Tag: news

The Use of Federal Troops and Officers for State and Local Law Enforcement

The recent use of the National Guard, and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, and Federal Park Police in Washington, D.C., raises the question of when, where and how federal agencies and the military can be used for general law enforcement activities outside their normal assigned responsibilities.  While the Pentagon ended the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles on July 15, 2025, 300 national guard soldiers are still deployed. These troops were initially sent to deal with protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.  Neither Governor Newsom nor Mayor Bass requested the use of the guard in dealing with localized protests and looting.  The 700-person Marine unit has been recalled. Then, on August 12, 2025, approximately 800 National Guard troops and National Park Police were deployed to Washington, D.C, under President Donald Trump’s orders to combat crime and homelessness. This deployment included members of the Guard’s 273rd Military Police Company. In addition, three states are sending additional guard troops to support the District Guard.

As a career law enforcement officer, trainer, educator, and administrator, I was shocked to see the events in Los Angeles and Washington unfold using federal officers and military personnel.  Most law enforcement personnel are familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385).  This act prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. It was passed after the Civil War Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from policing civilian populations in the South.  The term posse comitatus comes from Latin, meaning “power of the county.” Historically, it referred to a sheriff’s ability to summon civilians to help enforce the law.  The Act specifically prohibits direct law enforcement by military personnel (e.g., arrests, searches, seizures).  The use of the military as a domestic police force without legal authorization is not allowed.

The Trump administration has justified its actions citing the Insurrection Act of 1807.  The Act provides notable statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.  The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy troops to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws when requested by a state governor or when rebellion makes enforcement of laws impossible.  In general, an insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It involves a group of people rising in active resistance to the enforcement of laws or the functioning of the government.

Historically, the Supreme Court has intervened interpreting the Posse Comitatus Act.  In the United States v. Red Feather (1975) the Court upheld the concept that indirect support (e.g., equipment) does not violate the Act.  However, in United States v. McArthur (1982) the Court found that military involvement in a drug investigation crossed the line into unlawful enforcement.

It is important to note that The National Guard is not regarded as a federal agency and is under individual state authority.Governors can use their National Guard units for law enforcement support within their state or, if invited, in neighboring states.

It is equally important to note that the Supreme Court has said that the military can be used inIndirect support of law enforcement activities—like sharing intelligence, training, or loaning equipment. But direct involvement in arrests or investigations is not allowed.

The Insurrection Act has been used eight times since its passage.  President Abraham Lincoln activated state militias to fight the secessionist states of the Confederacy (1861-1865). President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of public schools (1957). President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed federal troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama during the desegregation of southern schools (1957). President Jimmy Carter deployed federal troops to manage the influx of Cuban refugees in Florida (1980). President George H. W. Bush deployed federal troops to restore order during the Los Angeles Riots following the Rodney King verdict (1992).  President George W. Bush deployed federal troops to assist with disaster relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005).  (History of U.S. Troop Deployments 1950-2023, Hoover Institution) President Donald Trump deployed troops as noted in the introductory paragraph (2025).

As noted earlier, the National Guard is currently active in Washington, D.C., with approximately 800 troops deployed to support law enforcement and community safety efforts.  The D.C. National Guard has a unique status, as it is the only National Guard unit that reports directly to the President of the United States. This structure allows for rapid deployment in response to emergencies or national security needs. The question is “Is there an emergency?”.  The President claims he needs to remove homeless people and stop the crime epidemic.  There is no crime epidemic.  There are many cities in America that have higher crime rates than in the District.  According to his own FBI National Crime Report, overall crime is down, not only in the District, but nationwide. 

What transpired in Los Angeles was challenged as illegal.  Only Governor Newsom has the authority to call out the Guard.  The Insurrection Act allows the President to use the military when there is an insurrection or to enforce federal laws when requested by the state governor.  There was no insurrection where the enforcement of law was impossible and there was NO request from Governor Newsom for assistance from the California National Guard. 

As a result of the federal government’s action, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit against the federal government.  The request by Newsom for an injunction was initially granted but eventually overturned by the Appellate Court.  The Department of Justice argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, there was no precedent for such a lawsuit, there was no injunctive relief or money damages, and that Newsom and the State had suffered no harm.  That case was adjudicated on August 13, 2025 and is still being reviewed by U. S. District Judge Charles Breyer. 

While the call out of the National Guard in D.C. is within the President’s authority, that authority is to only respond to emergencies and national security threats.  As of this writing, numerous groups are questioning Trump’s justification.  There is NO emergency!  Crime is down in the District as well as the nation, as reported by Trump’s own Justice Department.  Lawsuits will likely be filed.  However, Trump has historically shown a tendency to use the courts to his advantage.   Court actions generally move slowly, allowing Trump to continue his activities unless an injunction is approved. 

Of greater concern is President’s Trump’s comments about using the Guard in other cities.  Right now, there is NO national emergency, no major uptick in crime, and no rebellion.  The founding fathers did not want a national police force.  The significant laws are the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.  The Trump administration is pushing the limits when they claim that the guard can be used beyond a logistics mission.  While pending lawsuits will likely make this clear, as noted above, it has been Donald Trump’s strategy to use the courts to gain time. 

It is time for concerned citizens to get involved by calling, texting, emailing or writing representatives and senators.  Push Congress to act.  It is time to “call out” the illegal behavior of the Trump administration before it is too late.  Continued peaceful protests with widespread media coverage can be helpful, if the media finally engages.  Trusted media sources must speak up along with our concerned citizens.

Can America Have a Balanced Budget and Pay Down Its National Debt?

Introduction

When Kennedy took office, the national debt was $289 billion, and of this amount $270 billion was incurred during World War II.  As of the latest update, the current national debt of the United States is approximately $37.17 trillion. Every president except for Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson in his last year in office, spent less than budgeted.  For all other years, the federal government spent more than it took in, increasing the national debt.  More specifically, the breakdown during each presidency is as follows:

  • John F. Kennedy (1961–1963): The national debt increased by approximately $23 billion, an increase of 8%.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): The national debt increased by approximately $42 billion. However, in 1969 the federal government ran a budget surplus of $3.2 billion, With the surplus and national debt increased just over 13% over the Johnson years.
  • Richard Nixon (1969–1974): The national debt increased by approximately $121 billion, a 39% increase.
  • Gerald Ford (1974–1977): The national debt increased by approximately $224 billion, an increase of 57%.
  • Jimmy Carter (1977–1981): The national debt increased by approximately $299 billion, an increase of 76%.
  • Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): The national debt increased by approximately $1.86 trillion, an increase of 187%.
  • George H. W. Bush (1989–1993): The national debt increased by approximately $1.55 trillion, an increase of 54%.
  • Bill Clinton (1993–2001): The national debt increased by approximately $1.4 trillion from 1993-1997. However, during the years 1998-2001 the federal government had budget surpluses for four consecutive years.  Clinton’s overall increase in the national debt was 32%.
  • George W. Bush (2001–2009): The national debt increased by approximately $5.85 trillion, an increase of over 105%.
  • Barack Obama (2009–2017): The national debt increased by approximately $8.34 trillion, an increase of 70%.
  • Donald Trump (2017–2021): The national debt increased by approximately $8.18 trillion, an increase of almost 41%.
  • Joe Biden (2021–2025): The national debt increased by approximately $6.17 trillion, an increase of 25%.

