Category Archives: Possible Solutions

Range of ideas to consider for helping the US transition from revolution to a more stable environment.

510: Repelling the Republican Reich (Part V Repairing Democracy)

07 Friday Jun 2024

Posted by in Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, click “About the Author” tab.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US. The previous “sense check” was ENTRY #500.

BEGIN ENTRY #510: A lot of media coverage this past week about Trump‘s conviction on 34 felony counts. As expected, Trump claimed the case was rigged, that the witnesses, the judge and jury were not credible and that the entire case was baseless since he had done nothing wrong. 

Did he take the stand to counter any of the claims of witnesses’, including some current Trump Organization employees?  Of course, not because, well according to Trump, he was prohibited by the judge from taking the stand. 

Did Trump explain why he paid $130,000 to someone he claimed he never met (forget the picture of the two of them).  No, Trump paid Stormy Daniels because of his long-held reputation for generosity.   Seems perfectly logical to me.  And classifying the payment to Daniels as legal expense?  Well, someone else did that. 

Immediately following the guilty verdict, the MAGAt’s jumped on board Trump‘s train of lies with particular emphasis that President Biden had weaponized the department of justice.  You know, don’t you, that DOJ has jurisdiction over state courts. MAGAts know.  Somehow the rest of us missed that class.   

MAGAt’s seems to forget the logic that the same Department of Justice is prosecuting Biden’s son for what would normally be characterized as a paperwork issue. Serious, yes, but still paperwork.  I guess Biden must be willing to sacrifice his son in order to get at Trump. Another one of those Republican “logic streams” that fail to connect two adjacent dots.

 While all the responses by Trump to his felony conviction and the follow-on actions by the MAGAt’s might seem laughable at times, the potential consequences for the country can be severe, even if Trump is defeated in November.

This week marks the 80th anniversary of D-Day, when Allied troops landed at Normandy. The invasion marked the beginning of the end of the reign of terror in Europe by the Third Reich, led by Adolf Hitler.

What was required to defeat Germany was an incredible combined effort by forces from the UK, Canada, the US, and resistance forces in France.

Trump’s rise to power, and behavior while in power as president, has many parallels with Hitler’s. For me, the most baffling aspect about the continued support for Trump, even after the conviction, is how he has been able to brainwash such a large percentage of the population to enthusiastically endorse actions that are contrary to the core beliefs of his supporters.

Unlike Germany, which suffered severe economic penalties in the 1920’s and 1930’s as retribution for WW I, when Trump was elected in 2016, the US economy was in reasonably good shape.  Economic growth under Trump was marginal at best, especially compared to economic growth and job creation under Biden.  Yet, the brainwashed MAGAt’s continue to support Trump’s every claim.

Further, Trump’s behavior for many years has been the antithesis of what many MAGAt’s claim to be their core values.  The 10 Commandments are a key tenet  for fundamentalist Christians, which proportionately support Trump more than any other group. Yet, among modern presidents, and based on history, among all presidents, Trump has violated more of the 10 Commandments than any other president (and most anyone in the general population).  

What is the risk to the US of a such large percentage of the population supporting a presidential candidate whose known actions are contrary to one’s core values and contrary to national security? Many people under age 50, or even age 60, might not feel any connection to WWII and the effort and sacrifice necessary to ensure democracy remained viable in many countries worldwide.

To help the population better understand the risk and especially the sacrifices encountered in WWII, maybe Part V in this blog series to repair democracy would be to implement a nationwide program whereby: (i) each person under age  25 would be required to serve at least one year in public service.  Not necessarily in the military but in public service – think WPA.  No exceptions for bone spurs and most medical conditions; (ii) all families would be required to live for three months with “ration coupons” similar to those issued in WWII.  No exceptions, especially for those financially able to buy one’s way out; (iii) individuals and/or families would be restricted from buying any new electronics or similar items for one year.

While the proposed ideas might seem out of date and trivial, and I’m certain the ideas can be improved upon, the intent is to avoid collectively forgetting the magnitude of sacrifices made on D-Day and the sacrifices made during the entire effort to win WWII.  Forgetting these sacrifices increases the risk of another Reich, this time in the US led by MAGAt Republicans.  The Republican Reich could produce many of the horrors experienced in Germany. END ENTRY #510

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, and an array of other topics, visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

#508: Part 3 Repairing Democracy. Clarence Thomas’ New Gig – Stand-Up Comedian

14 Tuesday May 2024

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, click “About the Author” tab.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US. The previous “sense check” was ENTRY #500.

