Three times during my career I was recruited to manage an organization that was either failing in its mission or in need of rapid reorganization.  These experiences give me some understanding of what a newly elected president of the United States faces, particularly with personnel issues when the prior administration was run by the opposing political party.

But first, I need to explain a bit about how federal employees are classified under the U.S. Civil Service system’s three categories.  These are:

• The Competitive Service, which includes 80+% of federal employees who take the Civil Service exam,

• The Senior Executive Service (SES), which are top positions that are frequently filled by political appointees, and

• The Excepted Service, which includes employees that are further categorized in Schedules A through E.  These employees are not covered under Civil Service rules related to hiring or firing.  

Schedule C covers approximately 4,000 political positions that are filled by the president, 1,000 of which must be confirmed by Senate.  I have read that former president Trump’s totally naïve transition team was shocked when they learned in December 2016 that they had that many political appointments to make. 

Consequently, it was no surprise that Trump lacked the knowledge and agenda to do much harm when he took control of the White House in 2017.  As a result, his administration initially included some establishment, although not all stellar, Republicans. Those included, among others, chief of staff, Reince Priebus, Sec. of State, Rex Tillerson, Sec. of Defense, former general James Matis, and attorney general, Jeff Sessions.  Before Trump’s term ended, however, all these individuals and other traditional Republicans in his administration had been replaced by loyal supporters.

But Trump finally discovered (someone had to tell him) how he could gain more control over the Executive Branch.  In October 2020, he signed Executive Order 13957, creating a “Schedule F,” class of federal employees within the Excepted Service category who could be hired and fired at will.  These would be “confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions” held by career Civil Service personnel.

It is not clear how many positions would be included in Schedule F, perhaps thousands.  Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director, Russell Vought, called the move “much-needed reform,” but critics believe the order was designed to install Trump loyalists at much lower levels of the government who would be beholden to the president for their jobs.

President Biden rescinded this order shortly after taking office, but it hasn’t been forgotten by the MAGA crowd.     

In an earlier blog, I wrote about Project 2025, a $22 million funded effort by 70 conservative organizations working on a back-to-the-1920s, deep red “battle plan” to guide the next Republican president.  It has already produced a nearly 900-page, presidential transition strategy entitled, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.  Project officials are currently vetting a database of up 20,000 conservative recruits that they will train to help implement this proposal. 

Many of the 34 authors of the Mandate were knowledgeable former Trump administration officials, including Acting Deputy Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, Acting U.S. Secretary of Defense, Christopher Miller and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, one of Trump’s most trusted advisors.

These conservatives want a Trump team trained and ready to hit the ground running on inauguration day in 2025 if the former president is elected for a second term.  Project 2025 operatives will have identified hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials – labeled by them as the “deep state” – who they want to terminate and replace by pre-selected Trump loyalists.

I have a copy of the Mandate and “Day One” – meaning right after Trump, or any Republican, takes the oath of office – is when they want to execute their plan.  If they can pull it off, it will be an unprecedented blitzkrieg and before Congress and the courts can effectively react, catastrophic, perhaps irreversible, damage will be done to the federal government and its ongoing programs.

This is how the Mandate proposes rapidly deploying conservatives at the EPA but the same would occur within other agencies: “The majority of the political appointee team must be assembled, vetted, and ready to deploy before Day One. [A]ppointees in consideration for Senate-confirmed positions …. should be prepared to serve as a Deputy or Principal Deputy to get into the agency on Day One while their nomination and affiliated confirmation processes proceed.”

Within days, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of career civil servants could be moved to the sidelines or fired, far right operatives would seize control of the Executive Branch and ongoing programs they oppose would be quickly slowed or stopped.  Foreign aid (USAID) is just one of their many primary targets.

I doubt if there has ever been a transition plan like Project 2025, with an Executive Branch coup that it envisions.  Polls show, however, that most Americans are focused on the economy and wrongly, in my opinion, believe it is bad and getting worse. Needless to say, that exactly what Trump and his MAGA supporters want.  And I believe the mainstream media is also helping them by not continuously highlighting the chaos being caused by Republicans in Washington.

The 2024 election is 344 days away and many democracy advocates question if American voters will wake up in time to thwart Republican plans to create a one-party autocracy.  Well, I believe they will.   

It’s really hard to stay upbeat these days when the bad news seems to get worse each day.  I know, sometimes my fingers refuse to touch a key board to write about it.  Yet, if we just fan away the chilling fog of right-wing misinformation, a lot of positive things have been happening that bode well for 2024.

Unfortunately, they seem to get buried under the landslide of current events.  Today’s economic indicators, however, are the result of many positive programs that were enacted during President Biden’s first two years.  With Democrats holding only slight majorities in both chambers, the president signed into law some of the most consequential pieces of legislation in decades.  These included:

The American Rescue Plan that provided $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus to facilitate the country’s recovery from the health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting recession.

The Inflation Reduction Act that authorizes Medicare to negotiate certain drug prices, imposes a 15% corporate minimum tax rate on larger companies, increases IRS enforcement capabilities, imposes a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks and increases spending to address domestic energy security.   It also makes the largest ever U.S. investment in addressing climate change, extends the expansion of Affordable Care Act subsidies for three more years and enacts other health care reforms, including capping insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries at $35. 

