WALL STREETS TERRIBLE GAMBLE

 During the 2024 presidential campaign, on the campaign trail,  then candidate Donald Trump would talk about his deep love of tariffs, and how, after he is elected, he will impose them on other countries that are "cheating us".  When economic analysts on both the left and the right would say that those tariffs would cause skyrocketing inflation for American consumers and perhaps tip the country into a recession, Trump's various Wall Street supporters would give interviews reassuring the public that his threats of starting massive trade wars were just a "negotiating tactic".  Surely, they claimed, he was just using this threat as a way to intimidate other countries to gain an advantage for the US.

At first, they appeared to possibly be right, as Trump went back and forth on his tariffs plans, starting and then stopping them as the stock market jumped up and down.  But then came yesterday, the day that Trump labeled " Liberation Day", in which he definitively rolled up tariffs that were much higher than many pundits expected.  Some of them were absolutely stunning: a 10% across the board tariff on all imports, with additional tariffs for China (lifting its total to a shocking 54%) and South East Asian countries like Cambodia (49%) and Viet Nam (46%).  Trump and his supporters claim that these tariffs are not a tax on the American public, and will bring  manufacturing jobs back to the US.  Seeing as those kind of jobs only make up 8% of our current workforce, that's a tall order.  It's also based on the notion that all the manufacturing jobs that dried up as companies in the 70's and 80's  cut workers will all start rehiring. The problem is that while it's true that many of those jobs were shipped by companies  to China and Mexico to cut labor costs, it's also true that millions of those jobs were also lost to mechanization, which companies will never abandon. 

No matter how much Trump can claim that his tariffs will jump start our economy, the truth is that higher tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers, who are already mad about Covid era inflation.  And higher prices will naturally lead to reduced consumer spending and a weaker economy.  Don't ask me, ask Wall Street, where stocks saw their highest drop since 2020. The total amount lost in one day is a staggering 2.4 trillion dollars! Add that to the already 5 trillion dollars that has been lost since Trump took office, and you have to wonder why people thought that he would be good for the economy. 

If the country really does fall into a recession, or worse, it will be a truly unique one: the two big recessions in this century happened first in 2008 due to banks making credit loan defaults, and the second in 2020 due to the pandemic.  This coming economic tumble will be the first to be blamed entirely on the actions of our president with no one else for him to point to.  While he will try to somehow say that Biden's policies caused it, only his most rabid supporters will buy that.

Trump often expresses his love for tariffs by talking about William McKinley, the president who ran the country from 1897 to 1901, and who did initially support tariffs before later changing his mind.  But even if that time period was a rosy for the country as Trump says it was, he's ignoring just how much the world has changed since then.  Our modern global  trading system can bring products from one side of the world to another with speeds that people back then could only imagine.  His view of a fortress America, one that allows in few immigrants and manufactures all our own goods, down to the last part of each car or computer, just isn't realistic in this modern world.  

Hopefully, Trump's Wall Street supporters will eventually convince him of the economic damage his trade war is doing and he can call off (claiming victory somehow, of course).  Otherwise, Trump may blow a hole in our nation's economy that, combined with his paring down of essential government agencies, could send our country on a tail spin the likes of which it has never seen before.

CAN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH SAVE DEMOCRACY?

 Recently, Chief Justice John Roberts did something unusual.  He openly rebuked President Donald Trump by stating that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”  What Roberts was referring to was the fact that Trump had called for the impeachment of  James E. Boasberg,  a judge who had recently ruled against his administration.  (Trump also referred to Boasberg as a  "Radical Left Lunatic”, his typical term for anyone who does not worship him like the god he thinks he is).    

On the one hand, Roberts's statement  was a pretty big deal coming from a Chief Justice who had just last year voted with the majority in a ruling that essentially said that any  president could not be held responsible for any crimes he commits in office as long as  they fall under "official acts" of the office.   On the other hand, Roberts's statement concerning Trump's comments was hardly out of line given that judicial impeachment is a serious thing for congress to do; the constitution states that  it is supposed to be reserved only for judges who have committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  In other words, not just making the president angry.  (It also requires a two thirds vote to remove by the Senate which will never happen, so, thankfully, Boasberg is safe for now.). Really, when you get down to it, all that Roberts did is the bare minimum of what a Chief Justice should do in the face of a rogue president who believes that he can rule by decree. 

