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.

House Republicans narrowly passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act (LSGA) on April 26, as their plan to reduce federal deficits.  It would raise the debt ceiling [a.k.a. limit] by a small amount for only one year, depress the economy with dramatic spending cuts and eliminate many of the climate change measures in President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.  Still, some far-right members claimed it didn’t cut nearly enough. 

Although the text of this legislation does not reduce funding for any mandatory programs, like Social Security and Medicare, it would cut all discretionary program funding, almost half of which is for defense.  Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and his conference, however, have made it clear that they won’t agree to cap spending for the military or veteran’s medical care, nor will they consider tax increases. 

The Center for American Progress, an independent, nonpartisan policy institute, calculates that if defense and veteran’s care are protected (not cut) over the next 10 years, funding for nondefense discretionary programs in 2033 would be reduced to only 48% of fiscal year 2023 levels, after adjusting for inflation and population growth.  This would literally gut the federal government and eliminate numerous programs on which the health, safety and welfare of the American public depend.  Although the LSGA would hurt almost every citizen, even some Democrats are urging the president to negotiate on spending cuts. 

Sadly, Americans seem to have very short memories about one significant reason why deficits are so large – Republican tax cuts.  President Reagan reduced income taxes twice in the 1980s, created huge federal deficits and increased the national debt by over 180%.  President Bill Clinton raised taxes significantly in 1993, cut spending and balanced the federal budget in the final four years of his presidency.  (In case you are wondering, Eisenhower was the last GOP president to balance a budget.)

After President George W. Bush inherited a balanced budget from Clinton, he cut taxes in 2001, created a large federal deficit in 2002 and cut taxes again in 2003.  He left President Obama with the Great Recession in 2009, along with massive unemployment and trillion-dollar deficits.  The 2012 fiscal cliff deal that Obama negotiated with the GOP-controlled Congress, however, helped reduce yearly deficits for several years. 

But just like two of his GOP predecessors, Donald Trump cut taxes in 2017, during his first year as president, which added around $2 trillion to the deficits over 10 years.  Contrary to the gas lighting that Trump and Republicans constantly try when they get power, their tax cuts do not pay for themselves or even grow the economy all that much.  They do, however, result in much larger federal deficits. 

So, now Republicans want to put the United States’ excellent credit rating on the line in order to cut spending and reduce federal deficits.  Yet, they absolutely refuse to raise taxes to help offset the trillions in red ink that their prior tax cuts and $7 trillion in Trump administration deficits helped create, which is simply absurd.

President Biden knows that if he yields to Republican demands now, in 12 months, they will insist on even more spending cuts before increasing the debt limit again and their blackmail will never end.  Democrats would be fools to put themselves in that position.

Certainly, Republicans picked a very bad time for a debt limit standoff.  Inflation is still high, interest rates are rising, three medium sized U.S. banks have failed since January and numerous regional banks remain under pressure from depositors and investors. 

On the world stage, China is challenging America economically and militarily like the old Soviet Union never could.  So, a U.S. debt default, or even a near default, would be a huge gift to Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who would use either result to trumpet how American democracy is failing.

Make no mistake, there’s not much the Republicans are proposing that Biden can accept, and a compromise debt limit solution seems almost impossible.  Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman advises the Biden administration to do whatever it takes to avoid giving in to GOP extortion and the president does have several unprecedented unilateral options to avoid a debt default:

• He can simply state that failing to pay U.S. bills is unconstitutional under the 14^th Amendment and have the Treasury keep issuing bonds for that purpose, or,

• The Treasury could mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, deposit it in the Treasury’s account with the Federal Reserve and draw on that account to pay the bills – without issuing new debt, or,

• As U.S. bonds mature and are redeemed, Treasury could issue new notes of equal par value but with a premium interest rate of say, 10%.  These new instruments would not technically increase the national debt but they could be sold for more than par value, thus giving Treasury added funds to pay the bills. 

I usually think about political maneuverings like the debt limit standoff as a game of vehicular chicken, where each side hopes the other will veer away before the crash (political fallout) occurs.  But put yourself in the car with Biden and the Democrats; they fear the drivers in the other vehicle may not care about the consequences of a head-on collision.  And I believe that is exactly where we are today.

So, friends, buckle up and get ready for a scary ride.  Oh, and watch this space.