What is the National Debt? 

The National Debt is the amount of money that the United States Treasury has needed to borrow to pay bills beyond the amount budgeted for any given fiscal year.  Who loans the U.S. this money?  The national debt is held by a combination of domestic and foreign entities. The largest domestic holder of U.S. public debt is the Federal Reserve Bank, with holdings of $5.24 trillion. Domestic Investors includes mutual funds ($3.7 trillion), depository institutions ($1.6 trillion), state and local governments ($1.7 trillion), pension funds ($1.0 trillion), insurance companies ($0.5 trillion), and U.S. savings bonds ($5.7 trillion).  There are also foreign Investors like Japan.  Japan is the largest foreign holder of U.S. public debt ($1.1 trillion), followed by China ($0.8 trillion), and the United Kingdom ($0.7 trillion). There is also debt held by various government agencies, such as the Social Security Trust Fund, which owns a significant portion of the debt.  Overall, the U.S. national debt is a mix of public debt borrowed from domestic and foreign investors and intragovernmental debt reflecting internal government transactions 1 and 2.

How Significant is the Interest Paid on the National Debt?

In addition to the government spending more than it takes in, interest payments on the national debt have been a substantial and growing part.  For example, the U.S. government paid $749 billion in interest on the national debt through the first nine months of FY25, compared to $682 billion for the same period in FY24. This increase is due to the rapid accumulation of federal debt and higher interest rates. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects interest payments will rise from $1.0 trillion in 2026 to $1.8 trillion in 2035. This makes interest payments the fastest-growing portion of the federal budget.  Relative to the size of the economy, interest payments on the national debt are expected to reach 3.2% of GDP in 2026 and 4.1% of GDP by 2035 3. However, the actual interest payments on the national debt are projected to rise to 18.4% of federal revenues by the end of 2025 and 22.2% by 2035 4.

However, the major contributing factor to the increase in national debt is failure to balance the budget. As noted earlier, there were only two presidents who managed to have budget surpluses. 

If the Annual Budget is Balanced, Can Our Government Pay Off Its National Debt? 

The answer is yes!  It will take a determined bipartisan Congress to create a balanced budget.  Budget spending and the projected income need to be balanced.  A portion of each year’s annual budget must be directed toward a multi-year plan to pay off the national debt.  This is much like the mortgage schedule that homeowners receive when they borrow money to buy a home.  Cuts in many programs will be necessary.  That is the hard part of finding a bipartisan middle ground!

The income level can and should be increased.  As noted in the Introduction, at one time the federal government taxed Americans who made over $400,000 per year at a rate of 91%.  Today, those making over $400,000 are taxed at only 37%, and if President Trump gets his planned tax changes that rate may drop to 22%. This potential plan does not reduce the federal deficit.  Although Trump claims that his tariff plan will generate income and make up for the decrease in tax income, the CBO estimates that the Trump budget will instead be a long-term drain on resources.

During the Eisenhower era (1953–1961), the top income tax rate was an astonishing 91%, applied to income over $400,000 (equivalent to about $4 million today). This was not a flat tax. Only income above the $400,000 threshold was taxed at that rate.  However, due to deductions and loopholes, very few actually paid the full 91%.  Still, even with deductions, the wealthy paid a significantly higher tax rate than today.  Most of the wealthy class often paid taxes reaching 40–60%.  In addition, during President Eisenhower’s administration, the corporate tax rate in the United States was relatively high. The top corporate tax rate was 52%, which was one of the highest rates in U.S. history. This high tax rate was aimed at generating revenue for post-war economic growth and infrastructure development. Today’s corporate tax rate is only 21%.  Yet, despite the high tax rate on the wealthy and corporations, the U.S. economy grew at an average of 4% annually.  Unemployment remained low, and income inequality was far less severe than today.  In addition, the high individual and corporate tax rates encouraged reinvestment in business expansion rather than excessive executive compensation.

Eisenhower’s tax rate was eventually lowered by his successors as follows: 

  • John F. Kennedy (1961–1963): The top rate remained at 91%.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): The top rate was reduced from 91% to 70%.
  • Richard Nixon (1969–1974): The top rate remained at 70%.
  • Gerald Ford (1974–1977): The top rate remained at 70%.
  • Jimmy Carter (1977–1981): The top rate remained at 70%.
  • Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): The top rate was reduced from 70% to 50% in 1982 and further reduced to 28% in 1988.
  • George H. W. Bush (1989–1993): The top rate was increased to 31% in 1991.
  • Bill Clinton (1993–2001): The top rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993.
  • George W. Bush (2001–2009): The top rate was reduced to 35% in 2003.
  • Barack Obama (2009–2017): The top rate was increased to 39.6% in 2013.
  • Donald Trump (2017–2021): The top rate was reduced to 37% in 2018.
  • Joe Biden (2021–2023): The top rate remained at 37%.
  • Donald Trump (2023–present): The top rate may be reduced by 15% from 37%, resulting in a rate could be 22%.

While there’s no official CBO estimate for a full return to Eisenhower-era rates, economists and policy analysts have modeled scenarios.  If the rate were set at 91% for incomes over $400,000, the estimated additional income would be between $300 and $400 billion.  Adding in a capital gains tax at the Eisenhower rate would add another $100 – $150 billion.  While such a high tax rate is not likely, raising the level back to Clinton’s almost 40% or Nixon’s 70% would still generate significant income.  In comparison, even these high rates are less than the 2025 rates in other countries.

Top Marginal (tax on the highest earners) Income Tax Rates by Country (2025)

Sweden (57%)

Denmark (55.9%)

France (55.4%)

Germany (47.5%)

UK (45%)

Australia (45%)

Japan (45%)

Canada (33%)

Singapore (24%)

The U.S. has lower top income tax rates than most wealthy nations, especially in Europe.  Corporate tax rates in the U.S. are mid-range, higher than tax havens like Ireland and Singapore but lower than many EU countries.

Rasing the top corporate tax rate to the Eisenhower administration level of 52%, is not likely.  If we consider the total corporate profits in the U.S., which were approximately $2.3 trillion in 2021, raising the tax rate to 52% could theoretically generate substantial additional revenue 1.

Debt-to-GDP ratio

This is a line of thinking in economics.  What matters most is the relationship between the national debt and the GDP, not just the raw size of the debt.

If GDP (the total value of goods and services produced) grows at least as fast as (or faster than) the national debt, then the debt becomes smaller relative to the size of the economy.  In other words, even if the absolute dollar amount of debt grows, the country can more easily handle it if the economy that supports it is growing too. This is like a household whose mortgage stays the same, but their income keeps rising — the payment becomes a smaller burden over time.

Economists often use the debt-to-GDP ratio (Total National Debt divided GDP) as a key measure of sustainability.  If GDP growth exceeds the interest rate on the debt, the ratio can fall even without cutting spending or raising taxes. Mainstream Keynesianeconomists — such as Paul Krugman and Olivier Blanchard — argue that if GDP growth outpaced interest rates, debt is manageable.

But there are big caveats to this line of thinking.  If GDP growth slows or interest rates rise sharply, the math can flip — making debt harder to sustain.  In addition, as mentioned earlier, political will to maintain stable deficits is also key, but difficult to achieve.  Debt sustainability depends on investor confidence — if lenders lose faith, borrowing costs can spike regardless of GDP growth.

