Today I’m sharing the text of my February 12, one-page letter to all nine members of the Court, followed by my comments on the concerns it expresses. 

The letter:

In my opinion, the originalists on this Court are deciding 21^st Century issues by applying 18^th Century thinking, when men held slaves, women could not vote and slave states wanted to maintain this abominable legal status.

I believe an originalist (textualist) should interpret the 2^nd Amendment the way it reads and hold that slave states designed it to ensure that their militias couldn’t be disarmed by the federal government.

In my opinion, the Court’s holdings in Heller on guns, Citizens United on campaign financing and Shelby County on voting rights were some of the most democracy damaging any Court has ever made.  

As a result of these decisions, thousands of Americans are dying due to minimal gun controls, special interest money is corrupting our politics and anti-democratic, voter suppressing restrictions are being imposed on millions of our citizens by Republican-controlled states. 

Due to former president Trump’s Big Lie, election workers are afraid to serve; millions of Americans no longer trust elections; many government officials and judges need 24/7 personal security protection; there is open talk of civil war; and the rule of law and our democracy are both on the line in the 2024 election.  Do not just blame politics; the Court shares the fault for this horrific state of affairs.

As a citizen and a lawyer, I feel helpless and appalled watching Donald Trump bullying this nation toward an autocracy, aided by a radicalized Republican Party.  And if he dismantles our democracy during a second term, which he has threaten to do if he is elected, I believe this Supreme Court will be reviled as one of the major reasons for its demise. 

The Court should have found a way to rule that the 2020 election was fairly won by Joe Biden.  It would have been easy for this Court to do so.  That may have prevented the insurrection on January 6, 2021, and settled the bogus election fraud issue that is quite literally tearing this nation apart. 

I have absolutely no doubt that a President Trump will treat Court decisions as advisory opinions and politics will override the Constitution and replace the rule of law.  And you may be left wondering if you and the Court could have prevented this.  Well, this year it is not too late for the Court to do that.

My comments about the letter:

All six conservative justices are originalists or textualists who attempt to interpret the Constitution’s wording as it was understood when it was written in the 1780s or when later amended. I believe they apply their originalist theory selectively, as it suits their ideology. 

For example, in the Heller case they held that the right to gun ownership is not limited to service in a militia, despite the 2^nd Amendment’s prefatory clause that states, “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”  Why would the Founders have emphasized militias if they intended that all Americans had the right to bear arms regardless? 

Citizens United held that corporations have free speech protections under the 1^st Amendment and that money is speech, thereby invalidating campaign finance laws.  Consequently, our political system is corrupted by special interests and foreigners. 

The Shelby County case gutted part of the Voting Rights Act, which required that voting law changes by certain states be preapproved by the Justice Department. Republican-controlled states immediately enacted strict voting laws, many designed to discourage Democrat-supporting minorities from voting.

How can Trump dismantle democracy?  Project 2025, which I covered in a previous blog post, is the far-right conservatives’ plan to totally control the federal government by replacing nonpartisan civil servants with Trump loyalists and politicizing the U.S. Justice Department.  With Trump in command of the military, the intelligence services and the Justice Department, the rule of law will be as he dictates and he will use the legal system to shield his operatives and attack his opponents.  Effectively, American democracy will be history.

The conservative justices totally control the Court’s schedule; they could have taken a case involving 2020 election fraud and decided that there was none.  They cannot, however, keep Trump from ignoring their decisions if he is president.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court has no way to enforce its opinions even though they are the law of the land to be followed by the president and all U.S. courts. 

President Andrew Jackson, who Trump reveres, defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which held that Georgia could not enforce its laws on Cherokee lands.  The state did it anyway.  Jackson allegedly challenged the Court: “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”  No doubt, Trump would follow his example.

Make no mistake, the final point of my letter – that Trump will ignore Supreme Court decisions – is not mere conjecture.  Trump has demonstrated his disdain for the rule of law in many ways, defying subpoenas, demonizing numerous judges and suggesting suspending the Constitution.

Cowardly Senate Republicans refused two impeachment opportunities to stop the former president from hijacking their party.  Now the question is, will the Supreme Court put an end to Trump’s incessant delaying tactics and finally allow the judicial system to hold him accountable for his crimes?

PS: Sharing your concerns with your congressional representatives this year is crucial.