BEGIN #508: During a recent private dinner for major Republican donors, SCOTUS Justice Thomas said he would be pursuing a part-time career when the court is not in session this summer. Thomas described the part-time career as a stand-up comedian.

When asked if he had another comedian in mind as a model, Thomas responded, “Rodney Dangerfield.” Thomas continued, “Like Dangerfield, I don’t get no respect. All those people are critical of me and my family. I don’t understand why. “

When someone at the dinner asked him to elaborate, Thomas claimed that people should not be disrespectful just because he has taken large loans that he never repaid or that he has taken a number of vacations paid for by someone else. In addition, people should not be upset because members of the family have received gifts from other Republicans.

Thomas lamented “Why are people so upset? SCOTUS has no rules about such corruption, I mean behavior.  Well, at least the rules are not enforced. Besides, I deserve respect and all that money because…well, just because of who I am.“

Right Clarence.  Let me provide some more perspective. First, respect is earned not automatically granted with the position. And being a justice of SCOTUS means you should be held to a higher standard, not a lower standard.

How does Thomas‘ behavior affect the intensity of the Revenge Revolution?  While not the primary cause of the Revenge Revolution, the behavior of Thomas and other justices, even more than their decisions, affects how people view the credibility of branches of government.  For decades SCOTUS has been viewed as the providing the guardrails for a rogue Congress or a rogue president.

 The behavior of Thomas, Alito, and the Trump triumvirate has accelerated erosion in the public’s confidence of a credible SCOTUS.  Confidence has fallen to the lowest since surveys began.

The solution to begin to rebuild confidence in SCOTUS? Term limits – i.e., years in office.

Generally, I’m opposed to term limits, especially since for most government officials the public has the opportunity to throw the bums out.  Not so, however, with the SCOTUS justices, who are appointed for life. Putting some term limits would increase turnover and help avoid gross imbalances that could continue over decades.

Another change would be to make SCOTUS justices subject to the same rules and reporting requirements as other federal judges. The penalty for lack of compliance would be removal from the bench and not some BS impeachment hearing in the House and then a vote in the Senate.

Implementing term limits or time limits likely would require an amendment to the US Constitution.  Subjecting SCOTUS justices to the same rules and regulations as other federal judges likely could be implemented by Chief Justice Roberts and certainly by Congress.

Such changes would be a good step to beginning to repair democracy in America. END #508.

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, and an array of other topics, visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

#505: Looney Tunes Wants to Reign

19 Tuesday Mar 2024

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Possible Solutions, Post Trump Presidency, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, click “About the Author” tab.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US. The previous “sense check” was ENTRY #500.

BEGIN #505: Writing entries for this blog has allowed me to analyze and address a range of topics. Virtually all topics have been related to a possible 5th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution.  The past six months, and especially since the beginning of the 2024 calendar year, finding a topic other than the absurdity of the behavior of Trump and the Republican lemmings, has been difficult.

While not alive during the period, the statements by Trump must be similar to that of the days in the 1930’s in Germany leading up to Hitler’s election and the early days thereafter.  The similarities go beyond Trump using the same words or phrases as Hitler. The similarities include absolute brainwashing of a substantial part of the population who cheer Trump’s every move.

In addition, Trump and allies, much like Hitler, are openly attempting to destroy all checks and balances in our democracy – at the Federal, state and local levels. Trump is open about wanting to be a dictator and his supporters seem excited about having someone as president who can “fix all the problems in society.”  Part of the “ultimate solution” being espoused by Trump is to deport, or maybe to destroy, all people other than those whose heritage is white western European.  “You know, we need to get rid of ‘those people’ who are poisoning the blood of true Americans.”

During political rallies Trump salutes and praises the January 6 insurrectionist, vowing to pardon them if elected. He also recently claimed that any Jew who didn’t vote for him must hate Judaism and Israel.

Unfortunately, the Trump insanity will continue to escalate as the campaign continues and key Republicans and many Christian leaders bow down to their replacement god. Maybe the logo of the Republican Party should become the golden calf – maybe an orange calf would be more appropriate. 