GDP growth is helpful, but insufficient alone to significantly reduce the debt burden. Sustainable debt reduction requires both economic growth and active fiscal management (like a balanced budget or surpluses, and/or keeping interest costs low). In short, while economic growth helps, fiscal discipline and favorable interest conditions play an even larger role in reducing the debt burden.

Conclusion

While economic prosperity, the Debt to GDP ratio, is worth noting, there are essentially two ways to reduce the national deficit– cut spending and raise more revenue.  In addition, it would also help if the Federal Reserve cut the interest rate they charge banks to borrow. This in turn would affect the interest rate for the government allowing the government to refinance the old debt coming due at a lower rate. This is like a homeowner with a 7.4% mortgage refinancing at a new mortgage rate of 5%.

Americans need to elect representatives who will balance the budget.  As individuals, most of us strive to live within our income and plan ahead for a significant expenditure.  Our government should be held to the same standard.  America can and should pay off its national debt. 

Sources

Most of the data is from the Congressional Budget Office, National Bureau of Economic Research, Center for Economic Policy Research.

Other specific sources:

1 Venditti, Bruno, “Charted: Here’s Who Owns U.S. Debt” – Visual Capitalist, December 10, 2024. 

2 Amadeo, Kimberly, “Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?” January 19, 2023.

3 What Are Interest Costs on the National Debt? – The Balance, Peterson Foundation, July14, 2025.

4 Hyatt, Diccon, “A Record $1.2 Trillion Interest Payments Are Blowing Up” – Investopedia, September 13, 2024.           

What Does Being an American Mean to Me?

Robert Fischer

Considering the current situation in America, I am very concerned with the direction of leadership shown by the Trump administration.  While 2025 isn’t the first time there has been controversy and conflict, it is the first time that an administration has deliberately flaunted the Constitution and court precedents that have been the foundation of this country for 250 years.  For example, in the 1950s America recovered from WWII.  Republicans were focusing on building a strong economy, whereas Democrats were looking to expand human rights.  But the two goals were not in exclusion from each other.   People argued but generally got along.  Issues of civil rights, a woman’s place in society, and social mobility were concerns.

The issues of the 1950s eventually resulted in turmoil in the 1960s and 70s.   I lived through the Vietnam conflict on the police front lines, protecting property and the rights of protesters, who on occasion resorted to violence.  I was also working as a police officer during the end of the Civil Rights Movement.  I worked with racist officers who still did their job despite their prejudices. 

There were social problems that sometimes resulted in violence.  Still, I believed in the rule of the law and the stability of our government with its Constitution and the belief that “We the People” ultimately controlled the nation’s future.  I didn’t agree with all the choices that were made by those representing the majority.  There were policies on women’s rights, affirmative action, drug control, and laws that I felt encroached on individual rights.  I and others voiced our concerns.  Demonstrations on these issues were commonplace.  However, I was among the minority. 

By 2000, as I reached middle age, many of the social issues that the nation faced in the 1960s and 70s were being addressed.  Again, while I didn’t agree with all the positions that were taken by those that won the elections, I knew that I would have an opportunity to sway others’ opinions and perhaps eventually see my own opinion dominate policy.  LBGTQ rights, women’s rights, continued advancement in civil rights, and DEI, all of which I supported, were being written into law and policies.  However, what I failed to see was the growing discontent of some friends and relatives, who saw changes supported by people like me, as destructive to their view of the American life.  What I saw as positive, inclusive policies that made it possible for disadvantaged people to aspire to the “American Dream,” others saw as destructive policy chipping away at the America that they knew. 

I was happy when Hillary Clinton was the first woman to run for President.  I was not a major supporter of her campaign, but the fact that a major party would present a woman for the position of President was, in my opinion, a move in the right direction.  I was even more enthusiastic when Barack Obama was nominated for the Presidency and won.  I was surprised when so many people that I knew well were upset over Obama’s election.  I hadn’t realized that racism, which I knew still existed, was so deeply engrained in so many Americans.  Despite the disconnect, I was still willing to believe that our institutions, laws, and Constitution would allow for the continuation of all free expression.  My belief was bolstered when the “Black Lives Matter” movement, along with “Me Too” and other minority and social issues, were making headlines.  The people were free to express opinions and attempt to change government policies and law.

When the 2016 election cycle began, I was pleased to see a diverse Republican field of candidates.  The Democratic field was seemingly focused on Hillary Clinton.  However, I was disappointed when Donald Trump, a political unknown, began to gain a large following.  I couldn’t believe the progression of his candidacy to nomination.  What I again failed to note was the depth of frustration that many Americans were feeling toward our government and toward both major political parties.  Traditional Republicans were not getting the job done and Democrats were not representing the interests of a growing group of individuals who believed that our country was heading in the wrong direction.  Although I didn’t vote for Donald Trump, I believed that America’s majority was heard.  I knew that many of his ideas were not ones that I could support.  Still, he was President and until I and others could elect someone with a platform that we could support, I would voice my opinion and hope for a change in leadership. That change occurred in the 2020 election; the voting majority moved the agenda back to socially progressive policies. 

While I should have seen it coming, President Trump didn’t walk away from 2020 with a congratulations and we’ll see you in 2024!  Instead, he chose to create a perception that the election had been stolen.  This shouldn’t have surprised me as his entire platform in 2016 had been filled with “make believe” problems, that supported the beliefs of Americans who are afraid the America that they knew was fading away.  Candidate Trump convinced many Americans that there were too many criminal immigrants, terrible crime waves in our big cities, transgender individuals who would steal wins from our women athletes, DEI programs that disadvantaged traditional Americans, a fake climate crisis, and others.  His actions should have been a warning.  However, his actions were not taken seriously by many. 

In 2025, we now see that those who believed Trump’s make-believe version of America were able to return him to office where he can fix all these ills.  But so far, I don’t see much real progress since the things he is trying to fix don’t need fixing.  They are not the big problems that President Trump has sold to MAGA!  Some are issues that do need addressing.  However, what is a concern is his approach.  His administration is ignoring our courts, laws, traditions, and the Constitution.  While I have observed that many Americans have voiced disapproval, many court decisions have pushed back on his executive orders.  Even some of his own party objects to his policies.  I am concerned that his administration is working to make it difficult for the people to continue to have a voice.  For the first time, I am concerned that the America that has allowed me to dissent is in danger of being lost.  We the People need to continue to voice our concerns.  This can be done through protest, discussions with people we know, letters to the editor, letters (email, text) to representatives, and most importantly, casting an informed vote.

Trump’s Twenty Campaign Promises:

An Evaluation

1 Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion– For the most part this promise has been fulfilled.  The use of the military as support for ICE has worked.  Daily arrests have decreased from 5,100 per day under the previous administration to about 230 per day. If a migrant invasion was a problem, President Trump has solved it.  The question is, “Were migrants seeking a better life in America a problem?”  Based on national crime and work data, most migrants were not a problem, did not contribute disproportionately to crime, did not displace American workers, and were not provided with Medicaid benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer.  A majority of Americans support inclusive immigration policies, such as pathways to citizenship, and recognizing the economic and social contributions of immigrants.  (USC Equity Research Institute, April 29, 2025) But the false perception promoted by Donald Trump, allowed the MAGA movement to make this an issue when it wasn’t!  There was no national emergency.  Undocumented immigrant arrivals had already started falling in 2023, when the Biden administration introduced the CBP One app which allowed migrants to schedule appointments at ports of entry to apply for asylum.  President Trump changed the purpose of the app to allow undocumented immigrants to receive $1,000 if they would voluntarily sign up to leave America.