My high school educated father worked at a small chicken hatchery in rural Iowa in 1948, where he earned what would be around $50,000 per year in today’s dollars.  He and my homemaker mom provided well for our family of five on his income and that year bought their first modest home for around $5,000.  Two years later, they purchased their first new car, a basic 1950 Ford for around $1,500.  We were solid middleclass in this area.

My parents lived the “American Dream” by persevering through the Great Depression with three kids, working hard and playing by the rules.  So, they achieved a comfortable life for our family and, in time, had a secure retirement.  A significant part of their success was owning a home.

Sadly, the middleclass has shrunk and many Americans now believe that working hard is no longer the key to success.  Frequently, they blame the political establishment – and even democracy. 

To make the American Dream a reality again, however, we must first understand why it faded.

Simply stated, the cost of achieving the fruits of the dream – owning a home, educating children, living comfortably and enjoying a secure retirement – has increased much faster since the 1970s than the salaries and wages of most working-class Americans.  Why?  Let’s dive deeper.

The U.S. median household income, where half earn more and half earn less, is a good indicator of financial wellbeing.   According to the Census Bureau, the median was $65,750 in 1984, when inflation adjusted to 2023 dollars.  The median household income in 2023 was $74,580, an increase of only 13% in real (inflation adjusted) income over the past four decades. 

The average price of a house, however, has risen over 500 percent since 1983, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve.  The inflation adjusted cost of a four-year, college degree between 1980 and 1984 – including tuition, fees, room and board – was around $41,000 according to the National Center for Education Statistics.  That cost had almost tripled by 2020.  These statistics alone speak volumes about the declining prospects of working-class Americans.

Okay, why haven’t their incomes increased more?  Well, one reason is the decline in union membership.

In 1983, there were 17.7 million union members, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a little over 20% of the salary and wage work force.  Today, there are 14.4 million union members, only 10% of that workforce.  The median weekly earnings of union members are 16% higher than non-union, also according to the BLS.  And union wages tend to push non-union wages higher too, as employers compete for workers.

State right to work laws are frequently blamed for declining union membership.  They dictate that workers cannot be compelled to become union members nor pay union dues if they work in a unionized workplace.  Twenty-seven – primarily Republican-controlled – states had enacted these laws by 2022, mostly in the South and West.  So, it’s not surprising that the median wage in these states is much lower than in states without these anti-union laws.

Minimum wage laws have also helped raise the pay of many working-class Americans, but not in all states.  President Franklin Roosevelt’s Fair Labor Standards Act established the federal minimum wage at 25 cents per hour in 1938 but it was not indexed to inflation.  Congress last increased it to $7.25 in 2009 and 20, mostly Republican-controlled, states have adopted this woefully inadequate wage.

Fortunately, progressive states and cities have raised the minimum wage significantly for their citizens, some higher than $15 per hour, and 13 states have indexed their wage to inflation.  In fact, in January, the minimum wage increased in 22 states.  And like union negotiated wages, these increases tend to boost wages for all hourly workers.  Still, most minimum wage laws only help workers survive.

Some economists believe that offshoring manufacturing jobs since the 1970s caused the stagnation in workers’ wages.  Certainly, that played a role but a 2021 research report by economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that automation for the past four decades was the real driver in depressing U.S. wages. 

A graph they produced shows that real (inflation adjusted) earnings of men without a high-school degree were 15% lower in 2017 than they were in 1980.  High school graduates had done a little better and so had those with some college but their real earnings were also less than in 1980.  Those with a bachelor’s degree had substantial real earnings growth but still much less than those with a graduate degree.  Women, on the other hand, did much better than men at all educational levels.

Other factors have also dramatically affected the American Dream: The cost of health care has skyrocketed over the past four decades; many corporations no longer fund defined benefit pension plans; and the S&P 500 stock market index has increased 3,057% since 1984, which has overwhelmingly benefited only the top 10% of wealthy Americans.

I believe frustrated Americans who blame the political establishment for their plight, paved the way for outsider Donald Trump’s 2016 election that ignited the populist fervor called Trumpism.  But here is the amazing irony, Trump and the GOP seem to be receiving lots of support from American voters whose grievances are primarily the result of Republican’s trickle-down ideology.

Well, I believe the American Dream can be significantly revived simply by voting most of them out of office.