A vague memory of a relevant Thomas Jefferson quote kept preying on my mind as I was reading about the Dominion v. Fox News litigation.  After some research and I found it on the Internet: “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” 

I do a lot of thinking about how well-informed Americans are these days and frequently wonder if they will be perceptive enough to recognize the “far wrong” things and diligent enough to correct them.  Well, many of these things are occurring this year, in Republican state governments, in Congress and in courts.  As a result, I believe the end of this year is almost certain to find us dealing with enormous change.  The extent to which Americans stay informed on critical issues – even though they may be depressing – could determine if America’s future will be brighter … or darker.

A critical step toward affirming the rule of law was taken in a Manhattan court room.

The allegations of criminal acts committed by former president Donald Trump are numerous and stunning: fraud in his business dealings, election interference in Georgia, obstruction of justice in the handling of classified government documents, seditious conspiracy related to the January 6 insurrection and more.  His status as a former president and his candidacy in 2024 have made indicting him politically challenging.  Fortunately, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg took the first step by indicting Trump for falsifying business records to conceal criminal conduct.

House Republicans, however, are attempting to harass and intimidate Bragg and his staff, even holding a Judiciary Committee hearing in Manhattan near Bragg’s office.  How the public reacts to Republicans defending Trump will indicate if they believe the former president is above the law or not.  It could also influence other pending indictments and establish how strongly the rule of law is upheld in the United States, which is hugely important. 

How can Americans stay well-informed when continuously fed misinformation?

Shortly after the 2020 election, several Fox News hosts began supporting conspiracy theories that Dominion voting machines had rigged the election against then-president Trump.   Dominion sued the network for defamation, seeking damages of $1.6 billion.  Fox claimed that it was merely reporting newsworthy allegations by Trump and his supporters.  But their hosts’ nightly barrage of false and misleading support of Trump’s big lie caused millions of Fox viewers to be misinformed and angry, which probably helped incite the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Dominion’s lawyers had a very high bar to clear in proving that Fox presented false information with “actual malice.”  But written exchanges among Fox executives and several primetime hosts that were made public in Dominion’s court filings, along with deposition testimony, provided strong evidence that Fox network employees acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which implies the requisite malice.

On the first day of trial, however, Fox settled the case for $787 million, almost half of Dominion’s alleged damages.  But that huge amount didn’t end Fox News’ potential liability for spreading misinformation.  Smartmatic, another voting machine company, also has a defamation suit against the network for $2.7 billion in damages and members of the Capitol police and others may add to Fox’s litigation woes.

I believe Fox News and right-wing media have been grossly misleading their audiences for decades.  Well, the Dominion case has dramatically revealed how the premier player in their mendacity echo chamber disseminates false messages while believing the opposite to be true.  And pending litigation against Fox should further educate the public and make them more discriminating viewers in the future.  That’s a very good thing.

Default on U.S. debt poses the greatest threat to America this year. 

President Trump authorized trillions in deficits but Democrats supported three debt limit increases during his term without demanding offsetting tax increases or causing a crisis.  House Republicans, however, eschew such reasonable accommodations; they want massive spending cuts as their condition for allowing the nation to pay its bills.  And if the limit is not raised before August, the United States could default on its debt obligations for the first time in history. 

A default will crash the stock markets, depress the U.S. and global economies, lower the U.S. credit rating, seriously weaken America’s status in the world and play into the hands of China and Russia.  It will also cast a pall on the dollar, which many nations have treated like gold for decades.  In short, a default will have catastrophic economic consequences,

I am certain that some Republican representatives favor a debt default.  And they won’t relent unless concerned Americans adamantly object to their dangerous antics.  If they persist, however, no one will win their horrendous political game, least of all Americans, including most Republican voters. 

Today, I’ve included only a few “far wrong” things that should be attracting the people’s notice; far-right conservatives are pushing many more, including on guns, abortions, books, transgender medical care and many more.  And the Fox News misinformation machine is backing all of them.

Fortunately, the many suits against Fox are providing a wakeup call, cautioning Americans to disregard what Republicans and Fox News’ commentators are saying and pay very close attention to what they are trying to do.  The nation’s future depends on it.

******

PS: I have become concerned that my blog emails may end up in spam because of pictures I include.  That’s why I didn’t add one for this post.  If you have found one of my blog emails in spam please click on “not spam” or the equivalent in your email service.   If you haven’t received my blog email for over 30 days, please let me know with an email (eeldavis@aol.com).  This is the sixth blog post this year.