 The next few months will be a severe test of the US legal system. Trump has lost significant civil cases with substantial penalties – E. Jean Carroll, $90+ million, and the fraud case in New York State, $500+ million and counting.  He also faces a plethora of criminal charges  in Manhattan and Georgia.

Executing judgments from these cases and protecting people who have been involved, even innocent jurors and law clerks, will be difficult.  Few well-trained mental-health professionals doubt that Trump is mentally unhinged. The execution of the legal judgments – loss of financial assets and possibly some jail time – will put him in the total looney-bin category.

Executing the judgments likely will also unleash a number of supporters who will try and take revenge on the public and politicians. January 6 was a mere rehearsal.

My view and hope is all the turmoil around Trump gets resolved before the election, and certainly before the inauguration. The only solution to avoid widespread chaos and attempted retribution is to ensure that Trump is not able to takeoff office, should he be elected. “That’s all folks!”

More in future entries. END ENTRY #505

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, and an array of other topics, visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

#499. Critical Thinking. Uh, What’s That?

23 Saturday Dec 2023

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Possible Solutions, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, click “About the Author” tab.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US Entry #476 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #499: For many people, critical thinking is whether I like or agree with how the other person talks, acts or their political views. For this group of people, the world is binary – you either believe what I believe or you’re wrong.

A memorable example of binary thinking was after 09/11 when then President George Bush declared that the US needed to invade Iraq to capture the people responsible for the attack on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon.  In those remarks, Bush proclaimed, “you’re either with us or for the terrorists.” According to Bush, there was no alternative. 

Over the past two decades, such binary thinking – I’m right and if you don’t agree, you are the enemy – has become pervasive in the US. While the binary attitude is most noticeable in politics, especially among Trump MAGAts, such thinking seems to apply to simple everyday situations.

The current polarized environment has made it difficult to try and have a meaningful discussion about concerns over global warming.  If the discussion includes expression of any concerns, then the next challenge is trying to develop and/or to agree on practical solutions.

Interestingly, the amount of formal education of participants does not seem to be a critical factor in whether a person thinks critically.  The differentiator seems to be whether an individual understands their environment and whether he or she can solve problems influencing that environment.

Many people without formal education are astute at solving problems in their environment. People who are considered “street smart“ often have limited formal education. Indigenous peoples often have very limited formal education but have remarkable skills at surviving in often-harsh environments.

We all know people who are “book smart” but have no “street smarts.”  Some of the book-smart people are also quite dogmatic about solutions to whatever problem is at hand, whether they are truly knowledgeable about the subject.  Further, if they do not have a solution, they are good at blaming someone else, or claiming that the problem doesn’t exist.

Two recent examples. When I asked a business colleague if he had any concerns about the effects of global warming, he responded, “no.”  His rationale was he didn’t feel any major impact in his daily life and, besides, the doomsday forecast about the effects of  global warming made by Al Gore earlier in this century had not come true. Therefore, global warming was not real. Well, well, hello Fox News, which for this group has replaced MIT as the new science center.

The second example occurred in a different discussion about possible solutions to global warming. (The primary cause of global warming is a combination of CO2 emissions and leakage of methane, the primary component of natural gas.) One participant in the conversation never addressed the primary sources of global warming but instead was emphatic that any solution to global warming must exclude nuclear power.  Even though nuclear power has no CO2 emissions and operates 24×7 for decades, nuclear must be excluded from any possible solution. 

For him, nuclear was off the table and solar was on the table.  Solar was not just part of the solution, but the only solution. To paraphrase Tarzan, “solar good, nuclear bad.”  As with many non-critical thinkers, which seem to include a substantial portion of zealots, he failed to address all the downsides and extra costs associated with solar.  Whereas neither solar nor nuclear is without some downside, but both are zero CO2 and can help reduce the causes of global warming – but only if one thinks critically.

What has been the cause of the decline the critical thinking? I’ve not studied the issue in detail and my educational background and experience are far afield.  However, I have observed behavior that might provide some guidance.  The behavior could be heavily influenced by an education system that is putting too much emphasis on digital thinking and less on subjects that stimulate critical thinking.