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) that provides $1.2 trillion in critically needed spending for the transportation and highway programs of the Department of Transportation, along with funding for expanded broadband access, clean water initiatives and electric grid renewal.

The Postal Service Reform Act that improves the finances and operations of the U.S. Postal Service by lifting budget requirements imposed by prior legislation and requiring that six day a week mail delivery be continued.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that implements several important changes to the mental health system, school safety programs, and gun control laws.  This was the first federal action on guns in three decades.

The CHIPS and Science Act, also bipartisan, that provides roughly $280 billion in new funding to boost domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors that are critically important to U.S. national security.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, also bipartisan, that adds procedures to those set out in the Constitution for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election, including limiting the Vice President’s role in that process.

Other 2021-2022 legislation improves health care access for veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances during military service and requires federal and state governments to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages.

Since Republicans took control of the U.S. House in 2023, however, Congress has been stymied.  And as we have witnessed for the past several weeks, the GOP conference can’t even come together to elect a new speaker after they deposed Rep. Kevin McCarthy.

Regardless, the Census Bureau just published a report that shows retail sales “soared” in September, continuing a summer “spending binge.”  Since consumer spending comprises around 70% of the nation’s economy, these strong trends are the foundation of the overall economy that will help avoid a recession and that is always good for the party in power.

But wait, there’s even more great economic news.  

• The Atlanta Fed estimates that real GDP growth in the third quarter of 2023 was 5.4%. 

• Reports are showing that the federal funding and incentives provided by Biden’s 2022 legislative successes are stimulating billions of dollars of new investments in manufacturing facilities, much of it in red states of the south and west. 

• Prominent analysts are saying the U.S. is in the early stages of a “manufacturing super-cycle.”  How good is that?

• The economy added an average of roughly 375,000 jobs each month in 2022 and unemployment remains at record low levels.

The president’s handling of the crisis in Israel has demonstrated his strong foreign policy leadership skills, for which he is receiving some high marks.  Bret Stephens, whose column doesn’t always “abound with praise” for the president and his administration wrote that it was “President Biden’s Finest Hour.”  He called Biden’s trip to Israel “brave,” even with the president’s massive security apparatus.

The Bulwark’s Johnathan Last called Biden’s reaction to the 10/7 Hamas attack on Israel “one of the best pieces of foreign policy crisis management by an American president in a generation,” citing a long list of decisive actions the president immediately initiated.

And we should not forget how Biden’s leadership revived NATO after former president Trump was on the brink of taking the U.S. out of that critically important organization.

Still, it’s definitely not the time to sing, Don’t Worry, Be Happy; inflation is still too high; Russia continues its brutal war against Ukraine; Hamas terrorists are attempting to start a conflagration in the Middle East; and worst of all, the Republican Party is threatening our democracy.  But hell, I can’t remember a time when Americans had no reasons to worry about the future and nothing too bad was occurring around the world. 

So, I recommend thinking positive about 2024 and being engaged.  Compared to Trump and the MAGA crowd, that just want to tear everything down, President Biden and the Democrats will have a great story for the voters in 2024.  And I intend to do what I can to help them tell it.

My theory that right-wing media is far more powerful and influential than liberal media is not easy to prove.  There is, however, some good evidence that it is valid. 

We tend to think that Fox News Corp’s ultra-conservative TV personalities like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin are highly influential with Republican viewers.  There are 227 Fox affiliated television stations located across the United States.  And FNC prime time anchors consistently garner larger audiences than those of CNN and MSNBC.  Typically, however, the number of Fox’s nightly viewers is less than four million per program. 

Ah, but 15 million tune to Hannity’s radio program, 11 million listen to Levin and former Fox personality Glenn Beck’s radio program attracts 10.5 million, according to radiofidelity.com.  Yet, these radio hosts are only a few among dozens of conservative commentators on the radio every day, in every state.

I rarely listened to a radio program, much less a talk radio presentation.  Turns out, I am in a very small minority in that regard.  AM/FM Radio is the biggest mass-reach medium in the U.S., with over 90% of consumers listening weekly, according to radiofidelity.com.  And I would guess that the percentage could be higher in the nation’s heartland and among blue collar workers, like those who repair vehicles, build homes, till the land and even those who keep our factories humming.

Some conservative talk show hosts blatantly spread misinformation, according to articles I’ve read about their content, while others accomplish their goals with slanted programming.  They don’t have to lie in order to deceive; they just constantly present everything negative about Democrats and liberals and everything positive about Republicans and conservatives, leaving their audiences woefully misinformed. 

Both sides do that, you say.

Maybe so, but the largest owner of radio stations in the United States, is reported to be iHeartMedia, Inc., with more than 850 full-power AM and FM radio stations.  Programs by Hannity, Beck and Levin, among numerous other conservative talk show hosts, are regularly broadcast on their stations.  I have read that a few of iHeartMedia’s stations also carry liberal talk shows but that the company has tended to drop these affiliations due to lack of ratings or advertiser support.