Just for fun, I asked artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT to evaluate the GOP’s pro-tax cut, anti-regulation, anti-immigration and limited government policies in 200 words.  I added only the topic headings in bold type and the final sentence, the critiques are exactly how ChatGPT responded.

Do tax cuts for the rich grow the economy or the federal deficits?

U.S. federal income tax cuts can contribute to the growth of federal deficits rather than the nation’s economy. When taxes are cut, individuals and corporations have more money to spend or invest, which can stimulate economic growth. However, this growth may not always translate into increased government revenue, leading to a wider budget deficit.

First, tax cuts reduce government revenue, making it difficult to fund government programs and services. This can lead to the accumulation of debt and deficits, as the government must borrow more to finance its obligations. Additionally, tax cuts may not necessarily spur economic growth. If businesses and individuals use their additional income to save or pay down debt rather than spending it, the economic stimulus may be limited.

Furthermore, the benefits of tax cuts are often skewed towards the wealthy. When tax rates are reduced, the largest beneficiaries tend to be high-income earners who are more likely to save their extra income rather than spending it. This means that the economic benefits of tax cuts may not reach lower-income individuals and families who are more likely to spend their extra income and stimulate the economy.

Do federal regulations kill jobs or benefit workers?

U.S. federal regulations can benefit workers in several ways without significantly reducing employment. Regulations can create a level playing field for businesses, prevent exploitation, and ensure safe and healthy working conditions. These benefits can, in turn, lead to increased productivity, better morale, and reduced turnover rates among workers.

For example, regulations that require businesses to provide a safe working environment can reduce workplace accidents and injuries. This can lead to lower healthcare costs for workers and employers, as well as increased productivity due to reduced absenteeism and improved employee health. Similarly, regulations that require businesses to pay a fair wage and provide benefits such as healthcare and retirement savings can help reduce poverty and increase consumer spending, stimulating economic growth.

Furthermore, some regulations can actually create jobs rather than reducing them. For example, regulations that promote the development of clean energy sources can create new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector. Similarly, regulations that promote workplace diversity and inclusion can lead to a more diverse and inclusive workforce, which has been shown to improve productivity and innovation.

While it is true that some regulations may impose costs on businesses and potentially reduce employment, the benefits of regulations often outweigh the costs. Additionally, the effects of regulations on employment are often overstated, as businesses have the flexibility to adjust to changing regulations by shifting their resources or adopting new technologies.

Do immigrants take American jobs or help grow the economy?

Immigrants have been an integral part of the United States’ economy since its inception, providing a steady flow of labor, innovation, and entrepreneurship. With an aging population and declining birth rates, immigrants are becoming even more critical to sustaining the country’s economic growth.

As the baby boomer generation retires, there will be a significant gap in the labor force that must be filled by new workers. Immigrants, particularly those with high levels of education and specialized skills, are a crucial source of this labor force. Immigrants have been responsible for starting many of America’s most successful businesses, and many of these companies provide significant employment opportunities for US citizens.

Immigrants also bring with them new ideas, technologies, and ways of doing things that can help drive innovation and boost productivity. This innovation can come from their unique experiences and perspectives, as well as their willingness to take risks and try new things.

Moreover, immigrants often fill critical positions that are difficult to fill with domestic workers, such as in the healthcare industry. Many immigrants have skills in areas such as nursing, medicine, and home health care that are in high demand as the US population ages.

Without federal dollars how would state budgets fare?

U.S. federal transfer payments are a critical source of funding for state budgets and disaster relief efforts. Transfer payments are funds transferred from the federal government to state and local governments to support various programs, including healthcare, education, and social welfare.

One of the most significant forms of transfer payments is Medicaid, a joint federal and state program that provides healthcare coverage to low-income individuals. In 2021, Medicaid spending represented over 29% of total federal transfer payments, amounting to over $410 billion. This funding is crucial for states to provide necessary healthcare services to their residents, particularly those in need.

In times of disaster, federal transfer payments are also crucial for state budgets. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides disaster relief funding to states and local governments affected by natural disasters. This funding helps cover the costs of emergency response efforts, rebuilding infrastructure, and providing aid to affected individuals and families. In 2020, FEMA provided over $39 billion in disaster relief funding, demonstrating its critical role in supporting state budgets during times of crisis.  Without these funds, state budgets would be severely strained, and disaster response efforts would be less effective.

I would add that red states rely on federal dollars much more than blue states.