As much as I love STEM courses, these courses reinforce digital thinking – most answers are binary, either right or wrong. Worse, the tools used for teaching entry-level STEM-type courses have become increasingly digitized. When was the last time you saw a cashier make change without having to use the register to calculate the amount? Or the last time you saw someone do division by hand? Or use a slide rule to make a calculation?  You mean, you don’t need a calculator to complete these tasks? 

Another example of the decline in critical thinking, which only occurred to me recently, had been a key part of 7th or 8th grade English classes – diagramming sentences.  While the topic might seem arcane to today’s students, diagramming sentences teaches one how to deconstruct, or pull apart a problem – that is a sentence.  Once apart then the sentence can be reconstructed or revised to achieve its intended purpose. By diagramming sentences, one learns there are multiple ways of conveying thoughts, even if some rules of grammar are rigid.

As far as the topic of the blog, how does the decline in critical thinking affect the effort to avoid US Revolution V, aka the Revenge Revolution?  The Revenge Revolution has already started and will intensify over the next couple of years, especially in late 2024/early 2025.  Any effort to initiate programs to try and teach the US adult population how to think critically will have little, if any, near-term effect on US Revolution V.

However, what we, i.e., societal we, can do is update the curriculum for primary, secondary and post-secondary education to include courses that teach people to think critically.  Learning the basics of how to think critically can start in kindergarten and certainly early grammar school.  The earlier the better that children get exposed to the approach.  The teaching does not have to be complicated and can be geared to everyday situations students face.

For adults, we, again societal we, need to quit voting for candidates for the House, Senate and particularly president, who do not demonstrate an ability to think critically. Otherwise, we will end up without a democracy even more quickly than the track we are on. END ENTRY #499

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

#409: “She’s Real Fine My 409”

21 Sunday Mar 2021

Posted by in Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: The entries in this blog are built around the assumption there will be a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1. 

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Entry #400 was the most recent “sense check.” 

ENTRY #409 BEGINS: OK so you have to be well on the other side of age 50 to remember the opening lyrics of the song “409” by the Beach Boys. But the lyrics have such a ring that I couldn’t pass it up for this entry.  Now, what to write about that’s consistent with the lyrics.

The two most recent blog entries, #407-#408, addressed: (i) why the Republicans need to create a new credible conservative party and, (ii) how the Democrats could help Republicans form such a party.  The idea of Democrats helping Republicans might seem crazy at first blush but I think the idea is worth pursuing.  Why?

Let’s start with the assumption that for a democracy to function properly, there must be at least two credible, functioning parties. Right now we have one functioning party, the Democrats.  And we have at least two splinter groups claiming to represent Republicans in some way.

The splinter groups do not function at the national level, other than trying to block anything proposed by Democrats, no matter how rational the idea. At some state levels, Republicans are more of a force. Most recent efforts by Republicans in a number of states have been aimed at suppressing voting rights.  The need to suppress rights has been justified using made-up evidence that “proves” voter fraud, mostly from mail-in ballots, and only mail-in ballots from Democrats, of course. 

Republicans seem to forget the only case of voter fraud in the last couple of decades, and maybe longer, involved mail-in ballots in the NC 9th district.  And which party was guilty of voter fraud?  Oops, it was Republicans rather than Democrats.  The fraud was so extensive the courts forced another election.  But Republicans never let facts get in the way.

So how do Democrats make the crazy idea of helping Republicans actually work? How do Democrats get Republicans to consider the list of 10 ideas described in Entry #408 that should help rebuild or create a credible Republican Party? 

During services Friday night, the rabbi discussed an event that occurred in the south in the early 1970’s. The storyline was about how the former head of a local KKK chapter and a black female activist ended up working together.  The lesson was that while both parties were obviously outside their comfort zone, to make the relationship work, each one had to trust the other and each had to give up something the other side viewed as valuable.

We have the ingredients for a similar situation in Congress. Some far-right Republicans could be mistaken for the head of the local KKK.  And we have as president of the Senate, a black woman. Seems like a close enough match.

Maybe our congressional black activist, VP Kamala Harris, could reach out to the likes of Mitch McConnell, and Rand Paul in the Senate and Jim Jordan and others in the House. What’s really the risk of Democrats reaching out? The Republican groups oppose almost everything proposed by Democrats, even proposals that have widespread support among registered Republicans. 

VP Harris seems like she could be a good listener. She’s also probably a tough negotiator, having been both a District Attorney and Attorney General in California.