2 Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history—This effort is currently underway.  ICE has removed 61,630 alleged illegals since January 2025.  The biggest issues here are currently under scrutiny by the courts.  Is the use of executive power, the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Alien Enemies Alien Act constitutional?  The deportation of people without due process (the 5th Amendment) is also a major issue.  It seems that President Trump has overstepped his executive power by claiming powers that were not granted under the Constitution or through the use of the before mentioned acts.

3 End inflation and make America affordable again– President Trump had promised to bring prices down during the first days in office.  It has now been over 100 days and instead, price hikes for food have accelerated. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that food costs have increased by 2.4% since January.   The big increase in egg prices may soon end with the cost of wholesale eggs now dropping.  When that drop will be passed on to the consumer is unknown.  To be fair, some products like pasta, rice, potatoes and lettuce have declined in cost.  And despite the President’s claim of $1.98 gas, prices have remained static. The nationwide average is $3.18.  The lowest price is in Mississippi at $2.66.  His implementation of tariffs worldwide have forced many businesses to pass the costs associated with the tariffs on to their customers.  Inflation has declined from 3% in January to 2.4% but is predicted to increase over the next few months. 

4 Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far!  The problem with this promise is that it is misleading.  America has been and continues to be the number two energy producer behind China.  Given the disparity of populations between the two nations, this is not surprising.   With the world’s tenth largest oil reserves and environmentally friendly means of production of alternative energy, America is already a leader.  It appears that President Trump’s gambit here was to allow for greater production for the oil and coal producers when it is not needed.

5 Stop Outsourcing and Turn the United States into a Manufacturing Superpower– While many Americans wish for the days when industrial manufacturing was dominate, those days have passed.  The Rust Belt in the Midwest has been in recovery mode for decades.  Some cities have made significant strides while others continue to struggle. Efforts to revitalize the Midwest and other manufacturing hubs have included investments in infrastructure, education, and new industries. Cities like Buffalo, NY, and Madison, WI, have seen improvements in unemployment rates, poverty reduction, and real estate growth. However, the recovery is uneven, with some former manufacturing hubs still facing economic challenges. 

The loss of coal mining, due to the transfer of steel production overseas and environmental concerns, will likely not return.   President Donald Trump’s administration has made changes to support the coal industry, including allowing mining on federal land and allowing older coal-fired power plants to continue producing electricity. However, the industry still faces challenges due to environmental concerns and declining demand. Instead, the dominate industries in America are intellectual and technological, including  real estate, and healthcare.  We need to recognize our strengths in technology and intellectual development and allow other nations to provide manufacturing at lower costs to us.

6 Large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips!  Who wouldn’t like this idea!  The middle class and working poor need tax relief.  However, the “Nice Big Bill” being proposed cuts all tax categories.  Upper middle class, upper class, billionaires, and corporations do not need a tax cut.  There is plenty of money to live a decent lifestyle, invest in new ventures and build corporate profits.  Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have it right.  We need to increase tax on the upper income levels and lower taxes on the middle- and lower-income families.  America will prosper.  Our national debt can be reduced. Our $36.2 trillion debt could be paid off in a few decades. But for that to happen, the government would have to balance the budget and raise taxes on millionaires to the President Johnson era rate of 70%.  The money generated would go directly to paying down the debt.

7 Defend our constitution, bill of rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms– Again, who can complain about this?  We should all want to maintain the rights that our founding fathers fought so hard to achieve 250 years ago.  President Trump took and oath to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn in as President.   Yet, in an interview with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, when Welker asked him if he would uphold the Constitution he said, “I’m not sure.”  You don’t have to look hard to find social media and news outlets that are questioning whether our fundamental freedoms are being limited!

8 Prevent World War three, restore peace in Europe and in the middle east, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country — all made in America– While the first part of this goal should be supported by all, the last section makes little sense.  Preventing wars is a world goal.  So far, President Trump’s bold prediction that he would end the Ukrainian conflict on his first days in office, has not even resulted in a real ceasefire.  The Israeli/Hamas conflict continues.  However, to be fair, in the last few days the Trump administration has announced tentative cease fire agreements between India and Pakistan, as well as a possible 30-day cease fire between Ukraine and Russia.  Yet, threats to take over Greenland and perhaps Canada by force are counterintuitive to world peace.  The threats against Iran regarding nuclear weapons does little to reduce tension in the middle east.  A missile dome over the United States sounds like a great idea if war were to happen.  However, think about the total cost of developing Trump’s “Golden Dome.”  The cost of developing and maintaining Israel’s Iron Dome is $1 billion, and that system is much smaller with less complicated missiles than America would require.

9 End the weaponization of government against the American people—I think this goal was a joke.  While President Trump declared that the government was victimizing him, I see no proof!  Now that he is once again President, I believe that he has weaponized his government against those who have opposed him or might criticize what he has done.  Consider the following actions.  Some notable figures reportedly pursued by the Justice Department includeLetitia James, the New York Attorney General who won a civil fraud case against Trump, is now facing a criminal fraud probe led by the FBI. Also, former Rep. Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and John Bolton, among others, have been targeted through various government actions because of perceived anti-Trump opinions.

10 Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders—This all sounds great!  However, there is not a migrant crime epidemic! Research consistently shows that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, tend to commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Studies have found that as the immigrant share of the U.S. population has increased, crime rates have declined. Additionally, historical data suggests that first-generation immigrants have been less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals for over a century. Demolishing foreign drug cartels is a problem for the countries where they originate.  American needs to focus on the market demand side of the equation.  Reduce or eliminate the demand and the cartels will need to find other markets.  Gang violence is a problem that impacts other gangs.  The spill over to the general population is tragic, but not significant.  The statistics support the reality that convicted violent offenders are locked up

11 Rebuild our cities, including Washington DC, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again—This is another misleading statement.  Our cities are not hotbeds of crime and decay.  All cities have problems with the homeless, under-employed and under-educated.  These are social problems that can best be solved by providing better opportunities for jobs and education.  Our largest cities do have increased crime problems, but most, like New York, have found strategies to reduce crime.   According to the National Crime statistics, American crime is down across most categories.  The national murder rate has dropped significantly—about 16% from its 2020 peak. Violent crime and property crime are approaching historic lows, though some regions have seen increases in specific types of crime

12 Strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world- Another misleading statement.  America has by far the most modernized and powerful military in the world, according to the 2025 Global Firepower rankings. The ranking considers over 60 factors, including troop numbers, military equipment, financial stability, geographic location, and available resources. The U.S. leads in technological advancements, with a large fleet of aircraft, tanks, and naval assets.  Following the U.S., Russia and China rank second and third, respectively. 

13 Keep the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency—A worthy goal.  However, President Trump’s recent support for crypto currency has many doubting whether this is a real goal.  The Trump family has become increasingly involved in cryptocurrency. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. co-founded American Bitcoin, a crypto mining firm merging with Gryphon Digital Mining. The company aims to mine Bitcoin at a lower cost and accumulate reserves of the cryptocurrency.  Additionally, the Trump family has backed World Liberty Financial, a crypto exchange that recently secured a multi-billion-dollar investment from an Abu Dhabi-based firm. Donald Trump himself has launched a meme coin called $TRUMP, which has seen significant fluctuations in value since its release. These ventures have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, with some lawmakers calling for investigations into the family’s crypto dealings.

