Trump Trumps Trump

Unless you were in a coma or other catatonic state, you are aware that our President threw his national intelligence agencies under the bus at the summit he had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He also intimated that he felt like Russia was not involved in the 2016 election mess--comment that he has since walked back (while still claiming no collusion occurred between his campaign and the Russians.

Badmouthing is not a new thing for Trump. He seems to take great pleasure in calling his opponents all kinds of diminishing names. However, what is doing now is harmful to us, the American people. He is saying that the only authority you should trust is his. This is simply authoritarianism and not how representative democracy is supposed to work. Coupling this with his own party's inability or unwillingness to censure him in any way lends credibility to him and reduces trust in them as a countervailing force to executive overreach.

Add to this  the tax cuts made before the new year, the US government is going to borrow a $1,000,000,000,000 to pay the bills and support the programs that the budget is addressing. According to Fiscal Times, "the updated budget now includes a projected 2019 deficit of $1.085 trillion, up from $984 billion in February — and more than double the $526 billion the White House called for in its 2018 budget." The Chicago Tribune adds, "The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year."

Essentially, the idea that growth in the economic sector would take care of these tax cuts is proving to be a big, fat, lie. According to Market Watch, "the Treasury Department on Thursday said government receipts fell 7% in June compared with the same month a year earlier, including a 33% drop in gross corporate taxes. Individual withheld and payroll taxes were down 5% from June 2017, while non-withheld individual taxes rose by 7%."

Meanwhile, at least until the mid-term elections November, the Democrats are observers with little power to prevent these shady dealings from happening. As Edward R. Murrow once said, "Good Night and Good Luck."

Trump Putting Hardworking Americans He Hired Out of Work

No one said being POTUS would be easy, but by his 365th day as president, 34% of Donald Trump’s "A" Team staff quit, changed roles or were fired, this according to the Brookings Institution’s Katie Dunn Tenpas. That statistic has now climbed upwards past 43 percent.  According to the National Journal,  this is "more than double every other administration since 1981."

As a comparison, Barack Obama lost 9% of senior staffers by the end of his first year, George W. Bush lost 6% and Ronald Reagan had the previous record of 17%.In 2018 alone, 58 officials have left, changed roles, or were fired from the White House and Executive branch departments like the State Department and the DOJ,

     Added to this, Trump has already accepted the resignation of or fired 5 cabinet officials, Scott Pruit just the latest in a line. According to the New York Times "analysis of 21 top White House and cabinet positions back to President Bill Clinton’s first term shows how unusual the upheaval is through the first 14 months of a presidency. Nine of these positions have turned over at least once during the Trump administration, compared with three at the same point of the Clinton administration, two under President Barack Obama and one under President George W. Bush."

   Perhaps in other segments of service industry jobs, this would not seem so out of the ordinary, but in terms of other presidencies, this is without parallel. Perhaps someday there will be an accounting of the reasons why these rats are leaving or being told to leave a seemingly sinking ship.

Coming Distractions-- Who Gets To Name The Next Supreme Court Justice?

To say that Judge Anthony Kennedy's resignation is a blow to the future of progressivism in the US for the next 20 years is to put it mildly. Because of the amount of laws and policies that end up being ruled on and over-ruled by SCOTUS, the next choice is likely to bend the court much further right than the more moderate on social issues Kennedy has allowed.

   With less than three months to decide who will have a majority of or retain the majority vote in the Senate and the House for the remainder of Trump's first (and hopefully only) term is anybody's guess. Of course it is in the interest of conservatives to name Kennedy's successor sooner than later and you will not need to be Nostradamus to guess how Republicans will be playing this. However, given the rulings handed down just this month, it is not in the interest of progressives to let that happen easily. But, since a super-majority is not required to approve a nomination nor to knock down a filibuster, it would seem that Republicans have all they need to do their worst.

   Aha! That is until you consider the Republicans who are retiring in January (Shout out to Jeff Flake and Bob Corker) who could exact revenge on a President with whom they have parted ways or an ailing John McCain who may not be up for a vote on a nominee. This would mean that an embattled Democrat like  Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, or Heidi Heitkamp would have to be pulled into the fracas and arm-twisted to go along with the Republicans. So it will be a drama to the end to see how cards are played and who ultimately wins or gets a stay of execution.