At the dawn of this election year, it seems likely that the results of the November election will depend significantly on what happens in the economy between now and October.  Today, Americans may be focusing more on the bad news and ignoring or unaware of all the good news.  In fact, there are more positive indicators today than I can include in this blog.  Hiding in the dark forest of recent scary articles, however, was one that caught my attention: Americans are too pessimistic about the future.  It recalled an old song, “I’m a lonely little petunia in an onion patch.”

This article by Washington Post foreign affairs columnist Fareed Zakaria covers some of the same positive economic news that I included in my December 16 blog, but from a more international perspective.  For example, he reported that the International Monetary Fund’s expected 2023 U.S. growth rate of 2.1% is substantially better than anticipated for Canada, Germany, Britain and other developed Western countries.

But a couple of other points Mr. Zakaria briefly mentioned are also very significant.  One was that the U.S. is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas.  This makes laughable the MAGA leader’s plans as a “dictator” on day one of his presidency to “drill, drill, drill.”  According to another WAPO article on December 31, the U.S. is currently “producing more oil that any country ever has,” which is keeping the price of gasoline reasonable and moderating inflation.

Another emphasized America’s positive demographics for the future.  Zakaria states that legal immigration increases U.S. population by around one million persons each year, while those in Japan, and other developed nations are slowing diminishing.  This adds to the number of U.S. workers, which is critical to support a growing economy.  China’s is shrinking to the point that the government is encouraging women to quit working and have more babies.  Truth is, immigrants are now and always have been a huge positive for our nation and will continue to be in the future.

Zakaria also referred to the latest Pew Research Center survey on how 24 countries view the United States versus China.  It revealed that 22 of them believe the U.S. contributes more favorably to peace and stability around the world, particularly by huge margins in Japan, South Korea and India.  That attitude will help America maintain its global leadership and bolster democracy.

There were numerous other articles that contained some really good news too, including one about decreasing U.S. crime rates.  Republicans will use misinformation to hype rampant criminal violence in coming months.  Yet, almost all criminal activity significantly decreased in 2023, except auto theft, according to an article by Jeff Asher, a freelance writer who studies the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports.  He refers to last year’s third quarter FBI reports – the most recent available – which show that violent crime in the U.S. was down by 8.2% in the previous nine months.  Asher’s research also shows that murder is down a whopping 12.7 percent as of last November, having declined in 73 percent of over 175 cities where data is available. 

There is a very promising article by Axios this month on the state of manufacturing in the U.S.  It presents a graph of Census Bureau data compiled by the Federal Reserve that shows manufacturing-related construction spending increased to a stellar $210 billion annual rate last November, which is over three times the average rate in the previous decade.  This piece by Emily Peck credits President Biden’s Chips Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure law for the surge in overall construction spending.  When operating, these factories will provide good paying jobs for thousands of Americans, particularly in red states where many of them are located. 

Another January article from Axios reports that the average monthly hiring by construction firms last year was 16,000, according to the U.S. Labor Department, far surpassing the 11,000 per month they added pre-pandemic in 2019.  Plus, there were nearly a half million unfilled construction jobs last November, near the highest since 2000, when record keeping began.  And 216,000 total jobs were added in December.

True, stubborn inflation has been a drag on consumer optimism since 2021.  Median inflation estimates, however, declined for the one, three and five year time frames according to the December 2023 Survey of Consumer Expectations by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  Consumer sentiment showed a positive gain of 15% between December 2022 and December 2023, according to the Economic Index of personal finance website WalletHub.  And a Center for American Progress chart shows that 57% of U.S. workers have received raises that exceeded inflation.

An Associated Press-NORC December poll found that issues related to the economy are a top priority for American voters this year, which means all the above is hugely important for the November election and should bode well for President Biden. 

Republicans are hoping their misinformation will convince voters that the U.S. economy is in the toilet and that only they can fix it, even though they have outlined no viable policies to do so.  Instead of hope for the future, they promote fear, anxiety and hopelessness. 

Many economists and political commentators tell us, however, that voters will make their decisions based on their personal situations.  So, notwithstanding current polls, I believe chances are quite good that most of them will feel much more positive about the economy, and Biden, in November.

