Four Years and Three Posts

I set this blog site up 4 years ago with the expectation that I would post extended notes or essays of my reaction to the Trump years. Given that I have, since then, written only two additional posts until now, I did not do what I set out to do! In general, I am good at starting great creative projects, but terrible at follow-through. In the case of this website, I could possibly use, as an excuse, the velocity of Trump outrages on a daily basis. He sure had a lot of energy! More than my ability to keep up. (My very weak excuse.)

I may have dropped the ball, but Trump has been amazingly good at the damage he set out to do – and accomplished. Despite his 308 days devoted to golf, and his multiple hours daily watching TV and tweeting, he has been relentless in wrecking the country. Of course he has been aided by those he has put in positions of great responsibility. Thus he can lounge and sign-off on the destruction they have gotten done on his behalf. Even now [the days following the Capitol siege] while so many loyal staffers have jumped ship, leaving the most determined behind, he keeps on wrecking. For example, yesterday, the Pompeo State Department announced (with just a few days left for the Trump administration) that it had designated the Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization. This despite pleas from humanitarian organizations not to do this.

SIDE-NOTE/DISCLAIMER: “This is pure diplomatic vandalism,” said David Miliband, president and CEO at the International Rescue Committee, adding that for his staff in Yemen, “This designation makes their task all but impossible. … (The) cost of terrorism designations in the middle of complex conflicts and humanitarian crises can be measured in innocent lives lost.”

[Ruth and I regularly give to the IRC.] The above text from ABC News 1/12/21

I have been saying that Trump and his administration have been wrecking a lot of the good in our government, while not doing a lot of good himself. One of the things that I find amazing is the number of people that have defended him, ignoring his craziness with the words “he has done a lot of good.” I seriously keep wondering what just ONE example of good might be, never mind a lot of good. Let’s look at some of the common “good points” used by those that support Trump.

“He was good for the economy.” NOT IN MY VIEW.

First of all, the stock market and the unemployment indexes do not reflect the truth about the economy for most Americans. So if you point only to those markers as any evidence for the economy, it is worthless to me. The stock market is a reflection mainly of the investments (or gambles) of the wealthy. The financial gains of the upper 10% – never mind the upper 1% – do not represent the economy at large.

Secondly, the unemployment index does not say much either; telling me that it went down – which it did throughout the Obama years as well as the Trump years until the pandemic – doesn’t mean much. Why? (a) It does NOT include those who have been unemployed longer than 27 weeks (6 months), and there are a lot of people in that category.

And, (b) over the last 30 years, the growth in underemployment, that is employed with poor wages and no benefits has been huge. Manufacturing jobs, which provided solid middle class incomes for a previous generation has been badly hurt by off-shoring over the last 40 years. On top of that, the unstoppable mergers, consolidation, and monopolization of retail and service businesses have greatly reduced even marginal wage jobs. All of the above have left Americans struggling in multiple jobs, usually none being full-time. Official figures set the poverty rate for 2019 at 10.5% of the population. Yet look at the 2019 official guidelines (chart below) for determining poverty. Ridiculously low. That’s why groups like the Poor People’s Campaign say that more realistically 43% of the USA can be classified as poor and low income; that’s 140 million of our fellow Americans. Another factor in underemployment is the widespread use of “no more than 30 hours a week” – which means the employer is not required to supply benefits.

Even before the pandemic: Seventeen out of every 10,000 people in the United States were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2019 during HUD’s Annual Point-in-Time Count.  These 567,715 people represent a cross-section of America.  They are associated with every region of the country, family status, gender category, and racial/ethnic group. And then, during the pandemic, rents have been increasing. While there has been on-and-off eviction-protection, homelessness has increased. One sign I saw said: “Eviction + COVID-19 = Murder.” Hunger is now widespread; yet at the same time, the Trump administration has made food stamp (SNAP) qualifications tighter. (It was forced to provide greater State waiver flexibility as the months wore on.) But food bank distribution lines are longer than ever.

No – I don’t think the economy has improved pre-pandemic, and, of course, it got worse during the pandemic, again, ignoring the meaningless stock index.

“He Cut Our Taxes With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017!” SORRY, THE SO-CALLED TAX CUT WAS A DISASTER.