Think of it, most radio broadcasts are free and widely available.  A listener can do many types of work while enjoying a radio program, whether it’s music or political commentary.  They can even receive programs privately with ear phones.  And statistics – like the aforementioned – indicate that tens of millions of Republicans tune to right-wing talk shows where they are constantly told that Democrats and liberal elites hate them and look down on them.

There are numerous examples of how hardcore GOP voters are misinformed by Fox News and ultra-conservatives like Hannity, Levin and Ingraham but I don’t think they care.  You could give these zealots indisputable evidence about how former president Trump is threatening democracy, and how his policies will weaken America and they would still adamantly express their intent to vote for him in 2024.  

But what concerns me is how right-wing media could influence the perception of undecided voters and independents who will likely decide if Trump wins or loses in 2024.

So, I wonder how many of these folks know that Trump branded Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark Milley as a traitor who should be executed?  Fox News didn’t mention this gross, unhinged statement and it garnered very little TV news coverage, according to Media Matters.  In fact, I believe that those voters who mostly watch or listen to conservative slanted programs, have no idea how strong the evidence is that Trump committed numerous crimes.

More likely, they’ve heard constant Republican attack messages about President Biden’s mental infirmities.  If he makes a “gaff,” which he does occasionally, right-wing media will highlight it over and over, taking it out of context and presenting it as evidence that the president has “lost it,” and is not up to the job.  In fact, conservative friends have told me that they are convinced that Biden is “not all there.”

I firmly believe that Trump and many Republican politicians are confident that they can flat out lie about anything, the Department of Justice, the FBI or election fraud and that it will be spread as gospel across the vast conservative media sphere within hours.  That is how the MAGA crowd creates a perception that Trump is innocent of all 91 criminal charges against him and that Biden committed crimes as vice president for which he must now be impeached.  And many in their audience will readily believe this nonsense.

The impeachment hearing that House Republicans held last Thursday was a complete fiasco according to most objective accounts.  Their first witness, conservative legal expert Johnathan Turley, admitted that he did not believe current evidence would support impeaching the president, and other witnesses presented only unsupported allegations.  Still, on Hannity’s show that night, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and James Comer (R-Ky.) talked as if this hearing had proven that Biden had committed impeachable offenses.  No doubt, most viewers believed them. 

I wish I had better advice to give.  But those of us who fear the MAGA movement must financially support and vote for candidates who strongly defend democracy and the rule of law. And we must never give up fighting against right-wing attacks on our precious democratic institutions.   

Former president Donald Trump’s narcissism, lies and blatantly criminal acts have forced upon this nation some almost unresolvable dilemmas that are fraught with democracy destabilizing outcomes.  Will the legal system allow him to escape the rule of law and run for president again – or prosecute him and hold him accountable?   Well, four indictments with 91charges already filed would seem to answer part of these questions.  Now, however, another legal question is being asked: Is Trump disqualified from running again under Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Numerous legal scholars have opined that states may legally exclude him from the 2024 ballot under this “Disqualification Clause,” which would likely infuriate perhaps 30% of the nation’s voters and may incite riots.  But if he is allowed on the ballot, he could win outright – or MAGA supporting red state legislators could falsify electoral votes to ensure he wins, which would also provoke great unrest.  Either way, I believe the nation’s democratic institutions will be in serious jeopardy if Trump becomes president in 2025.    

Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified July 9, 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War as prominent rebels were running for Congress.  As abridged here by me it states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office …. under the United States …. who, having previously taken an oath …. as an officer of the United States …. to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Several blue state secretaries of state will likely attempt to exclude Trump from their state’s ballot and litigation has already been filed to exclude him by six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado.  This issue will certainly land in the U.S. Supreme Court and the result may hinge on how the Court chooses to define “insurrection or rebellion,” which the Constitution does not define.  The justices must also decide if the January 6, 2021 rioters are enemies of the United States to whom Trump has given “aid or comfort.”

The Congressional Research Service, a government entity, did a six-page analysis of Section 3 dated September 7, 2022, that outlines various issues involved in disqualifying those who participated in or encouraged the January 6 siege on the Capitol.  It does not reach any conclusions, of course, but it provides some helpful guidance on how that section might apply.

The CRS examined the Insurrection Act, enacted approximately three years after the Fourteenth Amendment, for a possible definition of an insurrection. This law authorizes the use of armed forces in cases where insurrectionists “oppose” or “obstruct” the execution of the laws of the United States or impede “the course of justice under those laws.” Congressional activities, including fulfilling the constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes, would likely be considered execution of U.S. laws.

Of the numerous opinions regarding the applicability of the Disqualification Clause, I believe the most relevant are contained in “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” an article authored by William Baude from the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen from the University of St. Thomas.  Why?  Well, these legal scholars are affiliated with the deeply conservative Federalist Society and they are absolutely dedicated to “originalism,” a philosophy used to interpret the Constitution that is also followed by all six conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Baude and Paulsen examined Trump’s conduct before and during the January 6 attack on the Capitol to determine if they qualify as acts of rebellion and if such conduct would disqualify him from being president again. 

