Author Archives: Sheila

Taxes And Spending

I am not an economist, nor do I play one on this blog. But let’s talk about economics and Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” 

As Heather Cox Richardson recently reported, despite the GOP’s pious (and entirely bogus) expressed concerns about the deficit, the speed with which Congressional Republicans are trying to pass this monstrosity is rooted in their effort to avoid widespread recognition of what it actually does. The bill blows the budget deficit wide open by extending the 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and connected, and it does so by sticking it to the needy, via draconian cuts to Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that extending the tax cuts for the already-rich will cost at least $4.6 trillion over the next ten years. (And in an especially despicable twist, the tax cuts would go into effect immediately but the cuts to Medicaid wouldn’t hit until 2029, after both the midterms and the 2028 election.)

The prospect of that debt explosion led Moody’s on Friday to downgrade U.S. credit for the first time since 1917, following Fitch, which downgraded the U.S. rating in 2023, and Standard & Poor’s, which did so back in 2011. “If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is extended, which is our base case,” Moody’s explained, “it will add around $4 trillion to the federal fiscal primary (excluding interest payments) deficit over the next decade. As a result, we expect federal deficits to widen, reaching nearly 9% of GDP by 2035, up from 6.4% in 2024, driven mainly by increased interest payments on debt, rising entitlement spending and relatively low revenue generation.”

The difficulty in passing this monstrosity has been the insistence of hardline Republicans that the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP weren’t draconian enough.

It’s a standard Republican accusation that federal spending is out of control, but as Richardson notes, discretionary spending has actually fallen more than 40% in the past 50 years as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 11% to 6.3%. What has really caused rising deficits were the Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

But rather than permit those tax cuts to expire— or even to roll them back— the Republicans continue to insist Americans are overtaxed. In fact, the U.S. is far below the average of the 37 other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental forum of democracies with market economies, in its tax levies. According to a report by the Center for American Progress in 2023, if the U.S. taxed at the average OECD level, over ten years it would have an additional $26 trillion in revenue. If the U.S. taxed at the average of European Union nations, it would have an additional $36 trillion.

In a recent Substack, Paul Krugman described the Big Beautiful Bill as a “big tax giveaway to the wealthy combined with cruel cuts in programs that serve lower-income Americans,” writing that the measure’s cruelty is exceptional even by recent right-wing standards, and noting that it relies on

claims we know aren’t true and policies we know won’t work — what some of us call zombie ideas. And it’s hard to avoid the sense that the counterproductive viciousness is actually the point. Think of what we’re seeing as the attack of the sadistic zombies.

Krugman writes that this slashing of Medicaid will cause almost inconceivable hardship to the bottom 40 percent of Americans, especially to the poorest fifth. (Medicaid actually covers far more Americans than Medicare, including 39 percent of the nation’s children.)

Among the ways Republicans will slash Medicaid is by requiring that adult Medicaid recipients be gainfully employed — or, as Krugman points out, “more accurately, that they demonstrate to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats that they are gainfully employed, which is not at all the same thing.”

The belief that many Americans receiving government support are malingering, that they could and should be working but are choosing to be lazy, is a classic zombie idea. That is, like the claim that cutting taxes on the rich will unleash an economic miracle, it’s a doctrine that should be long dead. It has, after all, been proved wrong by experience again and again.

But right-wingers simply refuse to accept the reality that almost everyone on Medicaid is either a child, a senior, disabled or between jobs.

The evidence from state efforts to impose work requirements shows that–while such rules don’t get presumably “lazy” people to work–they do  take benefits away from people who are legally entitled to them through onerous paperwork and administrative barriers. 

If Republicans really cared about deficits, they’d tax the rich, not screw over the poor. They could begin by simply enforcing current tax rates, which our plutocrats evade to the tune of 150 billion dollars a year.

Your GOP at work…..

Comments

More Of This, Please!

If there was any lingering doubt that MAGA and Trumpism are rooted in racism, the extension of refugee status to White South Africans–at the same time Trump rescinded the similar status of vetted Afghans who had, at significant risk, worked with U.S. forces during the war–should put an end to it. That “in your face” evidence joins the administration’s barely-less-obvious measures to “protect” White folks from perceived victimhood: the dismissal of Blacks and Women from positions of authority (and their replacement with laughingly unqualified Whites), the scrubbing of websites documenting the achievements of women and minorities, and especially the disgraceful and dishonest all-out war on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

An embarrassing number of institutions have folded under that attack, but others have not. Vernon shared an entirely appropriate response to the federal government’s anti-DEI demand from one school superintendent.