There are many components to the legislation that was voted into law by every Republican Senator, and not one Democrat. However…

• As everyone knows, it increased the national debt by $1 – 2 trillion; face it, cutting taxes greatly decreases revenues. (1) Many Republicans expected to be cutting the budget to make up for it; many others said not to worry because the act was “revenue neutral” – meaning that the tax cuts, particularly the corporate income tax cuts, would stimulate business activity to the point that it would generate new tax revenues.
• It did not end up “revenue neutral” as the Republican advocates claimed. Instead, it did the reverse: at the end of 2018 there was a $275 billion shortfall. (2) Another way to put this: The law did NOT stimulate the economy.

Just as many economists predicted, slashing individual, corporate and estate tax rates was mostly a windfall for big corporations and wealthy Americans. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not pay for itself, failed to stimulate long-term growth and did not lead to sustained business investments. According to one of the most comprehensive studies to date on tax cuts for the rich, this should come as no surprise. A London School of Economics report by David Hope and Julian Limberg examined five decades of tax cuts in 18 wealthy nations and found they consistently benefited the wealthy but had no meaningful effect on unemployment or economic growth.

Dec 20, 2020, The Washington Post

• The biggest cuts went to corporate taxes (where the rate went from 35% to 21%, which represented a 45% cut). And yet – the following year (2018), 91 corporations paid $0 taxes. ZERO! What–How? They left all the tax loopholes in and added some new ones. Why even bother having a corporate tax at all? See chart 1 below. (3)
• The corporate tax cuts were considered permanent. [Of course nothing is permanent if a majority in Congress so declares it. And hopefully this change will happen.] The personal income tax cuts described next (the ones that most Americans might care about) were set to gradually expire until the rate drop completely expired in 2025. In short, the act was geared principally to please corporations.
• As far as personal taxes are concerned, the temporary cuts of a few hundred dollars per year for the vast majority is a meaningless contribution to their struggles. On the other hand, those at the very top averaged a $50,000 cut, an amount while large to most of us, is a drop in the bucket to them. See chart 2 below. (3)

Was the tax cut good for America? No. It robbed the Treasury resulting in (a) less money for needed programs, and (b) increased debt for future Americans with little to no gain for anyone (except the corporations that were doing fine already, and the very wealthy for whom a $50,000 cut was always welcome but won’t change their spending habits any).

The worst part was the TCJA further exacerbated the problem of economic inequality in America. What is economic inequality? A quick video from 2014:

To be fair to Trump, the economy has been getting worse and worse for the bottom 90% since 1980 and especially since 1992. To put it another way, economic inequality has gotten worse all along because cutting taxes and spending has been the predominant philosophy of the government.(4) And, under Trump, with the TCJA, the trend toward worsening the degree of economic inequality continued unabated, and especially due to the pandemic. (5)

“He deregulated many government departments!” — YES HE DID, AND THAT WAS MOSTLY BAD!

Regulations that protect workers, or protect consumers, or protect the environment are necessary as a counterweight to corporate CEOs who are willing to risk hurting workers, consumers, and the environment in order to improve profits. The concept of regulating businesses began as a response to industrial “robber barons” who, in the period of 1865-1900, were functioning under the philosophy of “social darwinism” in which laissez-faire economics was allowed to play out to the extreme. For example, railroad companies competed to the point that farmers were crushed or other railroads were bought out. Bigger profits meant trains and track were faster but not always safer. All of that led to anti-trust laws or anti monopoly laws along with regulations about pricing and worker safety. A popular expose about the conditions in the meatpacking plants, led to the creation of the Federal Food and Drug Administration to protect workers from danger and consumers from disease. As a result of the Great Depression, Democrats pressed for laws to protect people’s savings in banks, to protect investors from needless risk, and so more agencies like The Securities and Exchange Commission, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were created to create rules to protect the average guy. Weakening or eliminating individual regulations are opening the door for corporate decision-makers to take advantage at the expense of the average guy.

Business always talks about the “burden” or the “crushing burden” of regulation. There is a need for streamlining, reducing paperwork, and otherwise making compliance easy. But generally, the Republican view is to give business decision-makers the “freedom” to seek profits more readily regardless of impact on worker, consumer, or the environment.