Harris could offer to cut a deal with the Republicans.  But the deal should be based on terms that are more like a plea bargain. Yes, we Democrats will work with you Republicans.  But you Republicans must keep your word, unlike your behavior during the Obama administration.  If a key Republican agrees to a deal and then reneges, the Biden administration should use any number of non-public ways of inflicting pain on the traitor.

I don’t know exactly what Democrats could offer that Republicans might really want and stimulate their interest. Doubtless, Democratic members of Congress and/or the administration have some ideas. Whatever is offered, make sure it is meaningful.

If the Republicans are interested and willing to give up something and then Democrats give up something they think is important, the discussion might work and we could begin to see the rebuilding of some of the Republican Party. If the discussions don’t work, so what? No harm, no foul.

Now back to the title, “She’s Real Fine My 409.”  I think VP Harris, a California girl no less, fits that title and would be an ideal person to begin helping the Republicans get back on track.  Use the 10 ideas in Entry #408 as a start.  What a great move that would be for the country.

Booklets you might find interesting: 

#408 Ideas How Democrats Can Help Principled Republicans Find a Home

14 Sunday Mar 2021

Posted by in Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: The entries in this blog are built around the assumption there will be a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1. 

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Entry #400 was the most recent “sense check.” 

ENTRY #408 BEGINS: Entry #407 suggested Democrats should work with principled Republicans to form a new political party. #407 also noted this entry would present ideas to help form such a party.

Maybe the best way to start is to refer to an old adage, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” For this discussion, let’s label principled Republicans as “enemies.”

However, the real enemies to the US democracy are not principled Republicans but the far-right Republican fringe groups. These groups have demonstrated a number of times, the most recent of which was the 01/06/2021 attack on the US Capitol, they do not support democratic elections, but support violence and/or threats of violence to ensure far-right ideas are implemented.

How do Democrats help principled Republicans form a new party?  For certain one needs to “think outside the box.”  One needs to put away the notion that politics must be a zero-sum game.

The vast majority the US population wants government to function. The recent Covid relief legislation is an excellent example.  According to a Pew Research poll, 70% of the US population supported the bill, including ~40% of Republicans.  

Despite widespread support among constituents, did any, even one, Republican vote for the relief bill? No, nada, none.  Why?  For many House members, apparently it was fear of losing the next primary to a far-right candidate.

But what was the excuse for voting “no” among moderate Republican Senators, especially those elected in late 2020 to six-year terms?  Senators are elected by everyone in the state, not just voters from smaller districts.  So, why not vote for the Covid relief bill?  

Many of those same Senators who voted “no” to help the America people with the Covid relief bill, voted “yes” to confirm Merrick Garland as US Attorney General.  In fact, 20 Republicans supported Garland’s confirmation, including none other than Mr. Hypocrisy himself, Mitch McConnell. 

Why the disconnect in voting between the Covid relief bill and the Garland nomination? Put aside the idea of Covid relief bill was too expensive.  The same group of Republican Senators voted to support the Trump tax cut which was far more expensive.  If you have a reasonable answer for the illogical behavior by these Republicans, please let me know because it makes no sense to me.

Since Republicans, or seemingly principled Republicans, don’t have a home and keep wandering about aimlessly, Democrats need to help them. Far-right Republicans despise those Republicans with principles and want to get rid of any moderates.

What can Democrats do to help these aimless principled Republicans?  Following are proposals intended to: (i) provide some cover for these pour souls and (ii) make democracy function more in line with people’s needs. The ideas are not to suggest that the will of the majority should always prevail.  Such an approach is contrary to basic tenets of the US Constitution.

The proposals are geared to allow candidates with different views to be elected and to diminish the influence of groups whose interests seem contrary to the best interest of the country. Yes, I understand the definition of “best interests” can be murky and can change over time but reasonable people can agree on many proposed actions.  The proposals listed should also be considered as “work in progress,” since some tweaks are likely needed.

#1.  Create a legitimate umbrella party for independents, moderate Republicans and even some moderate Democrats. The umbrella could be called the “Independent Party.”   The action to create the umbrella party would include a federal mandate requiring all states to allow candidates to register as members of the Independent Party.

#2.  Primaries would consist of a single ballot that includes all candidates from the various parties. The candidate’s political party affiliation would be designated on the ballot.