Here is that letter.

___________-

To Whom It May (Unfortunately) Concern at the U.S. Department of Education:

Thank you for your April 3 memorandum, which I read several times — not because it was legally persuasive, but because I kept checking to see if it was satire. Alas, it appears you are serious.

You’ve asked me, as superintendent of a public school district, to sign a “certification” declaring that we are not violating federal civil rights law — by, apparently, acknowledging that ci1vil rights issues still exist. You cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, then proceed to argue that offering targeted support to historically marginalized students is somehow discriminatory.

That’s not just legally incoherent — it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith.

Let me see if I understand your logic:

If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism.

If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism.

If we give a disabled child a reading aide, we’re denying someone else the chance to struggle equally.

And if we train teachers to understand bias, we’re indoctrinating them — but if we train them to ignore it, we’re “restoring neutrality”?

How convenient that your sudden concern for “equal treatment” seems to apply only when it’s used to silence conversations about race, identity, or inequality.

Let’s talk about our English learners. Would you like us to stop offering translation services during parent-teacher conferences? Should we cancel bilingual support staff to avoid the appearance of “special treatment”? Or would you prefer we just teach all content in English and hope for the best, since acknowledging linguistic barriers now counts as discrimination?

And while we’re at it — what’s your official stance on IEPs? Because last I checked, individualized education plans intentionally give students with disabilities extra support. Should we start removing accommodations to avoid offending the able-bodied majority? Maybe cancel occupational therapy altogether so no one feels left out?

If a student with a learning disability receives extended time on a test, should we now give everyone extended time, even if they don’t need it? Just to keep the playing field sufficiently flat and unthinking?

Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure. Equity is what ensures all students have a fair shot. Equity is what makes it possible for a child with a speech impediment to present at the science fair. It’s what helps the nonverbal kindergartner use an AAC device. It’s what gets the newcomer from Ukraine the ESL support she needs without being left behind.

And let’s not skip past the most insulting part of your directive — the ten-day deadline. A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note, demanding signatures within a week and a half or else you’ll cut funding that supports… wait for it… low-income students, disabled students, and English learners.

Brilliant. Just brilliant. A moral victory for bullies and bureaucrats everywhere.

So no, we will not be signing your “certification.”

We are not interested in joining your theater of compliance.

We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.

We are not interested in abandoning our legal, ethical, and educational responsibilities to satisfy your fear of facts.

We are interested in teaching the truth.

We are interested in honoring our students’ identities.

We are interested in building a school system where no child is invisible, and no teacher is punished for caring too much.

And yes — we are prepared to fight this. In the courts. In the press. In the community. In Congress, if need be.

Because this district will not be remembered as the one that folded under pressure.

We will be remembered as the one that stood its ground — not for politics, but for kids.

Still Teaching. Still Caring. Still Not Signing.

_________________

May that Superintendent’s tribe increase.

Comments

Justice Souter

David Souter died earlier this month.

When George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, I watched the confirmation hearings on television. I saw a brilliant, thoughtful jurist. His purported “evolution” on the high court bench didn’t surprise me; his jurisprudence remained grounded in precedent and reverence for what I call the American Idea.

A few years after he retired from the Court, I was fortunate enough to attend a small conference on civic literacy at Harvard Law School, convened by then-Dean Martha Minow. Both Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor participated, and I was especially impressed by Souter’s remarks. I asked him if he would allow a copy to be published in the Journal of Civic Literacy –a publication of the Center I’d established at IUPUI (now IU-Indy). He graciously agreed. That was in 2013, and his observations have become even more pertinent.

Here they are.

____________________________________ 

Dean Minow: Nearly three years ago, Justice Souter gave a truly extraordinary commencement address here at Harvard, upon receiving an honorary degree. In his exploration of the tensions among the values embodied in the United States Constitution, he offered deep insights into important decision making by the Supreme Court and equally conveyed the hard work that is necessary to advance the values of democracy and freedom, individual rights, and democratic participation. We are so touched and honored by your participation here today, which I know reflects your admiration and affection for your colleague, Justice O’Connor, and also your deep abiding commitment to this subject [civics]. Why does it matter to you so much?