The late political commentator Mark Shields used to talk about politics in the Trump era by saying "There is no Republican party anymore,  It's just the cult of Trump."  And it has been downright stunning just how that cult has turned over power to him.  The Republican congress, a supposedly co equal branch of the government, has simply given  him the power of the purse that rightfully belongs to congress according to the constitution.  Even congressional Republicans who might have a slight problem with the unelected, unconfirmed Elon Musk asserting control over the nation's budget have been cowed into silence, knowing full well that Musk could pump millions of dollars into primary campaigns against them.

With congress suitably in submission, that only leaves our judiciary with the ability to put any kind of hold on Trump's unprecedented grab for presidential power.  So far, there have been some encouraging signs: recently, judges have rightfully pointed out that some of  Musk's mass layoffs and gutting of government programs are unconstitutional. Like Trump, Musk has childishly fumed that the judges ruling against him should be impeached, and also like Trump, those impeachments he's calling for will never pass in congress.  And that Boasberg case that I referred to early is important: it deals with the deportation of alleged undocumented Guatemalan gang members to a jail in El Salvador.  Boasberg ruled that this was done without any due process, and that the Trump administration has provided no evidence that the deported men were in fact criminal gang members.  Boasberg demanded that the plane that was transporting the men be returned to the country, but Trump's people argued that the plane was already over  international waters at the time of the ruling and therefore it was inadmissible. (A novel notion indeed).  Sadly, so far the deportees are still languishing in that prison, even though their family members assert their innocence.  

The Trump administration asserts that the President had the right to deport these men under the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, a rarely used law that was last used to justify the interment of Japanese citizens during World War II.  The problem with that argument is that the concern of the  act was about countries that the US was at war with, and no matter how much Trump may call immigrants "invaders", we are not officially at war with Venezuela.  

A Supreme Court showdown appears to be coming concerning this and other actions taken  as Trump as and his gang of cronies continue to try and expand executive power to the point of making America a monarchy in all but name.  So far, Trump has said that he will abide by court rulings, but part of that is because he assumes that the conservative court that has three members appointed by him will rule in his favor.  But he could be wrong, and then what could happen?  Will Trump accept the ruling, or just flat out ignore it?  He is surrounded by people who's complete loyalty to him is stronger than any connection to the court, so he very well may just choose to do whatever he wants without any judicial restraint ordering his people to ignore the law.  I shudder to think what will happen if he does so.  It would be more than a constitutional crisis, it would be a crisis of the concept of democracy itself.  It's hard to believe, but one former TV celebrity and convicted felon could do permanent damage to this country's democracy after it's held together for so long.

OLIGARCHY: THE WORD FOR OUR TIME

oligarchy

noun      

a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes

Modern American's raw capitalism, fueled by the massive tax cuts  that President Ronald Reagan gave to the rich around 40 years ago, has inevitably led to a country where the rich have not only more wealth but also far more political power than the average American.   The link between wealth and political influence was cemented  after the 2010 Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling, which essentially removed almost all limits on the size of political campaign donations.Not surprisingly, with campaigns getting more and more expensive, politicians listen to  wealthy donors more and more. 

But. leave it to our twice impeached, convicted felon and current President Donald Trump to tear away the notion that there should be limits on the political power that the unelected rich should have.  Heavy Trump donor Elon Musk, who has never faced any kind of congressional approval,  and his Department of Government Efficiency, have ripped a hole in federal government spending that will lead to years of damage, from reducing our country's ability to deal with deadly virus outbreaks overseas to making our national parks dirtier and less safe.

Musk and his band of inexperienced, unqualified young tech bros have been slicing away at the national budget, laughing as they lay off dedicated, experienced people while Musk posts on social media that he is putting government agencies in "the wood chipper".  And, much like the way he's run his various companies, there have been many errors, with the DOGE team scrambling to rehire people they just fired or taking down posts about savings from their website when they proved fraudulent.   To top it off, Musk's own businesses get billions of tax dollars every year, and there's no way that DOGE will ever check that for waste and fraud.  

The most frustrating part of this to me is just how blatantly unconstitutional this all is: the power of the nation's  purse is supposed to be run by congress, not just some rich guy that gave the president a pile of money.  But with Republicans running both branches of congress, there has been very little genuine criticism of what Musk is doing from congress, even as his cuts hurt people in red states.  

Recently, there has been some pushback from the courts on what Musk is doing, and a couple of days ago a  loud argument between Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the Oval Office has lead to Trump posting that Musk will need to slow down his efforts.  But the mere fact that an unelected, unconfirmed man has been given so much power by the president has already proven disastrous.  