The following abstract of their article, abridged here by me, succinctly summarizes the author’s conclusions much better than I can, although, they are not supported by all legal analysts.

• First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.

• Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.

• Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes …. the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment.

• Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of …. support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency.  [I]t disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.

Clearly, Baude and Paulsen’s interpretation of Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment could be used to disqualify numerous Republican politicians from holding office, federal, state and local.  This fact will no doubt weigh heavily on the Supreme Court justices as they decide any case involving the Disqualification Clause and Trump.  And I believe that all nine justices will give Baude and Paulsen’s opinions very careful consideration. 

Even though I profoundly fear a second Trump presidency, I am very concerned about the consequences of disqualifying him from running.

A partial fiscal cliff is approaching.

In 2025, the next president and Congress will be tangling with a huge issue as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions for individuals that Republicans pushed through in December 2017 will expire at the end of the year.  Marginal tax rates will go up for most taxpayers, the federal standard deduction and estate tax exemption will decrease substantially and certain deductions that were reduced or eliminated will revert to 2016 levels, probably increased by inflation.

Accordingly, current government projections for revenues, deficits and the national debt are based on increased individual income tax rates in 2026 and beyond.

A Republican president with a GOP-controlled Congress, will attempt to make the TCJA provisions for individuals permanent.  If Democrats control the government, however, they will have some hard decisions to make.  They have railed against this legislation since it was enacted but allowing taxes to automatically go back up will not be popular.  If neither party has total control, a battle royal will ensue.

When the George W. Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010, President Obama agreed to extended them for two years.  This created the “fiscal cliff” at the end of 2012, which was also when sequestration budget cuts would kick in.  The Great Recession was keeping the economy depressed at the time and a tax increase might have made matters worse.  At the last minute, however, Obama managed to negotiate a deal with the GOP-Controlled Congress that raised tax rates for the wealthy, retained those for lower income brackets and delayed sequestration.  

Any prediction for 2025 is a fool’s errand but my guess is that an Obama-like deal is most likely. 

The nation appears to be in a bad mood. 

A shocking 37% of registered voters believe the nation’s problems are so bad that the United States is in danger of failing, according to a July New York Times/Siena College poll.  Republicans (56%), particularly GOP women (65%), are pushing this overall number higher, but even some Democratic women (20%) have this dark view of the nation’s viability.  Republicans are no doubt pessimistic because a Democrat is president; Democrats may be fearful because the GOP has become cult.

The Republican doomsayers are older – two-thirds of them are over 65 – and less educated, according to this poll.  They are also more likely than the GOP voting population to get their news from far-right sources, like Newsmax and the Epoch Times. 

I don’t think that these folks even care about Republican policies; and they are not a bit like the younger generations coming along.

Tomorrow’s voters won’t look or vote like today’s.

The make-up of the nation’s population is constantly changing and current demographic trends do not bode well for the GOP.

Around 4 million Americans attain the voting age of 18 every year, according to a July Washington Post article.  It predicts that 32 million of them will have become eligible to vote between 2016 and 2024.  Since about 2.5 million older Americans die each year, around 20 million of them will have been eliminated from the voting rolls during these same eight years.

This means that Gen Z voters (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) will have increased by a net 52 million (32 + 20) against the boomers and silent generation groups between 2016 and the 2024 election, which is about 20% of the 2020 electorate of 258 million.  Remember, these millions of dearly departed tended to vote heavily for Republicans.

Gen Z voters are 48% non-white, compared to the boomers they are replacing in the electorate who were 72% White.  They may well be the most educated group in the nation’s history, and the majority of college graduates are now female.  Statistics show that college graduates are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Voters under 30 since 2017 have turned out in numbers 25% higher than the same age group of older generations did prior to the 2016 election, particularly in the midterms.  And Gen Z voters say they are much more motivated by polices than their elders who have taken a more partisan approach.

Consequently, polls show that younger voters are deeply concerned about, gun violence, climate change and abortion rights.  They are more worried about their future than the profits of big oil companies.  Statistics also show that young people have voted more frequently for Democrats and progressive policies in recent years than prior generations.  Perhaps that’s why candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wants to raise the voting age to 25.

Believe it or not, the Republican National Committee has some smart people in their organization.  And they are terrified by these demographics.  Will Republicans try to appeal to younger voters with enlightened policies, or, will they just keep trying to make it harder for them to vote?  I think we know answer to that question.

In fact, it seems to me that today’s Republican politicians are only interested in pleasing their hard right base.  While China is attempting to kick the U.S. off the world stage, they are threatening to impeach President Biden and shut down the federal government if spending isn’t slashed, particularly on climate change remediation.

Well, I don’t think the GOP has a very appealing story to tell voters before the 2024 elections and I believe the results will prove that.

There’s not much incentive to post a blog about politics when you fear that no one wants to read it.  So, why bother?  Well, I feel compelled to highlight ominous political developments because ignoring these threats just exacerbates them.  Unquestionably, America’s democratic institutions will experience some existential challenges in the coming months but they could get much worse after the 2024 election.  And Project 2025 is a major reason why.