Justice Souter: I’ve come by stages, I guess, to the answer. I’ll take you through the stages. By the way, I should issue two disclaimers to begin with. The first is, we are talking about civics and I’m going to talk in terms of civics. But, you cannot have civics without history. So, I might just as well be making the argument for history. The second disclaimer is, I don’t mean to take positions in the pedagogy controversy. I don’t know how to teach, I don’t know where the proper midpoint is between interactive learning and book learning and participatory exercises and so on. I’m not taking a position there. Maybe with one exception, and that is, if you’re going to test in math and reading you better test in civics or it’s going to be a poor child of the curriculum.

On the question why I think it matters, as I’ve said, I’ve come to my feelings by stages and the first stage was set by Justice O’Connor at a series of conferences she and Justice Breyer sponsored in Washington, provoked by the concern for the independence of the courts. The judiciary at the time was under a lot of attack and almost from the beginning the thing we learned there was the degree of civic illiteracy. We learned the statistic, which I believe is still true today, that there are only about a third of the people in the United States who can name the three branches of government. And the lesson that everyone learned was that without some knowledge of the structure, without, frankly, some constitutional knowledge, the value of an independent judiciary is a value that makes no sense. Independent from whom? From what? Well, we know the answer. The rest of the government, etcetera.

But, the first point of focus that came to me was that without a bedrock grounding in a lot of fundamentals that my own generation did learn as kids, constitutional values will frequently make no sense because there is no context for them.

The second stage of thinking why this subject of civics matters has come as a result of the recent calls for constitutional amendment and constitutional change, which we have been getting from all corners. There have been calls for an amendment in response to Roe v. Wade, calls for an amendment in response to the Citizens United campaign contribution limitation decision, calls for change in response to the possibility of a disparity between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote, and so on. It’s pretty obvious that someone who has no idea of what we have in the Constitution to start with is in no position to make any kind of critical judgment about what we might change, whether we ought to change it, and if so what change we ought or ought not to make. Ignorance is no foundation for constitutional thinking but, like it or not, we are being asked as a country to engage in constitutional thinking. None of it may in fact lead to a formally proposed amendment, let alone a convention, but who knows. So, I guess the second point in my feeling was about what is at stake: simply the need for a foundation for critical judgment on the part of citizens.

But finally, I’ve come, to a third, umbrella position, which certainly subsumes the two stages that I’ve already mentioned. And I will warn you right now that my ultimate line is like the remarks of several other people here this morning. Let me make my point this way. The American constitutional system is in effect a constant exercise in balancing, and perhaps a precarious balancing, between two very fundamental tendencies in American society and American political organization: the tendency to fragment into pursuit of individual interests and the tendency to pull together.

I could spend a long time this morning, which I won’t, simply cataloging what seems to me the growing force of the former sort, the centrifugal tendencies that pull us apart. Just think about these.To begin with, the very nature of the United States as it has developed is a conglomeration of fragmenting tendencies. We do not have a national religion. We do not have a homogenized national private culture, as distinct from political culture. We are in fact an amalgamation. We are a patchwork. We are a nation of immigrants, and people remember where they came from, whether they look back one generation or fourteen. There is a disuniting tendency built into the very nature of the United States, and it’s not going to go away. And I don’t suppose there’s anyone who wants it to go away entirely. I don’t.

Number two, there is great force in a philosophical tenant that we like to think of as ours. It’s not a coincidence that Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American. Consider the notion of Emersonian individualism, Emersonian self-reliance. They feed a kind of admirably atomistic tendency that I suppose can be called a widely shared character, a powerful element of our scrambled culture.

Number three, we are living at a time when the class divide in the United States is growing larger and the possibility of bridging that class divide is in fact shrinking. We are at a point now where the spread of wealth disparity is greater than it has been for over a century. And it is now a very unfortunate fact of life in the United States that social mobility is greater in a number of European countries than it is in this one. Parents in the United States cannot assume that their children have a real opportunity to be better off than they were.

Number four, there is an increasingly apparent divisiveness inherent in current developments in the news media. You can cherry-pick the news you want on the device that you hold in your hand. A substantial portion of the country is not even exposed to the breadth of traditional newspapers.