Musk, at least, has been honest about his cutting, saying that he believes there should be no government regulations at all until it's found that they are needed.  The problem with that argument is that that means that food regulations should only be put in place when people start get sick or dying from unhealthy food, building regulations should only be put in place after buildings start collapsing, and car regulations should only be put in place after cars start exploding (something he should know about!).

There is one piece of good news here; Musk's efforts haven't gone unnoticed, and recent polls show that only 34% of the public support what he is doing.  The Democrats have wisely started tying Musk to Trump as much as possible, and recently Democratic Representative Greg Casar pointed out that Musk gets 8 million tax dollars a day, a statistic that I think should be hammered into the brain of every American voter for the next two years.  And the voters should also be reminded that many of Musk's cuts are hurting veterans and special needs children.

While the idea of cutting waste and fraud from the federal budget is one of those things that everyone supports, those cuts should never be made by a man who's never before run a governmental budget and who has blatant conflicts of interest involving his own companies getting billions of government dollars every year.  This would seem obvious, but the wide spread corruption of the Trump era has shaken this country to the core.

THE START OF THE DUMPSTER FIRE PRESIDENCY

 Steve Bannon, the self proclaimed white nationalist advisor to President Donald Trump,  describes his plan for Trump in his second term is to "flood the zone with shit", that is, to do so many things at once that the media, the Democrats and the public will all have to scramble to keep up with it.  In just the first month of his second term, Trump has obviously taken that to heart.   

Trump kicked off his presidency by pardoning all of the January 6th rioters, including ones that beat police officers (so much for back the blue!).  He followed that with a flurry of executive orders, some symbolic (America only recognizes two genders), some predictable (he pulled out of the Paris climate change accord) and one brazenly unconstitutional (an end to birthright citizenship in violation  of the 14th Amendment).  He also fired 18 inspector generals (the people charged with non partisan over site of federal departments),  several career attorneys who had investigated him in the past, and sent out an email to millions of federal workers pushing them into resigning,  because, of course, he isn't sure that they're loyal enough to him.  

In his quest to return America to a place where white, straight heterosexual men run everything, he  called to completely dismantle Diversity Equity and Inclusion hiring programs in the federal government, saying that all hiring should be based on merit (pretty rich coming from a guy who would be nowhere without his daddy's money).  He has responded to both a terrible fire in California and a plane crash in  Washington DC by blaming  DEI hiring, essentially implying that any person who isn't a white heterosexual male in any position of authority doesn't deserve to be there.  At one point he tried defunding congressionally approved federal funds but was blocked by a judge and later rescinded the order after an outcry over programs like Wheels on Meals getting defunded.

To me, the cruelest cut of all was his decision to freeze almost all foreign aid, and to withdraw completely from The World Health Organization,  both of  which will result in people suffering all around the world.  This is not only despicable, it's also foolish: people in countries aided by the US inevitably have a more favorable attitude towards us, and China may very well take up the slack we leave, making our biggest rival in the world more popular in many parts of it than we are. And leaving the WHO may be even worse, as it ends our ability to access global data on health issues, which will probably be a big deal as bird flu continues to spread. It becomes even more absurd when you consider that the cut to foreign aid and payment to the WHO amounted to a savings of around 70 billion federal dollars; for context, our total federal spending last year was almost seven trillion.  In other words, the cost of saving people's lives in other countries only amounts to about one percent of our government spending, but Trump has decided against it.

And then there are his tariffs.  For months, Trump's defenders have said that he's only going to use them as a negotiating tool, but on Tuesday February 4th. they will become a reality.  They impose a 10% tariff on all goods from China, a 25% tariff on all goods from Mexico,  and a 25% tariff on all goods from Canada except for energy and oil, which will still pay 10%.  While Trump has been talking about punishing Mexico and China for years, entering into a trade war with Canada seems especially crazy given how long we've been allies and how reliant the American auto industry is on Canadian products and  oil. While he claims this is all about stopping the flow of drugs like fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into our country, both Canada and Mexico have already taken steps to prevent both, and border crossings are the lowest they've been since 2020.

Part of the reason that Trump loves Tariffs is that he can just put them in place without facing any constraints from congress or judges, allowing him to act like the fascist dictator he so clearly wants to be.  What he doesn't seem to realize is that they will wind up raising prices on the average consumer, as affected companies will inevitably raise prices to cover the tariff cost.  In other words, Trump's solution to the problem of high prices that helped get him elected will only make it worse!  

