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