14 Fight for and protect social security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age– A wonderful promise.  We will need to see what the House of Representatives cuts from the “Big Beautiful Budget”.  Recent drafts of the proposed budget bill show significant cuts and changes to Medicaid and support for SNAP.

15 Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations—This is a difficult topic.  It concerns environmental issues versus regulation, and the real contribution of fossil fuel to global warming.  The facts make it clear that global warming is real.  The debate over how much is natural and how much human activity contributes to the problem, weighs heavily toward a major impact from human developments.  However, it does not matter when humanity can reduce its contribution, whether significant or not.  There is no reason not to cut our pollution of the environment.  Costs might be a factor, but then improving our overall standard of living by not taxing middle income and working poor households could make up the difference. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office to eliminate the so-called “electric vehicle mandate.” This mandate was an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that required auto manufacturers to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new vehicles, effectively pushing for more electric vehicle production. Trump’s order also aimed to remove regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access and terminate state emissions waivers that limited the sale of gasoline-powered cars

16 Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children– This again is an issue that really is not an issue!  Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in American schools existed long before Donald Trump’s presidency. The foundations of DEI can be traced back to civil rights movements and legislation such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  By the 1990s and 2000s, DEI initiatives expanded beyond race to include gender, disability rights, and LGBTQ+ inclusion in education. Schools and universities implemented diversity training, multicultural curricula, and affirmative action policies to promote equitable access to education.  While DEI became a more widely discussed topic in recent years, its roots in American education go back decades.  Some schools incorporate discussions on these subjects, while others face restrictions on teaching them. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 56% of teachers reported that topics related to racism and racial inequality came up in their classrooms at least sometimes, while 29% said the same about sexual orientation and gender identity. The survey also found that these discussions are more common in urban and suburban schools than in rural areas.  Sixty percent of teachers believe parents should not be able to opt their children out of discussions on racism and racial inequality. Schools are not pushing critical race theory or promoting gender decisions.

17 Keep men out of women’s sports—There are so few men who are transgender.  Only 1.4% of youth aged 13-17 identify as transgender.  Only about 33% report as males. Of the transgender group few compete in sports events.  Transgender youth make up a small fraction of all athletes. For example, NCAA President Charlie Baker testified in December 2024 that fewer than ten transgender college student-athletes were among a total 510,000 athletes. Research also suggests that states allowing transgender participation tend to have more girls participating in sports than states with bans.

18 Deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again– This goal flies in the face of all that America stands for.  Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Many may not like those who do not agree with their personal position or that of the government, but our Bill of Rights guarantees those individuals the right to speak out.  Our universities and college campuses have always been a place where this right exists without fear of retaliation.  We recently noted the heartbreak when President Nixon attempted to curb the right to peaceful anti-war demonstration at Kent State.  These types of demonstrations and sometimes violent ones are not the rule, but rather the exception.   

19 Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship—Again, another false issue!  Our elections have been secure.  It has only been since President Trump’s claims of a stolen election that the issue has been raised.  The facts have shown that Trump’s claims have no merit.  Under the Trump administration, the government is making it more difficult for many to vote.  Just the opposite of what Is needed! While instances of voter fraud do occur, multiple studies and investigations have found that widespread fraud is rare. Election officials and experts generally agree that the election system has safeguards, such as voter registration requirements, identification checks, and audits of results in place to prevent fraud.

20 Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success—What a joke!  From the very beginning President Trump through his rhetoric has increased divisions in our country.  However, there is hope that through its own policies, the nation may be uniting against his agenda.  Consider the most recent polls which show mixed approval ratings for the president and his policies. In various surveys, his overall approval rating has hovered around 40-45%. Some of his policies, such as tariff increases and government cuts, have faced majority disapproval, with 59% opposing tariffs and 55% disapproving of federal department reductions.

Is History Repeating Itself?

The Gilded Age and Robber Barons

Historical Context

The Gilded Age (roughly 1870-1900) was infamous for its blatant corruption. Political machines like Tammany Hall in New York City thrived on bribery, patronage, and voter manipulation. This age was notorious for political corruption, with officials often influenced by wealthy business interests. Business tycoons wielded immense influence over politicians, often securing favorable legislation in exchange for financial support. The term “robber barons” emerged to describe these industrialists who exploited both workers and the political system. Thus, Americans saw extreme wealth concentration among industrial magnates like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Rockefeller and Carnegie amassed fortunes largely unchecked by government regulation.  These wealthy businessmen focused on domestic industrialization.  The wealth gap between industrial tycoons and ordinary workers was staggering. The era was marked by rapid technological advancement that reshaped society.  Railroads connected the country, electricity revolutionized production, and factories mechanized manufacturing.

Reform efforts during this time included the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, which aimed to curb patronage by requiring government jobs to be awarded based on merit rather than political connections. However, progress was slow, and corruption remained deeply entrenched.  Populist movements were frequent, and debates over government intervention in the economy were just beginning.  It wasn’t until President T. Roosevelt became president, that real reform began.

Does any of this sound familiar?  The Gilded Ageand today share striking similarities, particularly in terms of economic inequality, technological innovation, and political dynamics.

Similarities?