Media focus on former president Trump’s criminal indictments is obscuring the fact that some powerful, private conservative groups are hatching radical plans to guide the next Republican president. Under the leadership of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, 70, yes seventy, of these organizations are working on Project 2025, a back-to-the-1920s, deep red “battle plan.” The contributors to this effort are committed to dismantling the “rogue administrative state,” according to Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts. 

They want to strip the federal government of the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and repeal efforts to slow global warming.  The proposals they are championing, however, go far beyond that and mirror positions held by Trump, including his desire to establish a de facto “unitary executive.”  This would give him near autocratic authority, weaken the separation of powers established by the Constitution and decimate the career federal workforce. 

Funded by $22 million, Project 2025 has produced a nearly 900-page proposal, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, to guide the next Republican president’s transition strategy and is vetting a database of up 20,000 conservative operatives that it will train to help implement it.  The Mandate calls for:

• Repealing President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which are creating good-paying jobs, overwhelmingly in red states,

• Dismantling the Department of Homeland Security,

• Eliminating the Department of Education,

• Promoting the exploration and use of fossil fuels, while limiting the access of wind and solar power to the nation’s electrical grid.

• Protecting the fundamental right to life from conception,

• Reforming the Department of Justice,

• Cutting federal individual income taxes with two rates, 15 and 30 percent,

• Reducing the corporate income tax rate to 18%, and much, much more.

Project 2025 participants don’t care which Republican becomes the next president.  But former president Donald Trump is well positioned to be the 2024 Republican nominee and has a realistic chance to stay out of jail by getting elected again.  I believe only a serious health issue will deter him from these quests, even if he is convicted of serious crimes. 

Trump’s criminality apparently doesn’t concern his fiercely loyal base, which is 37% of the likely Republican electorate, according to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll.  But this is not the extent of his Republican support.  Only 25% of Republicans definitely oppose him; the GOP’s remaining voters are categorized as “persuadable,” according to this poll. 

Every GOP politician knows that Trump’s base is a loaded gun at the head of anyone who dares criticize their leader and those who have risked its wrath have paid a price.  The best example is probably former Wyoming Representative Liz Chaney.  She has long been a staunch conservative, yet that bona fide didn’t matter.  Her U. S. House Republican colleagues ousted her from a leadership position in 2021 for criticizing Trump and she lost in the primary election to an upstart backed by him.

Like Ms. Cheney, many of the more reasonable Republicans have been steadily weeded out of the party.  I’m not sure that even a handful remain.  But let this sink in: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), currently second in line for the presidency, appears to be mostly under Trump’s control.  I don’t think McCarthy cares about our democratic institutions or the rule of law so long as he can retain this lofty position.  The majority of House Republicans also support Trump and I count maybe three Republican Senators who definitely oppose the former president, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney being the most prominent of these.

So, don’t assume that GOP threats to American democracy are temporary.  This isn’t just a cycle where in a decade or so, calmer, more moderate voices will prevail in the party again.  Its far-right wing is firmly entrenched and seem to get stronger and more radical by the day.  Trump’s ardent MAGA followers may just want to “own the libs” but Trump, his congressional supporters and Project 2025 backers are planning to own the government.

New York Times’ journalists that were reporting on Project 2025 asked those running in the GOP presidential primary to comment on its proposals, but none chose to do so.  At an event in New Hampshire, however, candidate Gov. Ron DeSantis said that as president, he would “start slitting throats” in the federal bureaucracy and during a Fox News interview vowed to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy and the IRS.  

Candidate Nicky Haley responded to a question about Trump’s indictments by saying that Republicans should instead be focused on reversing Bidenomics.  Apparently, she has the same objectives that will kill jobs in Republican-controlled states as the Project 2025 proposals.

Sadly, I believe the Republican Party has concluded that it can no longer win in a democracy and that numerous, powerful conservative organizations have similar beliefs.  Borrowing from Trump’s insurrection inciting words on January 6 – if democracy-loving Americans don’t fight like hell in 2024, we won’t have a country anymore.

One of my most challenging jobs was managing a group of 100+ lawyers and support staff who handled the defense of all U.S. lawsuits against our company – thousands of them.  Most were settled one way or another before they went to trail, some for millions of dollars.  A small number, however, were decided by a jury, several of which involved potential liability of over $1 billion.

Company executives hated to settle cases that they believed were frivolous, and many were.  But they were even more upset when a trial jury hit us with a huge damage award.  Consequently, I knew my career was in the hands of 12 good men and women every time I recommended that we take a case to trial.

Fortunately, my team and our outside council, managed to win over 80% of them, some in very unfriendly jurisdictions.  As a result, I developed great respect for the jury system and solid confidence that we could win even against tough odds.

But my experience with juries was in the 1980s and early 1990s and, lately, I’ve become concerned that the objective judgement of the American public that I so heavily depended on back then has changed.  After all, recent polls indicate that a majority of Republican voters believe former president Trump’s baseless claims that he lost the 2020 election due to voter fraud.  And some polls show that President Biden has a 40% approval rating, even though unemployment is at record lows, wages are beginning to outpace inflation, the economy is reasonably good and some very consequential legislation was passed on his watch.