#3.  Primaries would allow voters to select at least two, and possibly three candidates. The three candidates with the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, would be on the ballot for the general election.

#4. Early voting and mail-in voting would be expanded. Online voting would be tested and implemented as quickly as possible after security concerns are addressed by a third party.

#5. House and Senate rules would allow Independent Party members to become leaders of each body. The Independent Party would be considered separate, but equal to the Republican and Democratic Parties.

#6. The Federal oversight provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be reinstated fully to help ensure fair voting procedures in all states.

#7.  Even without the Independent Party, Democrats would work with principled Republicans to develop legislation that both could support. In addition, Democrats would let principled Republicans take the lead on shepherding some legislation through Congress and take credit publically for initiating many of the proposals.

#8.  The US Attorney General, as Merrick Garland stated within hours of taking office, would ensure to the extent possible that all prosecutions are based on facts and blind to party affiliation.  To the extent possible evidence in high-profile cases would be made public, with the purpose of reducing doubt about the legitimacy of the case.

#9.  USAG would encourage the Attorney General in each state to take the same approach to evidence-based prosecution as done by the DOJ.

#10.  Democrats and principal Republicans should agree to approve only moderate nominees for the Supreme Court. In addition, the vote for any Supreme Court nominee should return to previous requirement of 60 votes in the Senate.

In less than two months in office, the Biden Administration seems to have made considerable progress in beginning to restore some confidence in the Federal government. These proposals are designed to help build on those early steps. 

Will these changes work? I don’t know. But, for sure we need to do something.  More to come.

Booklets you might find interesting: 

#379: Healthcare Quagmire: We Gotta Get Out of This Place (Part 2)

25 Saturday Apr 2020

Posted by in Affordable Solutions, Benefits of Revolution, Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

Some of the entries are part of a series.  Several series are available as easy-to-read booklets for download:

Prelude: I’ve concluded Trump is a lunatic and the administration filled with lapdogs save a couple of people at CDC.  Instead of wasting time commenting on actions by Trump, I thought it more productive to begin discussing what happens in the US once the coronavirus is more under control.  #379 is the second entry and addresses healthcare cost. At this point not sure how many entries.  Like #378 this entry is a bit long.

ENTRY #379:  At the end of part 1 of this series (#378), I indicated suggestions to help address inequities in society would be forthcoming. Let’s start with what appears to be the closest to a practical solution, affordable health care for everyone.

The chart indicates the increase in medical care cost in the US as a percent of GDP. Since 1960, medical costs have increased from about 5% of GDP to more than 18% in 2018. These percentages include “discounts” offered to insurance companies and Medicare.

The impact of medical costs on a family vary widely. For families with health insurance partly or fully funded by an employer, the costs are relatively low. Yet, even with subsidies from employers, for most every family medical costs have increased faster than family income.

Until the Affordable Care Act passed under the Obama administration, families which did not have subsidized insurance, faced premiums that could be breathtakingly high, especially for those over age 50. In addition, many who had any one of a range of “pre-existing” condition often were unable to secure any coverage for the pre-existing condition.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, made considerable progress in filling the “unaffordable insurance hole” in the societal safety net and for getting coverage for pre-existing conditions. While Obamacare included some coverage gaps, in part to ensure passage in Congress, the AFA did significantly reduce the number of people without medical insurance.

For example, immediately prior to AFA coverage taking effect, about 18% of the US population was uninsured. That percentage continued to drop through 2016:Q4. Immediately upon taking office in 2017:Q1, the Trump administration repealed many features of the AFA.

The Trump administration has continued to eliminate features, including many insurance exchanges, through which uninsured people could at least buy some coverage. The result of Trump’s policies has been a sharp uptick in the number of uninsured. While the chart stops at 2018, the latest projection for 2020 is 45-50 million people in the US will be uninsured.

Opposition to broader insurance coverage seems to focus on two issues: (i) potential elimination of the option to buy additional private insurance; (ii) additional taxpayer cost with expanded coverage for everyone. Both issues are solvable, if opponents will listen.

A Medicare-for-All (MFA) type coverage does not preclude availability of private insurance that would offer an additional level of service or benefits. In some metro areas, selected medical practices offer what is promoted as “concierge service,” ensuring quick access to physicians and more private facilities for many procedures.