The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that American workers and employers pay into is projected to become insolvent in 2028, according to the latest Medicare trustees’ report.  President Biden has proposed some fixes in his budget for fiscal year 2024 that include higher payroll taxes for the wealthy and prescription drug reforms.  He claims his plan will keep the trust fund solvent until sometime in 2050.  Drug companies, of course, are pledging to fight efforts to lower drug prices, including those already passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Not to worry though, even if the president’s proposals do not become law, Congress will find some way to keep Medicare solvent in the short term.  But our current health care system is not sustainable longer term and that will only delay the inevitable.  The best solution for the future is to significantly reduce health care costs – and not just for drugs.

Prescription drug costs are killing people, literally.

Mavenclad, a multiple sclerosis drug, has a list price of $194,000 a year, according to a February New York Times article.  One lady’s Medicare co-pay is $10,000, but she can’t afford that and neither can most families.  Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act will cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare patients like her at $2,000 annually — but not until 2025.  Research suggests, however, that large numbers of patients abandon their prescriptions when faced with $2,000 in payments. 

The median annual price of a new drug was around $180,000, in 2021, according to researchers for Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Massachusetts.  Still, new drugs aren’t the only problem.  In the last few decades, drug companies have hiked the prices of many older medications like blood cancer drug Revlimid, which costs three times more today than when it was introduced in 2005. 

The prices for insulin, however, are even more shocking.  This drug has been around for over 100 years and, depending on the type, only costs between $2 and $10 to make per vial, according to Verywell Health.  But that vile can cost consumers between $50 and $1,000.  For all types of insulin, Americans pay 10 times more on average than all other countries.  Some diabetics rationing their insulin have died.

Ely Lilly projects that it will spend $8 billion on drug research in 2023.  I believe Congress must find a way to effectively reimburse companies like Lilly for research so they can’t use these costs to justify the exorbitant drug prices they charge to Medicare and consumers.

Why less costly and sustainable health care systems are desperately needed.

An estimated 98 million Americans cut spending on things like food and rent, or borrowed money, to cover healthcare costs, according to a West Health and Gallup 2022 survey report.  And high costs caused 26% of U.S. adults to either delay care or avoid purchasing prescribed medicine.

Other large, wealthy countries spent, on average, about half as much per person ($6,100) on health care in 2021 as the U.S. ($12,900), according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.  Yet, life expectancy is lower in the U.S. than other wealthy nations, while about 60% of American adults have a chronic disease and around 10% of the population doesn’t have health insurance. 

Health care costs are a factor causing gross inequality in medical outcomes.  The death rate of college-educated – and likely wealthier – Americans with cancer is 90.9 per 100,000 per year, according to Dr. Otis Brawley, a Johns Hopkins University professor of oncology and epidemiology.   The rate is 247.3 for patients with a high school education or less.  And I suspect this is also the case with other life-threatening diseases.

America’s population is aging and half of its current five-year-olds will likely live to be 100, according to a recent National Geographic article. 

Universal health care, like many other wealthy nations have, could have prevented an estimated 338,000 U.S. deaths and saved $105.6 billion in health-care costs during the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a June 2022 report by the National Academy of Sciences USA.

The possibilities for Artificial intelligence (AI) in health care are almost endless.

Radiologists will increasingly be examining x-ray, CT, MRI, and PET images in 2023 that have been first evaluated by AI machines, according to an article in Wired.  An exciting new capability of AI will allow untrained patients with a smart phone to acquire high-quality scans of their organs, which can be interpreted by AI algorithms.

Smart watches are already able to detect abnormal heart rhythms and this year these capabilities will be extended to preliminarily diagnose other conditions, like skin lesions and urinary tract infections.     

I am confident that AI can use a combination of patient’s medical history and various CT, MRI and/or other images to diagnose numerous health issues, effectively and safely prescribe drugs and so much more.    

Voters must support solutions to fix our health systems.

My first career in information technology helped me understand that AI machines will require large, accurate quantities of personal medical data in order to fully transform America’s health care system.  Personal data collection, however, creates significant privacy concerns that must be addressed.

I believe, however, that only dramatic, paradigm shift proposals – like those suggested above – can make America’s health care systems less costly, more effective and sustainable long-term.  I intend to support organizations that will help voters understand the need for these solutions and politicians who will vote for them.

Debit limit crisis?  We’ve been there, done that.

