the Constitution to protect us from an autocracy? 

The three branches of government will soon be primarily controlled by conservative ideologues. The Justice Department, which is supposed to protect citizen’s rights under the Constitution, is headed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a right-wing conservative who is almost certain to do Trump’s bidding.  Consequently the separation of powers is being eroded to the point that our Constitutional Republic is in serious jeopardy.

It is quite clear that we can no longer take democracy for granted.  And I am not confident that Republicans in Congress will move to check an anti-democratic Trump.  So there is only one sure way democracy can be saved, strong, constant and peaceful action by “we the people.” 

Folks, it is time to get involved — before it’s too late.

At least once in every generation a person enters the limelight that has the skill, the temperament, the intelligence and the motivation to dramatically shape world events.  I think Stephen K. Bannon is one of these persons.  He wants to be a game changer on the world stage but his objectives are definitely not consistent with American values.

After being appointed by President Donald Trump as chief strategist, Bannon arguably became the second most powerful man in the White House.  He became even more powerful when Trump appointed him to the National Security Council Principals Committee.  This means Bannon’s views and politics will influence national security deliberations.  According to reports this will be the first time in recent history that a political operative has had a front-row seat on the Council.

Bannon was elevated from a low profile to national prominence in a very short period of time. He has never held public office and information on him has not been widely publicized until recently.  But here is what we do know from his biography on Wikipedia and other sources.

Bannon is well educated, holding a bachelor’s degree in urban planning from Virginia Tech and a Master of Business Administration degree from the Harvard Business School.  He served seven years as an officer in the navy in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Next Bannon worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs.  In 1990 Bannon and several colleagues formed Bannon & Co., which was purchased by Société Générale in 1998.  Needless to say, Bannon made himself a very wealthy man.

Bannon became involved in the Hollywood film and media business in the 1990s and produced 18 films. Among these were “In the Face of Evil” (a documentary about Ronald Reagan), “Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman”, “The Undefeated” (about Sarah Palin), and “Occupy Unmasked.”

From his involvement in other media projects and his writings it appears that Bannon formed a radical, irrational opinion of Islam in the mid-2000s.  He claimed that the “American Jewish Community”, the ACLU, the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, and the White House were “enablers” of a covert mission to establish an Islamic Republic in the United States.

Perhaps Bannon assumed his most controversial position in 2012 when he became executive chair of the parent company of Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website.  In 2016 Bannon called Breitbart News “the platform for the alt-right (white supremacists and neo-Nazis).”  This website has been labeled as racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-gay and anti-Semitic. And there are credible reports that brand Bannon himself is a harasser and abuser of women.

But it doesn’t end there.  The alt-right and Bannon have sent strong signals that they align with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his anti-gay policies and his “traditionalist” views.  Bannon casts himself as a traditionalist, which among other things means he does not accept gays, gay marriage or multiculturalism.  To me these traditionalists are the Christian equivalent of the Islamic traditionalists that form the nucleus of the Islamic State, but without the vicious behavior.

Although he later said that he had no recollection of it, Bannon told a writer for The Daily Beast, in late 2013 “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

During a Breitbart interview on December 30, 2016, Bannon said, “I think we’ve lived through an historic time. I think we’ll talk about what happened in this year politically for many, many decades to come.”  Bannon went on to say that 2017 will be as much of an “exciting time” as 2016 was.

Well, I’m not sure if Bannon equates “exciting” with “chaos” but apparently he does.  It seems certain that Bannon was deeply involved in the chaotic executive order that implemented the immigration ban on January 27.  As they say, his finger prints are all over that order.

The Washington Post reported that Bannon had a strong disagreement with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly over issuing a waiver for lawful permanent residents (green-card holders) from the seven countries whose citizens had been banned from entering the U.S.  Supposedly Bannon ordered Kelly to not issue the waiver.  Kelly refused saying he would have to hear it directly from the president.  Then he issued the waiver in spite of Bannon’s objections.

In later discussions on this issue Kelly, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State designee Rex Tillerson reportedly presented a united front against Bannon.  They complained about the process that led to the issuance of the executive order on immigration and the fact that they were not properly consulted.  In the end the cabinet officers evidently won.