What could have changed, I’ve wondered?  Well, there’s a huge difference between the verdict of a trial jury and a statistic rendered by public opinion.  I’ve concluded, however, that it’s not that Americans have changed; the dichotomy lies in the information – i.e., evidence – they are getting. 

Those who have been seated on jury know that a trial is a tightly controlled process.  The judge dictates every step according to detailed rules of procedure and evidence.  Each party is typically represented by counsel who file pleadings with the court, a complaint by plaintiffs and an answer by defendants.  These documents state each party’s view of the facts and the law.  Witnesses can testify as to the facts and expert testimony can help the jury understand technical issues.  Perhaps most important factor that differentiates trail evidence though is that there are stiff penalties for lying. 

After the case has been presented by both sides, the jury – the fact finders – are given the controlling law by the judge and they decide on a verdict.  Because of its ridged procedures, I have long believed that the jury system has credibility with the public and that they will typically accept the results.

Still, much has changed from the late 1980s when right-wing firebrand Rush Limbaugh launched his radio talk show.  One of his main admonitions was against conservatives ever compromising with liberals – on anything.  For three hours every weekday Rush railed against the “liberal” media, oppressive big government and the left.  Virtually all over the nation, farmers on tractors, mechanics working on cars in small town garages and guys framing new homes were being constantly indoctrinated with his conservative misinformation blasting from their radios.

By the mid-1990s, the Fox News channel was doing the same with primetime television viewers all week long.  Conservative demagoguing became insidious and eventually got so lucrative that today there are dozens of such radio talk show programs and several copycat channels threatening to steal Fox’s audience with even more radical programing.

Far-right former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) used his influence as Speaker of the House after the 1994 election to infect dozens of up-and-coming Republicans with his “demonize the left” style of politics.  Soon these politicians and the ultra-conservative media began to play off and outdo one another, a political scrum that that just kept pushing further to the right and dragging tens of millions of their radicalized constituents along with them. 

Needless to say, Donald Trump co-opted the lot of them in 2016.

Yet, I’m reasonably optimistic that the rule of law will prevail in judging Trump’s past crimes.  What gives me some confidence is the 2018 Trial of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager.  Juror Paula Duncan, a self-described strong Trump supporter – with her red MAGA cap in her car as she drove to the courthouse – told why she voted to convict Manafort.  Prior to the trial, she had thought he was being targeted to get dirt on Trump and didn’t want him to be guilty.  During an interview on Fox News, however, she said her vote was based on the evidence against him, which was “overwhelming,” and that “no one’s above the law.”

I believe Trump will be recklessly rolling the dice if he relies on a MAGA biased jury in several federal and state jurisdictions, and/or on winning the presidency, to avoid criminal liability.   Scott Galloway, a podcast host and professor at New York University predicts that he will abandon the presidential race and accept a plea deal to avoid the possibility of jail time. The several charges he is facing would complicate a comprehensive resolution but one is probably doable. 

I believe the former guy would be wise to take Mr. Galloway’s way out.  But then, when has he done anything smart recently?

Why Americans should be afraid OF today’s Republican Party.

While appearing on a CNN special commemorating the first anniversary of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that she wants the Republican Party to be a vibrant political party and wished that Republicans “would take back their party.”  She believes our two-party political system needs a strong GOP.

Yet, I have not heard one Republican express sentiments regarding the Democratic Party even remotely similar this.  Instead, Republican politicians and numerous GOP voters typically refer to Democrats as the enemy (or worse) instead of fellow Americans with whom they have policy differences.  This consistent animosity suggests to me that many Republicans may prefer a one-party government – theirs.

Worse yet, some on the far-right favor violence against their opponents.  Of the 443 people murdered by extremists over the last 10 years, 75% (333) were killed by radical right-wingers, 73% of which were white supremacists, according to data collected by the Anti-Defamation League.  But that is just the tip of their violence iceberg. 

Threats by radical Trump supporters against public officials, even Republicans, are causing many to quit their jobs and/or go into hiding.  A classic example of this vicious harassment – although there are thousands – is Bill Gates, a Republican member of the Maricopa County, Arizona Board of Supervisors.  Simply because he upheld Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election, he and his family were unmercifully threatened and even friends turned against him.  Bill was labeled a traitor who should be shot or hung and someone on social media suggested that his three teenaged daughters should be raped.  The family had to go into hiding.

The truth is, millions of Trump supporters believe that anyone who disagrees with their hero, or attempts to hold him accountable, is the enemy that should be destroyed.  And Trump has vowed to decimate all those who have challenged him if he gets a second term, starting with the Department of Justice and the FBI.  Next time, no adults will be in the room to stop him and some on his staff, like his former chief advisor, Steve Bannon and his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, will egg him on.

Trump loyalists have taken over most levels of the GOP, all the way down to the counties in many states.  These grassroots organizations are both formidable and dangerous.  Since they believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, they will do anything to ensure he is reelected, legal or not.  And I believe his closest challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, is just as dangerous and autocratic.