Tea Party Republicans took control of the U.S. House in January 2011, with a promise to dramatically cut government spending.  When U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced that the federal debt had reached its statutory limit in May, their strategy became apparent.  House Republicans immediately refused to raise the debt limit unless President Obama agreed to dramatically trim the federal budget.  Negotiations went down to the wire and the nation came so close to default that the U.S. credit rating was lowered for the first time in history.

The result was the Budget Control Act of 2011, which would reduce government discretionary spending (more on this later) by around $1trillion over 10 years, half would come from defense spending and the other half from nondefense appropriations.  It became known as the “sequester.”  Without going into detail, neither party liked the results, particularly defense cuts; so, the sequester was modified by subsequent budget acts. 

2023 is déjà vu 2011 in so many ways.

The president is a Democrat, Democrats control the Senate, House Republicans won’t raise the debt limit unless spending is cut and the nation is recovering from a disastrous situation, just like in 2011.  Back then it was the Great Recession; today the coronavirus pandemic is still threatening.  The U.S. military, however, has much greater challenges in 2023, with Russia waging war on Ukraine and China becoming more aggressive.

There is also another interesting similarity, the George W. Bush tax cuts were set to expire in 2012; former president Trump’s tax cuts for individuals will terminate after 2025.  Remember the ominous “fiscal cliff” in 2012?  Another one is looming in 2025.

About the Congressional Budget Office’s Yearly Baseline Budget.

The following analysis uses projections from CBO’s yearly “baseline” report that was just published.  This document gives a detailed breakdown of federal revenues, spending and deficits over the 2023-2033 period.  These numbers help us better understand America’s fiscal situation, including the two main categories of federal government budget authorizations, mandatory and discretionary.

Mandatory – Automatic programs where most federal dollars are spent.

Mandatory spending is mainly for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but a very significant amount of it funds government pensions, veterans’ benefits, farm subsidies and much more.  These dollars touch every level of our society.  Congress legislates these programs that typically have no limits in time or dollars, which is why they’re called “automatic.”  Some of them, like Medicaid, are “means tested,” so that only lower income families can qualify for the benefits.

Discretionary – Programs funded by Congress each year.

Discretionary spending is further separated into two categories, defense and nondefense.  Nondefense is all other outlays to fund government operations and various activities, including K-12 education and highway programs.  The $1.7 trillion budget that President Biden signed in December is the discretionary spending authorized for fiscal year 2023 that ends on Sept. 30, 2023. 

Republicans and some Democrats refuse to cut defense spending significantly.  So, that leaves nondefense spending, which Congress has the most power to reduce.  Over the next 10 years, however, nondefense dollars will only be around 16% of the federal budget, not including interest on the debt; mandatory spending will be almost 70%.  The projected deficit over the upcoming decade, including interest on the debt, is $9+ trillion more than nondefense spending.

Republicans claim they will balance the federal budget, but how?

Well, it is obvious from the CBO numbers that cutting all nondefense spending would fall dramatically short of eliminating the deficits and balancing the budget.  That fact alone tells us that it will be impossible to balance the U.S. budget without large tax increases or massive cuts to mandatory programs, the largest of which are Social Security and Medicare. 

Would Republicans cut Social Security and Medicare?

When President Biden accused Republicans of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare during his SOTU speech, some of them, like Ms. Greene, loudly called him a liar.  Last June, however, the House Republican Study Committee – which includes 70% of GOP House members – released its “Blueprint to Save America” budget for 2023-2032.  It would reduce mandatory spending over that period by almost $12 trillion, compared to last year’s CBO baseline, including $700+ billion from Social Security, almost $3 trillion from Medicare and more than $3.6 trillion from Obamacare, Medicaid and other mandatory spending.  The Blueprint would also cut taxes by over $1 trillion.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for reducing federal deficits with tax increases and spending cuts.  Lots of waste in the federal budget can be eliminated, even in mandatory programs.

The catch is, Republicans adamantly refuse to increase taxes on anything; they only want to cut spending.  I believe their hard position prevents any meaningful compromise on reducing deficits.  But even when they control Congress and the White House, Republicans are loath to cut spending significantly, particularly from mandatory programs.  Why?  They fear getting wiped out in the next election.

So, do I believe that some of the more radical Republicans actually want to force a U.S. debt default?  Absolutely!  They won’t succeed, but in their addled minds, they believe that the resulting economic catastrophe would force Congress to make drastic cuts in the federal budget, including to Social Security and Medicare. 

Voters must never forget though – this has been the Republicans’ objective for several decades and it won’t end with this fiscal crisis.