But here is what to look for:  These types of disagreements among such powerful, strong-willed administration officials rarely continue.  Someone has to yield or someone has to resign.  Perhaps Trump can moderate Bannon, although he seems to share Bannon’s views.  But if Bannon wins in this intra-administration battle, our nation is in real trouble.

Soon after Donald J. Trump was sworn-in as the nation’s 45^th president his team entered the White House and started blasting away in all directions, shotgun style, with directives and orders.  When the week was over Trump had signed numerous executive orders and presidential memorandums; he had needlessly angered Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto over funding the border wall; and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, called the media “the opposition party,” which should “keep its mouth shut.”

For months Trump promised to “make America safe again.”  Perhaps he thinks his broad executive order to temporarily ban visitors from seven predominately Muslim countries, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya will make us safe.  But the news services have verified that no citizen of those countries has been involved in a terrorist attack in the United States.  And why weren’t countries whose citizens have perpetrated terrorist attacks in the U.S. included, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates?  

So should we feel safe now?  Remember, Trump ordered all Obama appointed U.S. ambassadors (30 percent) to leave their posts on inauguration day; key national security positions have not been filled by the incoming administration; and white supremacist supporter Steve Bannon has replaced the Director of National Intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the National Security Council’s Principals Committee. 

Are we safer because four top State Department officials were asked to leave their posts last Wednesday? These officials had served in both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades.  And along with earlier resignations and retirements these departures resulted in a near-complete exodus of senior, irreplaceable State Department officials that manage the department both here and overseas.  Shouldn’t we be concerned about that?

Trump proudly signed one order to build his “beautiful” wall on the Mexican border and another to greatly increase the size of the military, which already has no equal in the world.  But only Congress has the authority to fund these projects and they won’t be completed for months, if ever.  Did these orders make us safer this week or were they just for show?

Thankfully not all of Trump’s initiatives succeeded.  The Trump team imposed what amounted to gag orders on the EPA and several other agencies, but they had to rescind them under pressure.  They also had to walk back the federal government hiring freeze for the Veteran’s Administration.  And their directive to halt Obamacare ads and outreach by the Health and Human Services Department was cancelled due to strong objections.  It seems that ideology doesn’t always win out over common sense if people will just keep up the pressure.

It has been reported that most of Trump’s executive orders were cranked out by staffers without significant input from lawmakers or lawyers for the involved agencies.  Consequently some may be unworkable, unenforceable or illegal.  But I don’t think Trump and his staff care if the orders are illegal or if businesses are disrupted or if people get hurt.  They are hell bent on pleasing Trump’s base. 

It is understandable that a new administration is eager to show early progress on the campaign promises that the candidate made.  But the actions taken should be carefully thought out and vetted by the agencies affected.  Well, it is becoming increasingly clear that many of the early actions by the Trump administration were hip shots that will likely have unintended consequences. 

But of the many troubling things that occurred during this first week of the Trump administration one of the most troubling to me was the continuing attack on the media.  The last thing we need is a media that keeps its mouth shut. 

During a speech at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters Trump said members of the media were “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.”  Yet the Washington Post documented 24 of Trump’s false claims, inaccurate statements and exaggerations just during last week.  Many, like his claim that he held the all-time record of being on the cover of Time Magazine, were simply self-serving falsehoods.  He is obsessed with his image.  But Trump’s claim that millions of people aren’t insured anymore because of the Affordable Care Act was a Washington Post Four-Pinocchio whopper.  This man tries to create his own reality.

During the primary campaign and the presidential campaign both Republicans and Democrats warned that Trump was unfit to be president.  So far I don’t think he is doing anything to prove them wrong.

Before turning to the Donald J. Trump presidency I think it is appropriate to take a brief look back over the past eight years and say a heart-felt thank you to President Barak Obama.  No doubt many Americans will miss his integrity and his calm, cool leadership in the coming months and years.  I know I will.