   Then it all gets real when, at best, the Democrats win the Senate and still have to negotiate with Trump for the Kennedy replacement. Or the President lives without the nominee knowing he has a deadlocked SCOTUS for the next two years and runs for re-election on the theme that Democrats are obstructionists. Or, the Republicans use the obstructionist angle now to attempt to win Senate seats outright and then name anybody that Trump or they desire.

   All this points to a challenging scenario wherein the blue line has to hold and the Democrats would need to run the table in November and again in 2020. This also points to a lot of dollars being spent trying to win the electorate over to the narrative each side will be promoting. Let the wedge issue framing games begin.  Note to Liberal SCOTUS members, please stay healthy.

Addendum: Over the weekend Senator Susan Collins said that an opponent of Roe v. Wade would be a deal breaker for her. Sen. Lisa Murkowski may also be in that camp. So there are a number of ways this could go past November.
1) Democrats hold, Murkowski and Collins join to block a nomination.
2) McCain, Flake, Corker  abstain from voting and nomination fails. Even if an embattled Democrat crosses over, the nomination fails.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2, the nomination fails.
4) The Senate leaves the SCOTUS with 8 justices through the lame duck session and Trump has to negotiate a moderate choice come January--if the Senate numbers hold or go slightly bluer.

Improvable Objects: Politics Not Sensitive to Concerns and Circumstance of People

Many years ago when I started this Blog, I thought about what to call it. At the time, I remember thinking about Paul Wellstone as he described what he believed politics should be about. He said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail." A failure I recognized in pure progressive politics is that it does not always account for the differences that wealth and values create for people. Populism, it seemed to me was the missing piece. Giving the people what they agreed they needed seemed to be inherently important to the success of a progressive movement.

   As we know, the progressive left pushed a type of populism under Bernie Sander's leadership that came up a day late and many dollars short of capturing the Democratic Party's nomination. He spoke to the pain that poor and middle class Americans were experiencing, but was running against Hillary Clinton. Clinton, while not the most progressive Democrat was seen as the right woman for the job by many party faithful (particularly after Elizabeth Warren thought better of running against her). The "I'm with Her" bankrollers and supporters, with the success of Barack Obama breaking through the color barrier that served as the glass ceiling for African Americans, believed it was the time for women to do the same.
 
   What Democrats failed to see was the clapback that had been fomenting in the Age of Obama. Sure people were aware that angry people were saying and doing despicable things to showcase their bigotry, but conventional wisdom held that this was a relatively small group of disaffected people and that they were living life in the rear view window, living in America of their imagined past. Progressives and others dismissed these voices as they might anything they assessed as politically incorrect, as fodder for late night talk show monologues or assuring themselves that now that we had, in their estimation by electing Obama twice, accepted that "Black Lives Matter" as the new reality.

   What I and others did not count on was what would happen if populism came at us from the Conservative side of the yard. While we thought the Tea Party movement was "astroturf" as opposed to "grass roots" politics, it turns out that the righteous anger of unheard people could be turned into a type of populism/Nativism that found enough votes in the right places to elect Freedom Caucus members and eventually Donald Trump as our President.

   Paul Wellstone's voice reminds me that "intellectually arrogant politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives...deserves to fail" is what generally what happens after the election. No matter which party wins. Before the election, people have been surveyed and focus-grouped to learn what will move them to vote this way or that.Then the communications are formed and framed around winning the vote--from the top of the ticket to the volunteer calling you at home. You, dear voter, are a fish to be caught in a net. In fact, if you vote early, that's even better, you are still in the net if the candidate says or does something stupid, like say what he or she really thinks.

But after the election, you are a form-letter recipient when the person who you elected does something that he or she told you they wouldn't. Because now, they don't work for you or even try that hard to represent you. Now, they work for special interest groups or self-interested groups. The most self-interested groups are the political parties that are trying to grab and maintain power and pulling the strings behind them are the business and issue groups who want to make sure their interests are properly looked after. There is a country club made up solely of elites and you and I are not invited.

   While those are politics Wellstone said "deserve to fail," the truth is that those politics fail us, not the practitioners of them. Hence a people-powered political base is the only possible solution to the poison in the well of politics. Not a small marginalized group of people, but a large, organized mob of people who realize they have been bamboozled by politics as usual and resort to politics that are unusual. They run for office independent of party bosses and win. Then they win some more. Until finally, the politics of the unusual become the usual politics when people see that their lives are improving by them.