Why Americans should be afraid FOR the Republican Party

The GOP has become the party of mainly straight, white, Christians, with a bias toward males. Republican positions on gun controls, abortion, religious freedom, climate change, LBGTQ rights, tax cuts for the wealthy and other issues are not popular with a majority of Americans, particularly younger citizens.  Polls show this over and over. 

Because they so obviously favor a white dominated America, Republicans are trying to prevent immigrants of color from entering the United States and becoming citizens.  But that won’t alter U.S.  demographics, no matter what they do.  The largest percentage of students in K-12 schools are not white, which indicates that it is just a matter of time before white Americans will no longer be the majority of the population.

It’s my observation that Republican politicians put their ideology and their party above all other considerations.  For example, they advocate for radically downsizing the federal government and even eliminating entire government departments.  Yet, what did Governor DeSantis do when hurricane Ian ravaged Florida in 2022, causing an estimated $67 billion of insured loses and over 150 deaths?  Call for federal help, of course, like numerous other GOP governors have.  If Republican policies were to prevail, however, federal agencies would be too weak and underfunded to effectively react when a massive hurricane devastates the Gulf coast or strong tornados savage large swaths of the Midwest. 

Actually, I believe that many Republican politicians and their wealthy donors yearn for a United States with the laws of the 1950s or even the 1920s.  You know, the periods before Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA and the Department of Education existed.  Does that make any sense?  Reality check: the 1950s were not the good old days that people frequently imagine, much less the 1920s.

So, I wonder – can the GOP remain viable when its policies are not popular with the electorate?  Or, when it promotes a twice impeached, twice criminally indicted former president as its leader?  As highly respected, retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig put it in his recent op-ed, as he urged Republicans to put country over party, “If the indictment of Mr. Trump on Espionage Act charges – not to mention his now almost certain indictment for conspiring to obstruct Congress from certifying Mr. Biden as the president on Jan. 6 – fails to shake the Republican Party from its moribund political senses, then it is beyond saving itself. Nor ought it be saved.”

I agree.  Far-right members are taking their party down a path that could lead to its irrelevance or demise.  Except, that’s not a fate that I wish for the GOP, nor should any other American.  In a two-party political system like ours, democracy will suffer if either party has overwhelming power. 

There are many things that affect our lives that we cannot control – but we should absolutely take control of what we can.  Kudos are due if you have already accomplished most of what follows; these precautions will make life easier for you and/or your family in case of unforeseen events.  Still, it’s wise to review them periodically.  Some are particularly important if a tragic event should simultaneously befall both you and your spouse.  It happens to unfortunate couples every day.

Have a Will and Powers of Attorney; Your Family Will Thank You.

Every adult should execute a will, a durable power of attorney, a living will and a health care power of attorney under the laws of their state of residence.  A will allows you to specify how your assets will be distributed when you die, among other things.  A durable power of attorney enables a trusted person to act on your behalf if you become incapacitated.  A living will or advanced directive specifies your desires regarding medical treatment if you are incapable of expressing informed consent when you are terminally ill and/or in a vegetative state.  A health care power of attorney allows a trusted person to make medical decisions for you when you are unable to make them for yourself.  Except for a will, the others can be combined in one document.

People who provide care for dependent persons – particularly minor children – need a will that specifies who should be named as a guardian of their dependent person(s) and how their assets should be distributed to the dependent person(s) and/or used for their benefit.  In a recent, tragic mass shooting, all members of one family were killed except a young child.  The courts may have to decide his guardian. 

Tell Them Where Your Assets Are.

After completing these document basics, however, there are other actions you can take to make life easier for you and your family.  We all hope that we will grow old and go on to our just reward in some type of natural way.  Still, planes do crash and horrific accidents do occur.  What do your adult children or other heirs do if you and your spouse are suddenly gone and they don’t know everything you own or where it is located?  A will doesn’t provide that information, and it shouldn’t.

No doubt, they will be stressed and probably in the dark about how to proceed.  But a lot of that angst will be avoided if you have provided them – in advance – with an asset location document (ALD) that informs them about all your assets and how to access them.  Update this document at least once a year and include contact information for your legal and/or financial advisors.  It is also advisable to put an ALD copy in your safety deposit box(es), authorize a trusted person (adult child) to access the box(es) and let them know where the keys are kept.

What should the ALD include?  Well, it should provide the location of your safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, brokerage accounts, real property, jewelry, collectibles, original copies of powers of attorney and wills and any other assets.  Values of assets need not be included, except perhaps for artwork and collectables.  The ALD should also provide account numbers, where applicable, and advise where passwords for your various accounts, including computers, can be found.  It is very important to identify any property located outside your home state. 

Employers typically establish contact numbers where heirs can get information on pension plans, 401k accounts and company insurance.  Include employer contacts, social security numbers and any employee ID numbers in your ALD.  Your heirs will need them.

Dig Up Buried Assets.

You probably don’t bury valuables in the ground, but some might not be obvious.  For example, credit card companies may provide significant travel insurance if tickets are purchased with their card.  A wrongful death claim could also be an overlooked asset if you were involved in a fatal accident, but it must be filed soon thereafter.  Include this and other advice about any obscure assets in your ALD.  The more information it contains, the less research will be required by your estate executor and that will save time and fees charged to your estate.