  • Wealth Disparity: The Rockefellers, Morgans, Goulds, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies controlled over 50% of the nation’s real and personal property during the late 1900s.  Today, billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos hold immense economic power. Wealth inequality in the U.S. has been steadily increasing over the past several decades. The top 1% of Americans now control 31% of the nation’s wealth.  In 1963, the wealthiest families had 36 times the wealth of middle-class families. By 2022, that gap had widened to 71 times.  In 1983, white families had about $320,000 more wealth than Black and Hispanic families. By 2022, that gap had grown to over $1 million.
  • Technological Advancements: The expansion of new technologies like railroads, electricity, and assembly line manufacturing dominated the Gilded Age.  Today the U.S. leads in artificial intelligence, software development, and semiconductor production, with major investments in AI research and chip manufacturing. Solar and wind energy are expanding rapidly, driven by government incentives and growing demand for sustainable solutions.  The U.S. is experiencing a resurgence in manufacturing, particularly in automotive (electric vehicles) and semiconductors.
  • Political Turmoil: The 1800s experienced political corruption with the Teapot Dome, Star Route postal bribery scandal, Credit Mobilier contractor bribes re Union Pacific Railroad and Panama Canal.  In the 21st Century we have witnessed the Enron scandal, Bernie Madoff, FTX, and Variety Blues.  Both major political parties in the U.S. have accused each other of various forms of wrongdoing, often tied to scandals, policy decisions, and ethical concerns. Democrats have accused Republicans of voter suppression tactics, while Republicans have alleged election fraud and biased election oversight. Both parties have pointed fingers at each other over financial misconduct, misuse of campaign funds, and conflicts of interest. Democrats have accused Republicans of being influenced by foreign governments, particularly Russia, while Republicans have claimed that Democrats have ties to foreign entities that compromise our national security.
  • Social Movements: The Gilded Age was filled with social movements like abolition, women’s rights, temperance, Utopian societies, and reform of education and prisons, and the birth of the union movement. Today, workers have unions, labor laws, and social safety nets. Social reform continues with Black Lives Matter, MeToo, Arab Spring, LGBTQ+.
  • Populist Movements: The Populist Movement was driven by farmers, laborers, and reformers who sought economic and political change. The most notable populist movement was the People’s Party, founded in 1892. It emerged from the Farmers’ Alliances, which had been organizing to address issues like falling crop prices, unfair railroad practices, and debt burdens. Today we see the Tea Party movement and MAGA.   The MAGA Movement focuses on prioritizing American interests in trade, immigration, and foreign policy.  It advocates for stricter border control and reduced immigration, supports tariffs and policies that favor American manufacturing, emphasizes strong policing and criminal justice policies, and appeals to working-class voters who feel left behind by globalization. The Tea Party Movement 0pposes excessive government intervention in the economy, advocates for lower taxes and reduced government spending, supports deregulation and minimal government interference in business, was a major force in resisting the Affordable Care Act, and encourages decentralized political engagement.
  • Regulation: During the Gilded Age there was NO regulation.  Thanks to anti-trust laws passed in the early 1900s, monopolies were regulated for the first time.  Today, modern antitrust laws are supposed to prevent monopolies from dominating industries as they did in the late 19th century.  However, many believe that antitrust enforcement has weakened over the decades, leading to increased market concentration and wealth inequality.  Still, the Department of Justice recently won a landmark case against Google, ruling that the company had monopolized digital advertising markets. This suggests that regulators are still capable of acting against monopolistic behavior. However, critics argue that enforcement often lags behind rapid changes in the business landscape, making it difficult to address emerging monopolies effectively.
  • Globalization: The Gilded Age was about American business.  While there was global trade America was focused on its own growth. Today’s economy is deeply interconnected on a global scale.  America has lost much of its labor-intensive production to cheaper labor markets overseas. 
  • Political Corruption and Reform: Political machines like Tammany Hall once controlled local government, with bribery and patronage as standard practice. National corruption was common with big money buying Congressional votes.  Today, money still plays a powerful role in politics through lobbying and campaign financing. Lobbying and campaign financing allows corporations and wealthy individuals to exert significant influence over policy decisions. Super PACs (political action committees) can raise unlimited funds, often leading to concerns about the disproportionate power of money in politics.

Conclusions

My own opinion is that we are again under siege by large corporate/monied interests.  The common worker is left out of the solutions.  Monied interests are making gains.  MAGA, through Donald Trump, promised that in the first days in office the average American would see lower prices, better wages, a return to better days, and Americanization of the United States.  After 100 plus days in office, prices are not lower, wages are not better, and the numbers of unemployed have not changed.  While the Trump administration claims that it has almost eliminated illegal border crossings, the way Americanization is being achieved is questionable.  Courts have ruled against his executive powers used to deport illegal immigrants, or even citizens, who speak out against Israel.  Public opinion remains divided on whether Trump is successful, with a minority praising his decisive actions while a majority express concern about economic instability and legal challenges to his policies.  Recent polls show that Trump’s approval rating has declined as concerns over the economy and foreign policy are growing. His approval rating hovers around 45%, with some polls showing it dipping as low as 39%.  Nearly 60% believe Trump’s policies are making the economy worse.  Fifty-nine percentdisapprove of his administration’s tariff increases. His handling of immigration has 45% approval, but disapproval has increased. And lastly, 51%think he is relying too much on executive orders.  I believe we need a 21st Century Teddy Roosevelt!

I leave the comparison and conclusions to the reader. 

Suggestions to Save America from Itself

One person’s opinion

There are many Americans across the political spectrum who believe that America has reached a crossroad.  Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on policy direction.  Should we focus on humanitarian issues, or should we focus on building our economic strength and hope for the trickle-down effect that Reaganomics promised?  Unfortunately, too many Americans fall into this dichotomy, failing to recognize all the room that exists between these two extremes.  The most unfortunate result of the focus on this dichotomy is that the real issues that Americans face are not debated.

In 2025, with the success of the MAGA movement in gaining political control, the promises of greater opportunity, prosperity, and a return to “true” American values appear to be on the horizon for those who believe in the MAGA movement.  Yet, after only one hundred days in office, the prospect of a better America seems dim.  Official statistics are not totally doom and gloom.  Still, many middle- and lower-class Americans have a perception of food and everyday living costs soaring.  The Trump administration appears to be at odds with itself.  The Secretary of Treasury and the head of DOGE are reportedly less than civil with each other.  Top Pentagon officials have resigned over the way that the Secretary of Defense has handled a variety of issues. The courts are being attacked for their stand on issues that many Americans see as Constitutional guarantees.  The Senate, which was established to represent the states, seems to turn a blind eye to the increasing interference of the federal government with state’s rights.  It also appears that the federal government is attempting to impose the administration’s values on all Americans.  Attacks on private schools, using monetary blackmail, is not in America’s interest.  Cutting federal services with a “chainsaw” has not brought about savings.  Rather, various agencies seem to be falling into an ineffective mire due to lack of staff.   Even the polls are turning against President Trump’s handling of almost all issues except for border control.  This weekend’s polls (Ipsos, ABC, Washington Post, etc.) report that 55 percent of voters do not support President Trump’s leadership.

If it were up to me, how would I go about fixing our now very dysfunctional government?  I would advocate for Impeachment of President Trump.  While not likely to happen given the lack of courage by Republicans in our House of Representatives, I believe the organization’s success or failure starts with the person at the top of the chain of command.  In the case of President Trump, I believe he has failed to show good leadership.  His picks for cabinet members showed little thought for professional competence, instead focusing on personal loyalty.  His attack on the economy has been a disaster.  His establishment of DOGE is a total waste of effort, which has caused serious damage to a functional government 9which arguably does need serious reform). 

Since Impeachment is unlikely, and other Constitutional remedies are also out of the picture, I would suggest that the Senate start to focus on doing its job.  It was created as the voice of the states, just as the House was created to be the voice of the American people.  The Senate has, in my opinion, lost sight of this responsibility!  Too often state governors are left with the responsibility of maintaining the state’s rights.  Perhaps it is time to undo the 1913 legislation (17th Amendment) that moved the selection of state senators from the hands of the state legislature to a popular vote, in essence creating another tier of legislators who are now concerned about popular votes rather than the welfare of the states they represent.

The people’s chamber is also failing.  Members of the House seem to be more focused on their parties rather than on the concerns of their voters.  There was a time when representatives were picked by their neighbors and served the community.  Many gave up lucrative jobs to serve. Today many representatives view the position as a job, not a service to their voters.  As such, they are often focused on getting reelected to a position that guarantees a good pension after five years and access to federal medical benefits.  Campaigning has become a full-time business.  I would suggest that representatives serve at least three years.  Salaries should be commensurate with other local business leaders. (The Current salary is $147,000.)  The guarantees should be stripped away.  Perhaps then representatives would serve their constituent, not monied interests and their political party.