   To be sure, the elite will not go quietly, they will use their resources and knowledge seeking to drive wedges into such a movement. But history tells us that if we have resolve and trust that we will win, even the most corrupting of forces will fail to hold sway against such an army of every day women and men.

    So, I hope you are finally getting a view of what I am seeing so clearly; politics where the "radicals" win is probably a better brand of politics for people when the only other options are supplication or bloody revolution. The radicals on the left and right share something very basic, these are people who want the power in the hands of the people versus the elite. Right or left, it is the same battle. Defeat the political elites and then a politics that is sensitive to the people is truly possible, both before and after the elections.

Fear and Loathing of Human Rights

In the latest blow toward America as arbiter of global human rights, the Trump Administration's Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is expected to announce that the US is walking away from the UN Human Rights Council for alleged anti-Israel bias. At the same time, the US government is arresting asylum seekers and their children and interring them for an indeterminate period of time on our borders.

This march toward isolationism is directly attributable to the Trump Administration's nationalistic bent in which people who are not "patriotic" Americans, i.e., don't walk in lock step with Trump's ideology are to be dismissed or destroyed. Policies are replacing the rule of law to make this happen at an alarming rate.

The important thing to keep in mind is that we all need each other because we are all on planet earth.
There is a good reason that propaganda and wedge politics are so closely entwined, the goal is singular. For ideology to prevail, it must be seen as the only sensible game in town. If we allow our own government to dismiss the world community, people seeking asylum, or even our own citizens to be dismissed, democracy has ceded to demagoguery. God save us all if our shared humanity fails us.

Updated: The US has now officially withdrawn from the U.N. Human Rights Council, Haley "saying the group should make it easier to expel states with poor human rights records. She said the U.S. withdrawal came after the desired reforms were not fulfilled.

“We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights,” she said, adding that the U.S. would be “happy” to rejoin the council if it is reformed."

John Bolton added this morning via The Hill:

“Getting off the U.N. Human Rights Council is an assertion of American determination to stick by its Constitution and not to recognize that there is some higher authority at the U.N., whether it is the Council or the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to judge our performance or to give us advice on how to implement the Constitution,” Bolton told "Fox and Friends."

“We’re perfectly capable of doing that ourselves. We make our share of mistakes and we correct our mistakes. That’s what this is about, self-governance,” Bolton added.

Editor's note: How conspicuously contradictory is this move in light of separating immigrant/asylum seeking children from their parents and interring them in Texas and other places?

Do Puerto Rican Lives Matter?

In the last few days, stories about the death toll from hurricane Maria which leveled much of Puerto Rico reveal that the count was highly under-reported according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The death toll that was originally listed at 64 deaths is estimated to be 70 times higher or 5,740 casualties. Why this discrepancy? Part of it is due to the lack of essential resources like electricity and accurate mortality counts due to the widespread nature of the disaster.

What is less clear is what was the impact of the US government's response to the hurricane when it hit Puerto Rico. How was that response so different from the response in Houston where the response was much more in the public eye? Is it possible that the lives of Puerto Ricans were lost due to a feeble response or indifference to a protectorate that is "out of sight, out of mind"?

In December, Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló asked for a review and recount of the death toll, when a New York Times analysis concluded that more than 1,000 people had died as a result of Hurricane Maria. At the time he said, “Every life is more than a number, and every death must have a name and vital information attached to it, as well as an accurate accounting of the facts related to their passing.”

This week, one Democratic legislator, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), in an article from the Hill, is suggesting that President Trump should be held accountable for inaction which may have contributed to the higher death toll. Gallego said, "The Trump administration's failure to deliver timely and sufficient aid to United States citizens in Puerto Rico was an utterly careless decision with deadly consequences," Gallego said. "The Trump administration must be held accountable for their abject failure to protect and assist our fellow Americans."   

Iowa the Clock Is Ticking: More School Shootings

This morning a 17-year-old, male student in Santa Fe, Texas armed with pipe bombs was armed with his father’s Remington 870 short-barreled shotgun and a .38-caliber Rossi revolver, a law enforcement official told NBC. shot and killed 8 students and 2 teachers at his high school. Earlier this week, a 19-year-old male former student opened fire at a public high school in Dixon, Illinois which fortunately no one was injured by, but was shot by a School Resource Officer. Last Friday, a 14-year-old boy in Palmdale, California with  an SKS-style carbine fired about 10 shots and injured another student who was later operated on and is recovering.