A friend recently lamented that his prediction that Trump would change if he were elected president was totally wrong.  It is apparent to many that the narcissistic, prevaricating, uninformed, divider of people that was Donald Trump the candidate is now President Trump.

Since the election Trump has continued to campaign, still trying to gain support. Yet he took office with an approval rating of 40 percent or less.  His false comments about winning the popular vote but for millions of illegal votes and his claim of a landslide victory in the Electoral College are signs of a very insecure man.    But you know all that.

So instead of dwelling on the past and beating a dead horse, as it were, let’s take a look at some current events that might affect the future.

It is widely known that hundreds of important positions in Trump’s administration, some of which are critical to our national security, are still not filled.  Actually the Trump transition team has asked a number of Obama appointees to stay on until their replacement is named.  This speaks to the incompetence of Trump’s transition team, which is apparently run by Vice President Mike Pence.  Disorganization in our government at the start of an administration, particularly with regard to national security, is troubling.  The Trump team claims they will hit the ground running but it seems they will hit the ground running in circles.

The backlash from the GOP rush to repeal Obamacare is a gathering storm on the GOP political horizon.  Republican lawmakers are getting pushback at public events and constituent’s questions aren’t being answered.  The GOP has dug a big hole for itself.  And with comments from Trump that an Obamacare replacement should cover everyone, the hole just keeps getting deeper.

On Capitol Hill it has become known among policy makers and Congress that Trump’s economic team is working on a budget using proposals that were prepared last year by the far-right Heritage Foundation.  I couldn’t wait to download them, all 332 pages.

One is entitled “Blueprint for Balance, A Federal Budget for 2017.”  The other is entitled “Blueprint for Reform, A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017.”  Over the next 10 years the budget document calls for federal spending reductions of $10.5 trillion and tax cuts of $1.3 trillion. It proposes to balance the federal budget within seven years and it advocates cutting numerous federal programs, particularly those affecting climate change.

Here is just a smattering of what the Trump team is apparently considering in addition to the usual old saws of eliminating regulations, protecting the life of the unborn, restoring religious freedom and bolstering defense:

True Federalism – The aim is to “create competition among the states, thereby creating incentives for them to enact policies that retain and attract citizens.”

Infrastructure – Heritage would “leave the vast majority of funding decisions to states and localities, which know their priorities best and are more accountable to the public.”

Welfare – “States should gradually assume greater revenue responsibility for welfare programs; that is, they should pay for and administer the programs with state resources.”

Medicaid – “Medicaid assistance to able-bodied individuals should be converted to a direct contribution (insurance premium support) to facilitate participation in the private marketplace, and federal assistance to the states for the disabled and elderly should be limited to ensure fiscal control.”

Medicare – “Medicare should transition to a defined-contribution, premium support program.”

Education – “Congress should cut the size, scope and funding of the Department of Education.”  “To increase access and affordability of higher education, policymakers should limit federal subsidies and spending, which has [sic] contributed to increases in costs.”

Free Trade – “Congress should further eliminate trade barriers and protectionist policies to increase American’s freedom to trade.”

Tax System – “The tax system should raise the revenue necessary to fund a limited government at the lowest level possible for constitutionally appropriate activities.”  The Heritage Foundation prefers a flat tax rate of 12 percent designed more like a consumption tax and wants to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates.

Of course the Heritage plan doesn’t fit with Trump’s populous agenda, assuming he actually has one.  But I would bet that it is supported by a majority of Republicans in Congress, particularly those in the House.

Unfortunately the Heritage Foundation’s zeal to diminish the federal government and eliminate the safety-net seems to ignore certain facts about state economies, particularly in Republican voting states.  Many are poor and heavily dependent on tax revenues that the federal government collects from the richer states and distributes to them.  In fact, federal funding averages around 30 percent of all state budgets.

States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Mexico and others do not have the economic base to raise taxes to replace federal funding in their budgets.  States like New York, California, Minnesota and other blue states with strong economic bases could probably cope.

Trump voters demanded “change.”  But you know the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for because you are liable to get it.”