What can the Democrats do about any of this?  Sadly, without any control in congress, not a lot. Although Trump's nominations for cabinet positions have at least faced some tough grilling from Senate  Democrats,  for the most part  Dems  and the rest of the world can only look on as Trump burns down the government and distorts American democracy to his bidding, with the midterms elections in two years being the only possible hold on him.  I do often wonder if America can really survive the utter corruption and degradation of Trump's political movement.  We'll found out in the next two years.

WHY TRUMP'S NEXT TERM WILL BE WORSE THAN HIS FIRST

 When Donald Trump won in 2016, it was seen as a fluke, even by Trump himself (reportedly he had no victory speech prepared because he thought he didn't need one).  The public was shocked and many members of big businesses were afraid to cozy up to a president who lost the popular vote by millions and inspired women's marches across the country.

But  this time the wealthy companies saw it coming and began fawning up to Trump even before he won.  His inauguration tomorrow will feature several of the richest people in the world cheering him on, all of whom have donated millions to his campaign or inauguration.  (Elon Musk personally donated over two hundred million dollars!). 

Sadly, the media in 2024 couldn't seem to remind the public just what an utterly chaotic and corrupt first term Trump had, even before the pandemic: from his defense of  a white supremacist rally ("Very fine people.") to child separation  at the border.  And his conflicts of interest will continue; once again the Trump Hotel in Washington DC will be a place where foreign dignitaries can stay and run up huge bills as a way to bribe the president (You'd think such a flagrant violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution would be a serious issue,  but not any more).  And every time Trump plays golf, he will once again charge an entrance fee to the Secret Service agents he brings with him.   His family will also always stay at one of the Trump hotels when they travel and charge their Secret Service agents a room fee.  Yes, a family that always boasts of its wealth and love of our country  will still bilk the tax payers at any opportunity when they could just as easily comp those agents that our tax dollars pay to protect them.

Recently, Trump has promoted  crazy ideas like the US taking over Greenland, Panama and even Canada, but I'm not worried about any of that.  He has the attention span and temperament of a toddler, and once he's in office one of his people will wave a toy in front of his face and he will forget about these things.  (He mentioned buying Greenland in his first term and then quickly dropped the idea, which I assume he will again).

But there are some things that he definitely will be moving on, and, unlike in 2016, this time Trump is prepared to hit the ground running. Here is  a list of just some of the damage that he will do:

    The environment: To me, Joe Biden will always be remembered as the president who did more to fight climate change than any president before him (which is pretty sad considering its been a concern for decades).  Trump, who has said that he considers climate change a hoax and that ocean wind farms drive whales insane(!),  will, of course, attempt to reverse all of that.  While the move towards electric cars in this country will probably continue even without his help,  he can and will open up more and more land to oil drilling and reduce air emission standards, all while the evidence for climate change can be seen in our ever increasing number of global natural disasters.

    Tariffs: Trump's love of tariffs dates back decades, but he doesn't seem to understand how they work!  He honestly thinks that putting a tariff on imported goods is a way to collect taxes from foreign companies without any consequences for the US.  But he doesn't seem to realize that those companies will pass the cost of those tariffs onto the American people by raising prices.  Now, some targeted tariffs aren't necessary a bad thing, but Trump is considering an across the board 20% tariff on all imports, and perhaps a 60% tariff on all imports from China, which would cause American prices to skyrocket.  Kind of ironic from a president who won partly due to a backlash against inflation.  Now, some Trump defenders have said that his tariff threats are just a bargaining chip to be used against foreign countries, and I hope they're right.  But he really seems to be a true believer in them.  Even worse, he can just impose them without any congressional or judicial oversight.  

    Immigration:  One thing Trump was right about in 2016 is that he won because of his "Build the Wall" mantra, although, of course, he failed to do that as  president because actually building that wall proved far harder than he had made it seem.  That explains why he's moved from building a wall to the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants in this country.  There are currently around thirteen million undocumented immigrants in America today, and rounding them all up, processing them and then  deporting them would be a colossal  undertaking costing billions of tax payer dollars. On top of that, it would tear families apart and inevitably sweep up American citizens into the system.  But even if you have no problem with the costs or morality of it, the mass deportation that he wants  would destroy the American economy, because much of it is dependent on undocumented labor.  For example, a recent article in the New York Times pointed out that deporting undocumented immigrants would  decimate the American Dairy industry.  As Pete Wiersma, the president of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association put it bluntly,  if undocumented immigrants were all deported “I don’t think there would be milk.I just don’t think we could get it done.”