And, finally, I’ll stop by simply echoing what others have said about the growing tendency toward cynicism about the processes of government for which there is a very good foundation. Too many people are realistically looking upon government as basically a clash between a public interest and more powerful interests, exerting power through lobbies financed by huge amounts of money, with the names of the people behind them being to a great extent undisclosed. These are conditions, historical and contemporary, that drive us apart and tend to disunite us. What have we got pulling on the other side? By and large, what we have pulling on the other side is an adherence to an American Constitutional system. The American Constitution is not simply a blueprint for structure, though it is that. It is not merely a Bill of Rights, though it is that, too. It is in essence, a value system, a value system that identifies the legitimate objects of power, the importance of distributing power, and the need to limit power by a shared and enforceable conception of human worth.

That value system is the counterpoise to the divisive tendencies that are so strong today, and civic ignorance is its enemy. It is beyond me how anyone can assume that our system of constitutional values is going to survive in the current divisive atmosphere while being unknown to the majority of the people of the United States. So, what is driving me right now is simply the indispensability of our increasingly unrecognized and ignored constitutional value system. Without it, there is no chance of overcoming, of surviving the polarization that everyone decries. It is only in the common acceptance of that value system that at the end of the day, no matter what we are fighting about, no matter what the vote is in Congress or the State House or the town meeting, we will still understand that something holds us together.

Ultimately, what is driving me in working for the renewal of civic education is the need to share the threatened aspirations that should mark us as people who belong together as a nation.   

___________________________________

Indeed.
 
 

Comments

Where We Are

Donald Trump opposes the “invasion” of immigrants.

Well, not all immigrants–just Brown or Black ones. Perhaps you have somehow missed the administration’s daily efforts to reverse the progress of women and people of color, but there’s no way to miss the racism of his recent exemption of (properly pale) folks from his otherwise unremitting war on immigration–his grant of refugee status to “persecuted” White folks from South Africa. According to our racist and demented Chief Executive,  White South Africans should be welcomed while dark-skinned people escaping actual persecution–and dark-skinned people already living in the U.S.–should be excluded.

Per the linked New York Times report:

Mr. Trump has halted virtually all refugee admissions for people fleeing famine and war from places like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But he has created an expedited path into the country for Afrikaners, a white ethnic minority that created and led the brutal apartheid regime in South Africa.

The refugee process often takes years. But only three months have passed from the time Mr. Trump signed an executive order establishing refugee status for Afrikaners to the first cohort making its way to America.

As I have often written, and as any sentient American knows, Trump’s appeal to his MAGA base is rooted in racism. Some wealthy Americans probably voted for further tax breaks and the ability to evade government oversight, but the devotion of his MAGA voters was and is firmly based upon his none-too-veiled promises to put “those people” in their place.

Unfortunately, people who embrace racist tropes are also likely to misinterpret–or entirely miss– numerous other aspects of the world they inhabit. It’s doubtful whether most of the fearful and angry folks who cast their ballots for an ignorant buffoon understood that they would get a demented puppet controlled by the authors of Project 2025, or that his profound ignorance would destroy the robust economy left by his predecessor.

But here we are.

In a recent newsletter, Robert Hubbell described our current civic/governmental landscape. He began by reporting on the most recent violation of the Emoluments Clause–the fancy airplane being gifted to Trump by Qatar (a country that has supported Hamas to the tune of 1.8 billion dollars and for whom Pam Bondi, our current Attorney General, once lobbied, for a hefty $115,000 a month.)

He then turned to the recurring question that arises as evidence of corruption mounts: how does he get away with it?

The short answer is that Trump has neutralized the guardrails of democracy that would prevent behavior violating US criminal laws and constitutional provisions.

First, the US Supreme Court has immunized Trump from the criminal laws of the US (in Trump v. US). In the normal course, the DOJ would investigate and prosecute Trump under the the US criminal code.

Second, Trump has immunized himself from impeachment and conviction by engineering a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. In the normal course, Congress would impeach, convict, and remove Trump from office.

Third, Trump has neutered Congress, which could stop his corruption through legislation, oversight, and investigations.

Finally, Trump has corrupted, compromised, or destroyed the DOJ, FBI, and the system of inspector generals and independent agencies.

All in one hundred days! But as Hubbell notes, Trump didn’t do all those things alone. He had help weakening the guardrails of democracy–the damage he’s done has been “enabled and assisted by a corps of cultural war shock troops who believe in white supremacy, Christian nationalism, and antisemitism.”