Russia has been front-page news recently, mainly for hacking the email servers of the Democratic National Committee and using stolen emails to discredit presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  Now the U.S. intelligence services have confirmed these Russian cyber-attacks, which they say are major security threats that were ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

All of this led me to do some research on Russia and I was surprised by what I found.

Russia is the world’s largest country by land area, 6.6 million square miles.  Its population is around 145 million.  Recent numbers from the World Bank show Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $1.33 trillion in 2015.  That was only a little over 7 percent of the U.S. GDP.  Russia’s economy is smaller than Canada’s $1.6 trillion GDP, and even behind both South Korea and Australia.  In fact California, which had the 8th largest economy in the world in 2015, had a GDP that was $1 trillion plus greater than Russia’s.  And Texas’ GDP exceeded Russia’s by $200 billion.

Russia’s main export is oil so its economy is highly dependent on the price of that commodity.  As President Obama recently observed, Russia doesn’t make anything that anyone wants to buy, although he probably wasn’t thinking of vodka.

Regarding the military, in 2015 the U.S. defense budget was $581 billion, over 12 times that of Russia’s.  The globalfirepower website provides excellent data on how those budgets are spent.

Russia has a large submarine fleet, 60 subs compared to the U.S. fleet of 75.  But it has only one aging, diesel powered aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov (above, as pictured on uawire), which can launch 32 fighter aircraft.  Recent reports indicate that is barely seaworthy.

The U.S. operates around 19 carriers, including 10 nuclear powered super carriers capable of accommodating over 100 fighter aircraft each.  Although Russia is attempting to modernize its navy, many of its ships are old Soviet Union era vessels that were described by one article as “wickedly uncomfortable” for their crews.

The Russian tank force is around 15,400 compared to 8.850 U.S. tanks.  This force is apparently designed for a land war in Europe.  NATO and the countries on Russia’s border that were once part of the Soviet Union view Russia’s ground forces with great concern.  They fear more Russian attempts to “annex” territory like Putin did with Crimea.

The Russian air force is much more formidable than its navy.  It is typically listed as second to the U.S. in numbers of aircraft, with roughly 2,200 combat aircraft compared to 5,090 U.S. combat aircraft.  But many of Russia’s aircraft are also old and generally not of the same quality and sophistication as U.S. aircraft.

Russia does have thousands of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles according to most estimates.  But one has to wonder how operational they are.  Regardless, this force is in place to deter a first strike attack against Russia but it also represents the threat of a first strike attack against the U.S.

So, Russia is an economic weakling and doesn’t have a world-class military force by U.S. standards.  And obviously Putin can’t afford another cold war arms race.  But cyber warfare doesn’t require a huge economy or a large navy and air force.  And that is where I believe Putin has chosen to attack the United States.  He wants to undermine American’s faith in democracy and destabilize the country.  Internationally Putin’s ultimate goal is to weaken NATO and America’s role as the leader of the free world.

Well, I believe president-elect Donald Trump’s comments about a rigged election and his weak support for NATO during the presidential campaign played right into Putin’s hands.  And Trump’s more recent disparagement of the U.S. intelligence community and his pushback regarding Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election were exactly what Putin wanted to hear.

Numerous members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, along with members of our military and intelligence community view Putin’s Russia as a serious threat to U.S. security and national interests.  They know that Putin is an adversary not a friend.

But Trump recently called those who don’t want a good relationship with Russia “stupid” and “fools.”  It remains to be seen how this dichotomy of policies on Russia will play out in Trump’s administration.

Welcome to “From the Center.”  Please check out the “About” for more about this blog.  Also please click on “Helpful Info” for information about how the federal government operates, including the budget process.

It will take me a few months to get this blog fully functional.  But hopefully over time I can provide readers with the type of factual information on the events and issues that will help them be better informed.

Of course, comments are always welcome.  So are suggestions for future posts.  Or if you have a question about budgets, taxes, politicians or politics, please send me an email.  I will give you a straight answer if I have one or can find one.

We are now in uncharted territory.  For bloggers Donald Trump and the Republican controlled Congress will provide a target rich environment during 2017.  It is hard to decide where to start blogging.

Will Trump keep his promises?