While I have criticized our president and congress, perhaps the greatest failure has been the apathy of most Americans.  Until the current situation, most Americans have not participated in governing the country that was created as a nation of “We the People.”  When only 2/3 of eligible voters bother the vote in presidential elections, there is a problem.  Worse yet, only 20 – 30% of eligible voters turn out for state and local elections.  To aggravate this problem, most Americans are not casting an “informed” ballot.  Of those that vote, many cast party ballots without careful consideration of the candidates.  It takes effort to know what the issues are and where candidates stand.  Complicating the issue is the problem of knowing which information is accurate!  I believe American education needs to instill a sense of government responsibility in our youth.  In addition, we all need to learn how to recognize “fake news” in comparison to what is factual.  We need to understand what opinion is and what is news.

While that would take years before the effects are realized, we might save this democracy if enough Americans are hurt by the policies of the current administration. Americans need to take the time to learn about current government policies, the Constitution, and our history.  This great nation deserves more than most have given it.  All Americans need to get involved by putting pressure on their senators and representatives.  Americans need to become the government of “We the People!”

It is Time to Decide

The current political and social climate has made me very concerned.  I am a “boomer” who has lived through the healing process following WWII, and the turmoil created during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the civil rights movement, Watergate, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, 9/11, and other events.  I was involved in the Vietnam protests, first as a student observer and later as a police officer on the front lines.  In all my years living through these events, I never felt like our democracy was threatened as much as it is today.  No matter what crisis the American people faced, there was always a sense that the law would prevail.  In today’s Trump world, courts are defied or manipulated; many in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have failed to represent their constituents; long established safeguards have been removed; and executive power has increased to a level never seen in our 250-year history.

I have previously written about executive orders, restructuring our government, our president, education, and other issues.  There are no simple answers to the situation that we find ourselves in today. However, it is money and the power that it yields which have contributed to the problem.  While I am not a sociologist, my view of humankind is that there is a continuum of human caring (empathy).  On one end are those who are so empathetic that they would easily sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the whole.  On the other end of the spectrum are those who crave power and have no empathy. Our political structure mirrors this continuum with very liberal Democrats on one end and extremely conservative Republicans on the other.  The difference is in the organization of the political parties and the membership loyalty to core values.  Over the years I have maintained an independent attitude toward politics, although many would say I have a liberal bias.  I understand the core principles that the Republican party held in the 1950s and 60s.  But I also relate to the central Democratic base. So obviously, I do not subscribe to the far right MAGA philosophy.  I am also wary of too much government involvement in social and personal issues. 

With that said, I do believe that empathy should rule our society, not the money and the power that it brings to the political arena.  Every human being should have the right to feel secure.  When someone needs assistance, society should step up and help.  I have been there as a young married college student, who would not have been able to survive without food stamps.  On the other hand, I had the expectation that I would someday be able to support the family based on my wife’s and my income.  To achieve security, a person needs to have an adequate income!  As a highly educated individual, I have been fortunate to have achieved a sense of security.  Do I need to earn more money?  No.  I really don’t know what my wife and I would do with it except to donate it to causes that we deem worthy.  But for the Musks and Trumps of this world, how much is enough?  I know it is not security that they crave.  Rather, it is the power to control all that surrounds them. 

I hope that America survives the current administration.  MAGA and Donald Trump are not the Republican party of ideals that I can support on many issues.  However, party loyalty for many is the only thing that counts.  Why?  Because Donald Trump has been able to convince roughly 33% of the American voting public that he has the answers to problems that he has either created or exaggerated.  America does not need to be great again.  We are great!  That is until January 2025, when the Trump administration started to turn world opinion against America.  Trump represents the desire to have it all. His supporters want to return to an America that no longer exists.  Humanism has been on the increase for decades.  Racism, gender discrimination, disproportionate distribution of resources should not be tolerated.   If the 33% who sat out the election had spoken up, perhaps America would have continued to find a balance between the power that economic superiority brings and humanism.  It is obvious to me, and many others (including those from other nations), that the money/power side of the continuum is currently trying to dominate.  If successful, America will be much like feudal Europe– a king, princes, vassals, and peasants.

On March 31, 2025, Corey Booker began a Senate speech which lasted 25 hours, until April 1.  Senator Booker took a stand for American values and the power of the people.  On April 5, 2025, many across this nation took a stand for humanity over power and money.  We must continue to fight the good fight.  We must overcome the harm created by Trump and his followers.

Does the Department of Education Need to be Eliminated?

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education.  The order directs the department to reduce its size and transfer many of its responsibilities to states and other federal agencies. Programs like student loans, Pell Grants, and funding for students with disabilities should continue, but their administration might be shifted to other agencies over time. The move has sparked concerns about potential disruptions in federal education funding and services, especially for low-income and special-needs students. 

In addition, President Trump has withheld funding for numerous federal agencies, as well as personnel cuts that Impact the operational effectiveness of those agencies.  His initiatives to eliminate DEI have resulted in threats to various educational institutions that have been deemed in violation of his desire.  His major targets have been high profile schools like Columbia.  However, a number of regional universities are under investigation for discrimination tied to DEI programs.

While purportedly looking for a better investment, the Trump administration has lost sight of the fact that education isn’t about return on the dollar in test score numbers, but it is about children.  Cuts to food and support programs should consider what happens when a child is hungry.  The impact of housing support on living arrangements also impacts a student’s learning motivation.  Our system of education is broken!  Many children are in fact “left behind”.  Education is good for the affluent, fair for the middle class, and substandard for people struggling to make ends meet.  That is why 54% of Americans function a less than a 6th grade level.  With an overall literacy rate of 79%, the United States ranks 36th.  Most developed nations have literacy rates of 96%  (National Literacy Institute, 2024-2025 Literacy Statistics).

Many of our competing countries, e.g., Finland, Canada, Japan, support early education with universal health and food support programs as well as support for counselors, mental health, basic human needs. Unfortunately, the United States is focused on outcomes through money spent of developing standardized tests.  We often spend money to determine outcomes without providing adequate support for actual education.  We don’t invest in teachers.  Salaries are poor.  Requirements for licensure are often costly and frequently not reimbursed by the school districts.  Attracting college students to these poor paying teaching jobs has become increasingly difficult.   Differences in taxing districts impact whether a school district invests in education or barely gets by.  Wealthy districts can excel.  Poor districts barely make their budget guidelines.

Too often, the United States has turned what should be an investment in humankind into a business venture.  Spending more money doesn’t guarantee a better product.  Our founding fathers stressed the need for a literate populace if their model democracy was going to survive.  America has failed to maintain the gains in education achieved over the 20th century.  The amount of money spent on buildings, extra-curricular activities and mandated curriculums has changed the focus from basic skills and understanding of our system of government to looking good on paper.

Downsizing with the intent to eliminate the Department of Education is as unfounded as most other downsizing initiatives underway under the Trump administration.  There is no doubt that there is waste in our federal bureaucracies.  This waste should be eliminated.  However, the chainsaw approach offered by the Trump administration can do only what a chain saw does.  The cuts are crude and dangerous.  What is needed is a careful review of programs by independent experts.  The recommendation then needs to be reviewed by Congress and their determination passed on to the Executive Branch. 

The United States is not a business being run for profit.  Although, in recent years it often looks like our elected representatives are there only to make money for themselves.  The United States government is a service funded by the taxpayer for all American citizens.

Money and the VOTE

Election laws in the United States are designed to ensure fair and transparent voting processes. They cover aspects like voter registration, accessibility, campaign finance. States have the primary authority to set election rules, but federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act, provide overarching protection.  These election laws strictly prohibit voter buying, which refers to offering money or other incentives to influence someone’s vote. Under 18 U.S. Code § 597, it is illegal to make expenditures to influence voting, whether to encourage someone to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote for or against a specific candidate. Violations can result in fines or imprisonment.