Here is a list of more than 120 Trump administration cuts in environmental protection rules that will increase air and water pollution (among other things) and make us more at risk for disease. CLICK HERE TO WASHINGTON POST.

Here is an article about the many cuts to consumer protections that the Trump administration did away with. They literally re-introduced, “Buyer Beware.” In this complex technological age, buyer choices are often too complex for the average person. Banks, loan companies, private educational institutions, credit card companies and more are gleefully happy to bewilder the consumer and profit from their decisions or “mistakes.” No where is this more true than with respect to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency created during the Obama administration. CLICK HERE TO WASHINGTON POST.

Making regulations less onerous to businesses is one thing. Making it easier for businesses to scam and profit off ignorance is something else. And that was the goal of many in the Trump administration – all of whom were industry executives occupying a cabinet or regulatory position.

“He was good for religious freedom.“ I SAY, NO, HE WAS NOT GOOD FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. JUST THE OPPOSITE. HE TRAMPLED ON IT.

This sounds like a Christian point of view, a point of view most associated with evangelicals. A Christian who may feel “under attack” and restricted in his or her ability to practice their faith.

At least that’s the way I have heard this expressed. I think that is erroneous, however. What is true, is that America, for all of its years, has been increasingly made up of groups with multiple points of view about life and faith. Protestant evangelicals objected to Catholics as heretics and tried to subjugate them as second class citizens throughout the 19th century. In the same century, Mormons were a “cult” that fled to the wildness of Utah for safety from persecution. These two groups were a “threat” to evangelicals then, just as “liberal churches” and humanism were a threat in the 20th century, and now at the beginning of the 21st century, the growing populations of believers in Hinduism, Islam, and not to mention a resurgence of Native American beliefs are all threats. I would say that Christianity is not under attack, it is involved in a fierce competition for the hearts (and souls perhaps) of their neighbors and the nation.

You would think competition would bring out the best in religious folk who are trying to “win over” their family, friends, and neighbors. Your would expect to see extra efforts at generosity, kindness, patience, gentleness… you know, from the Christian perspective, more display of the fruit of the Spirit. I believe that “faith” is listed in the fruit of the Spirit. That would be the character of leaving matters in hands of the Almighty.

But instead, for the last 40 years (at the minimum) what I see instead of faith is agitation, impatience, and anger about the competition. There is a sense of entitlement, like: this is my country and my faith is the majority faith. And thus my religious view about life must be the law of the land. And THAT is why other values about same sex marriage, about abortion, about the role of women in the home, about the Sabbath Day, about the role of science in education, and more must be written into law.

Although Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (not a stallion), although he washed the disciples feet (instead of appointing them as cabinet officers), many Christians want a nationalization of their faith. They would be more at home in John Winthrop’s Boston, even though they are really living in combination of Roger Williams’ Rhode Island and William Penn’s Pennsylvania. They do NOT want freedom of religion. They want (and got) a President that protected and coddled them and was willing to trade votes for him in exchange for special favors, like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Like stepping back on LGBTQ rights. In other words, these Christian zealots have twisted the meaning of religious freedom into restricting the freedoms of others.

I am sure you can see that whatever accomplishments some see in this category, I regard as backward progress… and unchristian.

“He has improved our standing in the world. OR, At least he did well with foreign policy.“ AGAIN, NO, HE DID A TERRIBLE JOB IN MOST CASES.

He did not involve us in a new foreign war. I do agree and am grateful for that. But given the confusion he gave to allies and competitors, we were also lucky.

All the rest, not good:

• He doesn’t do diplomacy and he did not allow diplomats to do it for him.
• He was rude and insulting to our western friends which made no sense.
• He made amazingly supportive statements toward dictators, from Putin to Erdogan to Xi to Duterte to Kim Jong-un.
• He did not stand up to Russia on our behalf. Instead he coddled and defended Putin.
• In withdrawing from Turkey, he acted in a clumsy and impatient way, and endangered lives.
• In withdrawing from negotiations and alliances he allowed China to run to the head of the class.
• He endangered us by withdrawing from the treaty arrangement with Iran.
• He endangered us by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

In conclusion: no, I do not think there is any good thing accomplished by Trump -or his administration- apart from the lucky fact that he did not engage in some new war. We won’t get into the massive corruption throughout the Trump administration. That’s a different story even if it is relevant.