   In two of the cases, the suspects surrendered themselves to police and were taken into custody. The third was treated and remanded into police custody. With these incidents, 22 school shootings have taken place in 2018, so far or 1 per week. President Trump issued the following statement: "My administration is determined to do everything in our power to protect our students, secure our schools, and keep weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves and to others. Everyone must work together at every level of government to keep our children safe. May God heal the injured and may God comfort the wounded, and may God be with the victims and with the victims’ families. A very sad day, very, very sad." VP Mike Pence said, "We're with you. You are in our prayers and I know you are in the prayers of the American people."  Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas released this statement, "Once again, our Nation grieves another mass murder. Heidi and I are keeping the students and faculty of Santa Fe High School in our fervent prayers."

   So far, the President, Vice-President and Senator's words and actions have been in direct opposition of what they have said. So far, Trump's administration has paid lip service to the lives lost. In fact, the President has walked back most every hopeful word he has offered to students and families of students, teachers, and staff who have sought action resulting in sensible gun laws being taken up by Congress.

But how about a proactive approach in Iowa? Will our acting Governor and future leaders have to offer up such statements to the parents of students, teachers, and staff? Or will we bide our time until such event happens here and then offer "thoughts and prayers" when better laws would have been more effective?

   It won't likely happen with acting Governor Kim Reynolds at the helm. Radio Iowa reported that she has said "the Republican-led legislature has already passed a bill that requires all Iowa school districts to have a safety plan and conduct yearly active shooter drills. As for new gun regulations, Reynolds is opposed. She said the priority should be enforcing the laws already on the books and updating the existing federal background check system."

   Senate President Charles Schneider, again according to Radio Iowa "said the Iowa legislature is setting aside $35 million in grant money to help schools pay for safety upgrades to buildings, like lock down systems or stronger classroom doors. But Schneider, like the governor, suggested new gun regulations are not on this year’s agenda. “We always have to take into consideration the balance of school safety and the balance of constitutional rights as well,”"

Trump a Lying Liar According to Tracking Poll

According to The Hill, thirteen percent of Americans said they would consider President Donald Trump to be honest and trustworthy and this is a decline of 3% from when the tracking polls by Survey Monkey had begun in February of 2017.

As the charts show below:

• Nineteen percent reported that Trump cares about people like them, a two percent drop.

• Twenty-two percent reported that Trump keeps his promises which is a 7% slide from the original poll.

• Thirty-five percent of Americans polled said they believed Trump has the ability to get things done. 

• 33 percent of those polled said he was tough enough for the job. 

• Forty-one percent of those surveyed said Trump stands up for what he believes in. 

Not surprisingly, the President tended to fare best with members of the Republican Party and fared worst with Democrats:

The Survey Monkey tracking polls were conducted between Feb. 1, 2017, and May 9, 2018, among 929,225 adults. 

Trump Administration: Neither Legal Nor Moral?

During today's hearing with an alumnus from George W. Bush's administration, CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel, California's Sen. Kamala Harris (D), a former state's attorney general, asked, "One question I've not heard you answer is, do you believe the previous interrogation techniques [i.e., waterboarding at a "black ops" site] were immoral?" When Haspel equivocated in answering her, Harris said, "I'm not asking do you believe they were legal, I'm asking do you believe they were immoral." Haspel stuck to a pre-formed answer that avoided answering the question and the visibly frustrated Harris eventually moved on.

This back and forth makes me wonder what would happen if the President were asked a similar question about his administration's questionable ethics, the legalities of which are being studied closely by special counsel Robert Mueller. Imagine Harris or some other senator glaring across the floor at Trump and saying "Mr. President, I'm not asking do you believe the strategies you employed in becoming Commander in Chief were legal, I'm asking you if you think they were immoral?" I'd like to hear what he has to say on this subject. Ceding the moral high ground is not typically what politicians do, but as we all now know, Trump is nobody's idea of a politician. In a way, it would be refreshing to hear a sitting President be on the record in saying morality be damned--and the law as well.