State laws vary, but no state allows payments to vote for or against a particular candidate or ballot measure. Some states, like Wisconsin, even prohibit payments for simply turning out to vote.

There have been allegations that Elon Musk may have violated campaign finance laws by offering monetary incentives to registered voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential election. These payments were tied to signing a petition supporting the Constitution. You could argue that such payments were intended to influence voter registration and voting behavior. If this is the case, such actions could potentially breach federal laws prohibiting payments for voter registration or voting.

In addition, Musk also has been a major donor to political campaigns, such as the current Wisconsin Supreme Court race.  Here his donations and advocacy have sparked debates about the ethics of such involvement. Musk also has ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which has allowed him to amplify his political views and influence public discourse. His financial backing and public endorsements have positioned him as a key figure in certain political movements.

Musk’s interactions with senators and representatives have also sparked significant debate. Reports suggest that Musk has used his wealth and political action committees to exert pressure on lawmakers. He has reportedly threatened to fund primary challengers against Republican senators who oppose certain agendas. With his involvement in federal government restructuring, he has drawn criticism from both parties, with some senators expressing concerns about his unelected authority and its impact on their constituents.

However, it’s worth noting that legal experts are divided on whether these actions constitute outright violations or merely exploit loopholes in the law. The situation underscores the complexities of campaign finance regulations and the influence of wealth in politics.

Yet buying votes is strictly illegal. It involves offering money or resources to voters in exchange for their votes. This practice undermines democracy and as noted earlier, is punishable by fines or imprisonment under U.S. law.

The influence of money in politics has been a long-standing concern, and it raises tough questions about fairness and representation. When financial power overshadows the voices of everyday citizens, it can appear that the democratic process is being undermined.  Since 2010, The Supreme Court Case, commonly referred to as Citizen’s United, has caused a major political upheaval.  However, that is a topic for another blog.

But democracy is resilient. Grassroots movements, campaign finance reforms, and public awareness can all push back against these challenges. What measures do you think could help restore balance?

President Trump’s Executive Orders—Why?

Part 2

Introduction

During his first days in office President Trump signed over 50 executive orders.  As of this writing there are now over 100 orders!  While new presidents start their terms with executive orders, the extent and direction of President Trump’s orders is “Trumpian.”  In Part 2 I will continue to discuss selected executive orders, consider why they were signed, present the positives and negatives of each order, and consider the unforeseen consequences, good and bad.  With over 100 orders to choose from this will take some time!

Federal Hiring Freeze

Signed January 20, 2025, this executive order is similar to the order President Trump signed on January 23, 2017.  This executive order is aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce.  The order is aimed at halting the hiring of federal civilian employees across the executive branch.  Agencies can hire no more than one new employee for every four who leave.  Immigration enforcement, public safety, military, and law enforcement are exempt from the hiring restrictions.  Agencies are directed to develop plans for large-scale reductions in force, and identify nonessential functions including diversity initiatives for cuts.  The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, oversees the efficiency measures and coordinates with agency heads. Federal employees have been offered incentives to resign.

The order also directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan to reduce the federal workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.

Why?

President Trump signed the 2025 hiring freeze order to reduce the size of the federal government’s workforce and cut down on government spending. Candidate Trump had regularly made statements promising to reduce government spending and waste.  This order fulfills his promise to his political base. This hiring freeze is part of a broader effort to improve efficiency and reduce costs within the federal government.

Positives

The primary goal of the hiring freeze is to reduce government spending. By not filling vacant positions, the government can save on salaries and benefits. The hiring freeze could streamline government operations.  The freeze may lead to better utilization of current employees and potentially uncover inefficiencies.  With fewer resources, agencies may be encouraged to find innovative solutions to maintain service levels. This can lead to the adoption of new technologies and processes that improve overall efficiency.

Negatives

While these potential benefits exist, it’s important to consider the broader implications and challenges that may arise from such a policy.  The freeze has had various impacts, including staffing shortages in agencies like the IRS and the National Park Service, which rely heavily on seasonal workers. Critics argue that such measures can disrupt agency operations and potentially increase costs in the long run.

The hiring freeze has also led to the rescinding of job offers for many candidates, including those who had already received offers from federal agencies like the IRS. This creates uncertainty and financial instability for those affected.  Agencies like the IRS and FDIC are facing challenges in fulfilling their duties due to the hiring freeze. The IRS, for example, may struggle to process tax returns efficiently, potentially leading to delays in tax refunds. The FDIC’s ability to ensure the stability of the banking system is also compromised, increasing the risk of bank failures and weakening consumer protections. 

The hiring freeze has led to a decrease in efficiency and morale among existing federal employees. With fewer staff members to handle the workload, employees may experience increased stress and burnout, which can negatively impact their performance and overall job satisfaction.  The freeze may have long-term consequences for the federal workforce, including a potential loss of institutional knowledge and expertise as experienced employees retire or leave for other opportunities. This can hinder the government’s ability to effectively serve the public and address emerging challenges.

Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid

Signed January 20, 2025, this directive mandates a comprehensive review of all U.S. foreign assistance programs to ensure they align with American interests and values. The order includes a 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds while these reviews are conducted. The reviews are to be carried out by the department and agency heads responsible under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The executive order aims to assess the efficiency and consistency of foreign assistance programs with U.S. foreign policy. Based on the review recommendations, the department and agency heads responsible, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will decide whether to continue, modify, or discontinue each foreign assistance program. The Secretary of State has the authority to waive the pause for specific programs if necessary.

Why?

President Trump believes that the U.S. foreign aid programs are not aligned with American interests and values. He has argued that these programs often destabilized world peace by promoting ideas contrary to harmonious and stable relations within and among countries. The executive order aimed to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance was fully aligned with the President’s foreign policy and provided a value return for the American people. The administration emphasized the need to review and realign foreign assistance to protect America’s investment and focus on national interests.

Positives

The order is designed to ensure that foreign aid programs are aligned with American interests and values, promoting a more coherent and strategic approach to foreign assistance. By pausing new obligations and disbursements for a comprehensive review, the order aims to improve the efficiency and accountability of foreign aid programs. This helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and provide a return for the American people. The order emphasizes the importance of focusing on national interests and protecting America’s investment in foreign assistance. This approach aims to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

Negatives

The 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds has caused significant disruptions to ongoing aid programs. This has affected millions of people worldwide who rely on U.S. funds for essential services such as food, healthcare, and economic development. The executive order has led to job losses for tens of thousands of Americans and non-Americans working in the international development sector. This includes employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private contractors.

Private contractors working with USAID have faced financial burdens due to unpaid invoices and the sudden halt in funding. This has affected their ability to sustain operations and fulfill commitments to subcontractors, suppliers, and employees. Contractors and organizations that rely on their proven track record of reliability to secure future government contracts face reputational risks due to the uncertainty surrounding funding and the potential cancellation of contracts.

The pause in foreign aid has had severe consequences for vulnerable populations in developing countries. The executive order has led to the cessation of programs that support the rights and well-being of these communities.  The disruption of aid programs and the potential withdrawal of U.S. support from international development efforts could lead to increased instability in regions that rely on U.S. assistance for stability and development.