A Lightning Strike Killed Your Computer – Now What?

Computers are often where financial records and information (like Quicken) are stored, along with valuable personal information and pictures.  Backup computer files on several rotating flash drives or other USB connected devices at least monthly and periodically place one in a safety deposit box. 

Videotape the contents of your home and place it in a safety deposit box.  It will facilitate insurance claims in case of a fire.  Scan precious pictures and load them on backup drives for safety deposit box storage too.  If lost in a fire or other disaster, they can’t be replaced. 

Not Adequately Insured?  Tough Luck!

Home construction costs have skyrocketed over time.  Your homeowner’s insurance should be adjusted for inflation periodically to fully cover rebuilding costs if your home is destroyed.   You should also have an umbrella liability policy in an amount sufficient to protect your assets against a lawsuit alleging negligence on your part.  And, it’s a good idea to have earthquake coverage.   

We all hope these precautions will never be needed, except for wills.  But if they ever are, they will be invaluable.

It’s hard to believe we are worrying about a default on the debt of the United States – again.  The markets and many pundits are – in my opinion – disturbingly sanguine about what is about to go down.  Evidently, they are confident that a deal will be inked before a default occurs.  I hope they are right, but I don’t think that outcome is certain.

The existing debt limit of $31.4 trillion was reached in January, which prevented the U.S. Treasury from issuing new debt.  Since then, Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen has been employing what are called “extraordinary measures” and using current tax receipts to pay the nation’s bills.  These short-term solutions will only suffice until sometime in early June, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

President Biden rolled out his fiscal year 2024 budget in March as required by law.  He challenged deficit hawk Republicans to produce their budget, which the House typically passes by April or May each year. The president wanted these two plans to form the basis for negotiations as part of the regular yearly appropriations process. He wanted to keep this separate from the debt limit increase legislation.

Republicans, however, either could not agree on their budget specifics or declined to do so because their proposals to slash spending from specific programs would be wildly unpopular with the electorate.  So, they barely passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act (LSGA) in April, a 300-page ultra-conservative wish list that proposes massive, unspecified spending cuts that would extend through FY 2033.  In fact, it would accomplish what most Republican politicians have wanted to do for decades, absolutely cripple the federal government.   

But here’s the thing.  I am confident that Republicans would be afraid to make this legislation the law, even if they had enough members in Congress to pass it and a Republican in the White House.  It is just that draconian.

As stated in my most recent blog, the LSGA would reduce spending for discretionary programs by 2033 to only 48% of fiscal year 2023 levels if defense and veteran’s care are not cut.  This would include funding for nutrition assistance for poor mothers and infants, air traffic control, the State Department, cancer research, the FBI and the Social Security Administration, to name a few.  Agriculture Department programs, which many Republicans strongly support because many of their constituents are farmers, could also be trimmed by over one half. 

In practice though, spending restrictions would not be applied equally across all departments.  Consequently, future appropriations hearings would result in vicious food fights that would include plates, pots, pans and knives. 

The LSGA, however, would do much than cut spending, most of which Biden could never accept, including:

• Repealing executive actions related to student loan forgiveness.

• Expanding work requirements significantly for Medicaid, food stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

• Repealing climate change mitigation provisions of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

• Rescinding additional funding for the IRS to improve service and enforcement.

• Requiring that major federal regulations be first approved by Congress.

• Raising the debt limit by only $1.5 trillion and for less than one year.

Neither Biden nor McCarthy can politically afford to give significantly on their positions, which are currently oceans apart.  That is why I believe default is more possible this year than ever before.  If McCarthy agrees to raise the debt limit without substantial concessions from Biden, many in his conference won’t vote for the resulting bill and he will likely lose his position as speaker.

If Biden gives in to Republican demands and significantly cuts spending and/or weakens the social safety net, his chances of winning the Democratic primary next year will be in jeopardy.  In fact, all Democrats running next year will be in serious trouble because many discouraged supporters simply won’t turn out to vote.

Of course, allowing a default will hurt both parties.  But most of the public simply won’t understand who is really at fault for the resulting catastrophe so a lot of blame will fall on the party in the White House. 

Former president Trump is seeking revenge by encouraging Republicans to force a default if they don’t get “massive” spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.  To make matters worse, Republicans have rejected a White House offer to freeze domestic spending at FY2023 levels and have increased their original work requirements for food stamp recipients, according to a Politico Playbook article on Sunday.  And they are also demanding that new immigration provisions from their recently passed border bill be added to the LSGA.

Democrats have raised hopes by setting the stage for a discharge petition that would allow 218 House members to vote on a debt limit increase bill if McCarthy refuses to bring one to the House floor for a vote.  But they need five Republicans to join this effort.  And on Sunday, Biden stated that he believes he has the “authority” under the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit without an act of Congress.  But these probably aren’t viable solutions.

McCarthy has rejected a short-term increase to allow more time for negotiations, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.  As June 1 approaches, however, the pressure to find some way to prevent an immediate fiscal disaster may become politically unbearable.  But perhaps it will take a steep decline in the stock markets to finally force a debt limit agreement.  Unfortunately, nothing is certain.