Trump remains in control of about one-third of the electorate–the segment of the population that has embraced White supremacy and Christian nationalism. But as Hubbell reminds us, a third is not a majority. It is not enough—or should not be enough–to turn America into a country governed by a White Christian Taliban. 

The outcome of this very fraught time in our national story depends on the rest of us.

I wish there were a better, easier answer than saying that years of protesting in the streets and showing up at town halls and ballot boxes will be needed to get us out of this mess. But here we are. The only question is, “What are we going to do about it?” For me, the answer is, “Exactly what we have been doing, only louder, more frequently, and in greater numbers.”

No new leader will emerge who can miraculously save us. We cannot hope for a “deus ex machina” end to our current national story.

It’s up to us.

Comments

The Brazen Corruption…

One thing about life under an autocracy: it spawns a particular kind of black humor. Among the various telling memes and cartoons making the rounds, one especially has captured (at least in my mind) the essence of our current situation. The cartoon shows Nixon and Trump; Nixon is famously saying “I am not a crook.” Trump is saying “I am a crook. So what?”

I think that sums up how far we’ve traveled–and in what direction.

I’m willing to believe that some of our former Presidents have been less than honest. But those who failed to meet social expectations of honor and virtue did work to hide their bad behaviors–to deny dishonesty or venality, to appear to be the sort of leaders Americans had the right to expect. Trump doesn’t bother.

Most of us who find this administration horrifying have focused upon the damage being done to the federal government and  Constitution, and on the out-and-proud racism and misogyny motivating so much of that damage. Only recently has the media turned to what has been the elephant in the room: the immense corruption that Trump makes no effort to hide.

In the Contrarian, Norm Eisen recently addressed the enormity of that corruption.

As a former White House Ethics Czar, I have been stunned by the sheer number of ethics issues afflicting Donald Trump’s first 100 Days. But Trump and his cronies’ ethics violations have been overshadowed by his other frequent and flagrant transgressions. For example, in his first term, there was heavy mainstream media attention from day one of his selling hotel rooms to foreign governments and the like. This time around, not so much–although they have been a steady theme here on The Contrarian and for the Democracy Movement.

This should be a national scandal, which is why I co-authored this major report on Trump’s crypto corruption. It is the single most profound Presidential conflict of the modern era: a POTUS who has almost 40% of his net worth in his crypto ventures, at the same time as he is regulating the digital currency industry–and, for good measure, has substantial foreign government cash pouring into those ventures!

Eisen is not alone in highlighting the unprecedented corruption. Senator Mark Kelly–among others–recently blasted what he called Trump’s “corruption in broad daylight.”

Kelly is one of the sponsors of what is called the “End Crypto Corruption Act,” which would prohibit the president, vice president, senior executive branch officials, members of Congress and their immediate families from issuing, endorsing or sponsoring crypto assets, such as meme coins and stablecoins.

As Kelly put it in a news release, “Trump is cashing in on his presidency and making millions from his own crypto coins — this is corruption in broad daylight. I’m supporting this bill to make it illegal for the President and other government officials to make a profit from crypto assets. It’s time to put a stop to this.”

A number of other lawmakers and media outlets have reported on what can only be called Trump’s open invitation to bribe him. The most egregious example: he has invited the 220 largest holders of his personal $TRUMP “memecoin” to a dinner at which the top 25 will get “exclusive access” to the president.

As the official in charge of crypto policy for the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Biden administration put it, “This is really incredible. They are making the pay-to-play deal explicit.”  The executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics was even more blunt.

“I’m not sure we ever saw anything as blatant as this meme coin dinner. This is over the top — even for Trump — because while the practice of putting money in his pocket and subsequently gaining access to the presidency is far from new, it is more shameless than it has ever been.”

The entire Trump crime family is participating in the grift. Several media outlets have reported that an Abu Dhabi state-backed investment firm is making a $2 billion investment in the Trump family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial– the latest example of a foreign entity making a major investment in a Trump family business. Anyone who thinks that such an “investment” doesn’t give that foreign entity leverage with the administration is smoking something strong.

As the extent of the Trump corruption becomes more widely known, the question will be whether it matters to the MAGA cultists. After all, they are getting exactly what they voted for: an administration promoting White Christian nationalism.

Thus far, there’s no evidence that they care about the honesty or competence of those they’ve elected, or about the America the Founders bequeathed us.

Comments