Don’t look now, but 2023 is stacking up to be one hell of a year.  Unemployment is at an historic low of 3.7%; the stock markets are around all-time highs; inflation is coming down without dragging the economy with it; economic growth has been encouraging; and many analysts, including the Congressional Budget Office, are predicting a “soft landing” of the economy in 2024.  What’s not to like?

Okay, I know, there are tons of problems out there.  But allowing them to overshadow what’s positive won’t help anything.  In fact, it saps our strength and resolve to turn back the forces of evil.  We should remember the famous quote from FDR’s first inaugural address on March 3, 1933, during some of the darkest hours of the Great Depression: “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”  Roosevelt cautioned the nation that “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror” paralyzes needed efforts to convert defeat into victory.

There are many theories as to why there is such a huge disconnect between voter perceptions of the current economy and the reality of it.  Some say their attitudes haven’t recovered from two years of the depressing pandemic and the negativity of 2022, with its high inflation, struggling stock market and slow growth.  That can’t last, however, particularly if 2024 turns out as experts are predicting.  And an economy that is providing good jobs, reasonable growth and moderate inflation is always good for an incumbent president.

So, let’s take a look at the economic indicators heading into the election year.

Congressional Budget Office’s current projections are that real GDP will grow by 1.5 percent in 2024 and by 2.2 percent in 2025, as measured from the fourth quarter of the previous year.  Of course, the CBO is not always spot on; growth could be higher or lower, but at least its analysts are not predicting a recession.  And neither are those of the nation’s top financial institutions.

Earlier this month, Federal Reserve policymakers signaled that they anticipate cutting rates by 0.75 percentage points in 2024, and another full point in 2025.  They are also projecting 1.4% growth next year, and the unemployment rate edging up only to 4.1%, which is still quite low.  This means that interest rates will likely be coming down next year even with a growing economy.  And that bodes well for financial markets, families and businesses.  Oh, and for President Biden too.

I can’t count the times I have reminded readers that consumer spending is around 70 % of the U.S. economy (GDP).  “The American consumer continues to surprise to the upside,” and “the holiday shopping season is off to a strong start,” according to an article by Courtenay Brown, author of Axios Macro.  Hmm, if Americans are truly worried about inflation and the economy, why are they spending like crazy?  

November sales were up by 0.6% over last November, excluding gasoline sales that were down, probably due to lower prices at the pump.  Gasoline prices are one of the most recognizable signs of inflation, prominently displayed on thousands of streets all over the nation.   Drivers can’t help but notice how much lower they are now.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ third quarter report showed that labor productivity rose at an annual rate of 5.2 percent, according to economist Paul Krugman’s recent article.  That means wages can rise without pumping up inflation, which has slowed significantly, from 5.7 percent in March 2022.  And, the full-employment economy on Biden’s watch has led to a significant drop in wage inequality, with the lowest-paid workers achieving large gains that are exceeding inflation. 

That brings me to a December article entitled, Joe’s Truly Excellent Economy, by Johnathan V. Last, editor of The Bulwark, a news and opinion website that presents political commentary by anti-Trump, center-right conservatives, like Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes. 

Mr. Last described the U.S. economy as “soaring” after it grew by a 4.9% pace in the third quarter.  He contrasts that with the European Union, whose economy also recovered significantly from the pandemic, but much less than the U.S.  And he believes Biden should get credit for that performance. 

He also points out that the reason the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects slower job growth for the next ten years is because America is close to full employment.  “You can only add so many jobs to an economy where everyone is already working,” he correctly observes.

Also on the Bulwark: “By staying the course, not panicking, and letting the growing economy do the work, Biden will be in a strong position for reelection simply because of the fundamentals.”

Yes, a lot can happen in 2024 that could dramatically affect the presidential election.  In fact, it usually does.  I try to avoid paying much attention to recent polls.  They are virtually meaningless at this point in the game.  Barack Obama was labeled a sure loser in October 2011, but he won in 2012, even with a 7% unemployment rate and a mediocre economy.  Many believed this was because voters could see that the economy and their future was looking brighter, which is what I believe they will realize next year.

Being mired in doom and gloom, however, won’t help anything.  So, let’s all contribute to democracy-loving candidates and do all we can to send the would-be dictator to the dustbin of history and make sure 2025 will be a good year too. 😊

Here’s wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, or a happy Hanukkah and a warm holiday season, whatever you are celebrating, followed by a productive and prosperous New Year.

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.