    Health:  A sobering recent report on the bird flu virus that has been spreading among American livestock finds that it is only one genetic mutation away from being able to be passed from human to human.  Even worse, milk has been found carrying the virus.  Now the good news is that milk pasteurization greatly reduces or eliminates the virus.  The bad news is that unpasteurized milk (or so called "raw milk") has inexplicably become popular in certain circles in this country, even in the face of the fact that between 1998 and 2018, at least 2,645 people fell ill after drinking raw milk, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  And the real bad news is that Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's choice to run the department of Health and Human Services, is a big proponent of raw milk.  Yes, the anti vaccine lunatic with no real scientific or research experience may soon be in charge of our nation's health while we stand on the precipice of what may be a serious outbreak of bird flu among humans.  Putting it bluntly, there could not be a worse person  at a worse time running that department.  I only hope that the Republicans in the senate can show some shred of decency and vote against his nomination.

    The Justice Department: Recently Pam Bondi, Trump's pick for attorney general, claimed that "politics will not play a part" in whom she decides to prosecute.  While Bondi certainly is a better candidate than Trump's original choice for the position, the loathsome Matt Gaetz, it still seems possible that she will use her power to settle scores against Trump's perceived enemies than to investigate actual crimes.  This becomes increasingly likely given that Trump has repeatedly said that his political opponents should be put in jail.  It also doesn't help that Trump's choice for leading the FBI, Kash Patel, once published a book with a list of politicians that he sees as enemies that he very well may target in some way or another as FBI chief.  Unfortunately,  it looks like both Bondi and Patel will be confirmed by the Republican Senate, which will cement Trump's desire for retribution against any political figure who doesn't think that he won the 2020 election or any politician that he does not see as properly loyal.

While there are certainly other terrible things that Trump will do as president, from going after trans people to perhaps even signing a national ban on abortion, I think these four points will be his focus and they all have me deeply worried about the next four years.  I was very pessimistic about our nation's future before Trump's first term, but now I'm even more pessimistic. 

THE DEMON RUM

 Recently,  Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for warning labels to put on alcoholic beverages, citing recent studies that show a link between alcohol use and multiple forms of cancer.  This link was sometimes found even in people who only drank moderately.  These recent findings fly in the face of the oft repeated belief that some drinking can be good for you, which was based on some other recent studies that were trumpeted by the media and have now been called into question.  Murthy's call for common sense warning labels may go unheeded considering just how rich and powerful alcohol companies are, but I think it's a good idea.  As  Dr. Ernest Hawk, the vice president and head of the division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences at the University of Texas  recently put it,   “There is no safe level of alcohol when it comes to cancer risk.” 

It seems to me that one of the problems with alcohol consumption in this country is  that the deadly possible  effects of alcohol are often downplayed because it's legal.  The linking of heavy drinking and good times, from margaritas at brunch to downing shots after work, has lead to the belief, (wrongful in my opinion) that heavy drinking is an acceptable stress reliever. Now, I would never in a million years say that prohibition should be brought back, but I do think Americans should take a long hard look at our alcohol consumption, which not surprisingly spiked upward during the pandemic and has remained stubbornly high ever since.

On a personal note, I've always hated the bitter, acidic taste of alcohol.  I've only been drunk twice in my life, and the horrific hangovers I faced afterwards pushed me into giving it up entirely. I don't miss it all, and I haven't had a drink in over thirty years. I also hate what alcohol did to my father, who lost years of his life because of a long running drinking problem.

But on a less personal note, I also hate what alcohol has done to the world: hundreds of thousands of people all around the world die from alcohol poisoning or cirrhosis of the liver every year.  And then there are the thousands of people who die in car accidents involving drunk drivers, and the fact that according to the National Institute of Alcohol and Drug Dependence, around forty percent of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol (there's a reason why we refer to an "alcohol fueled rage"),  That number rises to almost half for murders.   Remember that alcohol is also a physically addictive drug that causes addicts to shake in agony when they try to quit.  It may be legal, but it's seriously dangerous.  

Do I think that the US can be convinced to cut back on drinking?  Yes, because there is a precedent: tobacco use.  Although tobacco still kills hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year, the number of tobacco users is far lower than it used to be: according to the American Lung Association, in 1965 over forty percent of Americans used tobacco products, while the current rate is a mere eleven percent.  That decline didn't happen because tobacco was made illegal, it happened because the American people were shown the dangers of tobacco use, and millions of them wisely decided to quit or never start.  A similar system should be put in place to get Americans to start drinking less.  It's for the best.