During the campaign Donald Trump promised voters everything imaginable.  But one of his more surprising claims was that he would not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid.  Congressional Republicans must not have heard this one because since the election they have been salivating to do more than touch these programs; they want to radically overhaul them.

So will President Trump deliver on his promises?  And if he doesn’t, which voters will be hurt the most?

Well, Brookings researchers Mark Muro and Sifan Liu have answered the question of who will get hurt by Trump’s broken promises.  They analyzed statistics on the election results of 3,056 U.S. counties.  These statistics show that Hillary Clinton won 472 counties and Donald Trump won 2,584.  So, although Clinton won the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes, she won only 15.4 percent of the counties.  Surprised?  I was.

But here is where the Muro and Liu analysis really gets interesting.  It showed that Clinton’s 472 counties generate 64 percent of the nation’s economic activity (Gross Domestic Product) compared to 36 percent in Trump dominated counties.  To me these statistics mean that Trump’s claims to bring back manufacturing jobs garnered many supporters in the less affluent areas of the country.  Typically these are areas that are more dependent on government programs and where better paying jobs are less plentiful.

Of course jobs are very important to all working Americans but I feel certain that if you asked middle and lower income folks which government programs are most important to them  Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid would be high on the list.  Obviously that’s why Trump promised not to touch those programs.  But he must not have known what Republicans in Congress have been planning for several years.

Since Republicans took control of the U.S. House in 2011, then-Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his successor Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., have produced austerity budgets that would repeal Obamacare, drastically cut funding for Medicaid and transition Medicare to a voucher system that would essentially privatize health care for retirees who become eligible for Medicare in 10 years.  That begs the questions:  Will congressional Republicans produce a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 2018-2027 next April that mirrors their recent austerity budgets?  And will Trump go along?

These past budgets were vague about changes Republicans would make to Social Security. But recently House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson, R-Texas, unveiled what some Republicans plan for this very popular social program.  Johnson proposed a bill that he claims would solve the problem of future deficits in the Social Security trust fund and not raise taxes.  His solution is to significantly reduce benefits for many lower income retirees and eventually cut taxes on benefits for higher income retirees.

An email I received from the Social Security Administration early in 2016 stated that around 30 percent of those on Social Security had to pay income taxes on their benefits.  That means around 70 percent of recipients aren’t taxed on their benefits.  Why?  These folks have incomes below $32,000 if married and below $25,000 if single.  Needless to say they are dependent on Social Security to live.  So Johnson wants to cut benefits for many of these lower income retirees?

Of course Johnson’s bill may not be passed into law but I think it shows what some Republicans in Congress would like to do with Social Security.  Do you suppose the folks who supported Trump will be concerned?

Well, at least three of Trump’s cabinet appointments should definitely concern many Trump supporters:

Rep. Price is now Trump’s choice for Health and Human Services Secretary.  He is a former orthopedic surgeon who is known as a strong opponent of Obamacare.  He also favors privatizing Medicare in 10 years, which would affect those who are currently under the age of 55.  As chairman of the House Budget Committee Price produced a budget for FYs 2017-2026 that would cut federal health care spending by almost 45% compared to President Obama’s budget for those years.  Most of those cuts would come from repealing Obamacare and cutting Medicaid funding.

Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants, is Trump’s choice for Labor Secretary.  He is known to oppose a significant increase in the minimum wage and favor replacing workers with automation.  And Puzder will not likely be a friend of organized labor.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., Trump’s choice for Director of the Office of Management and Budget is a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of far-right, some say radical, Republicans that is now chaired by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.  This group is all about making huge cuts in the federal budget, particularly in health care spending.   An Obamacare replacement is not on their agenda.

Trump is required by law to submit a budget to Congress for FYs 2018-2027 during his first 100 days and Congress is supposed to pass a concurrent resolution on the budget for those fiscal years in April next year.  Mulvaney will be in charge of producing Trump’s budget and will work with Congress to resolve budget issues and differences on federal spending.  We will soon know if Trump intends to keep his promises.

Watch this space.

Here is hoping that you had a Merry Christmas and that the New Year will be good to you and yours.

Ron Davis