While the initial cost for a MFA program could be somewhat higher as people formerly uninsured begin to address issues, longer term the cost could be less. Much of the cost savings could be from eliminating “unproductive” costs. While estimates vary because of different assumptions, overhead costs for Medicare appear to be about 50% less than overhead costs for private insurance. (NYT article)

Currently hospital costs and therefore healthcare insurance premiums include some amount for emergency room visits by the uninsured and those without financial resources. ER visits are far more expensive than office calls. In addition, people who have no insurance often wait until an illness or situation becomes extreme before visiting ER, thereby increasing the cost of treatment.

Opponents to Medicare-for-All should think about medical cost in the same way they think about maintenance on their personal vehicle. Routine maintenance, such as changing oil regularly, is much less expensive than doing no maintenance and eventually replacing the engine. In many ways, the human body operates much your car’s engine; preventive maintenance is much less expensive.

Getting Congress to agree to some form of Medicare-for-All should be much easier following the United States’ experience with the coronavirus. There has not been an event in most everyone’s lifetime that has demonstrated the importance of medical care for all citizens. Recent estimates indicate those without insurance infected with COVID-19 will face medical bills of $50,000-$75,000. Even those with insurance could face medical bills of $25,000 or more.

For those who still think the US cannot afford such coverage, the chart lists healthcare costs per capita by country. Note the cost per capita for highly developed countries. The cost in the US is 75% HIGHER than Germany, the next most expensive country. OK, if you’re still concerned these countries don’t offer the same level of care as the US, then buy the additional-cost option.

Addressing the Naysayers. Any effort to implement a Medicare-for-All type system will be met with vigorous opposition from the right. Following are some likely questions as well as suggested answers. I recognize no answer, however logical and supported by facts, will satisfy the hard right. But given how so many people have been affected by COVID-19 so far, and how many are likely to be affected in the coming months, the voice of the naysayers may be heard less and less, especially when facts are presented to support a Medicare-for-All type system.

Comment #1: The US has the best healthcare system in the world. Don’t mess with it! Leave it alone.

Response #1: Let’s look at the expected lifespan in the US compared to other countries. The US ranks 47th behind such countries as Sweden, Germany, China, Taiwan, France, Korea, Canada, UK, Costa Rica, French Guiana and a host of other countries and ranks just one ahead of Cuba. If the US has such a great healthcare system, why does it rank 47th?

Comment #2: Those countries don’t have as many immigrants as the US. Those immigrants are what’s causing the problem here.

Response #2: Take a look at life expectancy among whites, blacks and Hispanics. Whites have the longest life expectancy but the others are not bringing the US total down by much. You also realize that life expectancy in the US declined under the Trump administration, don’t you? The decline was the first since WWII.

Comment #3: Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare? There are lots of slackards out there who don’t pay income taxes. Paying for their medical care is not fair to me.

Response #3: First, anyone who has worked, whether or not they pay income tax, contributes to funding Medicare. In addition, the vast majority of Medicare recipients paid while working and continue to pay a monthly premium in retirement.

Comment #4: Medicare-for-All will create another inefficient government bureaucracy. The private sector is always more efficient. Why waste my hard-earned dollars?

Response #4: The bureaucracy supporting Medicare already exists. Plus, overhead for Medicare is substantially less than for private insurance. While there are different estimates for overhead, there is almost universal agreement that overhead costs for Medicare are substantially less than for private insurance. Most estimates are savings for Medicare of 50% or more. Medicare is more efficient at administering care than private companies. Why should people have to pay 2x the administrative costs for private insurance as they do for Medicare?

Comment #5: How are the doctors going to make any money? Medicare screws them on pricing.

Response #5: One adjustment with Medicare-for-All might be to weight payment to doctors more toward prevention rather than procedures. The change should also generate cost savings. In addition, if necessary, fees to doctors could be increased. The area needs further analysis.

SUMMARY: Some form of “Medicare-for-All” with an option for additional-cost coverage seems an ideal solution to help us address “we gotta get out of this (healthcare quagmire)  place.”  Obviously there are some issues to be worked out in order to implement a Medicare-for-All type program. However, most of the issues have been solved with existing Medicare programs and the Affordable Care Act prior to the Trump administration cuts.

Enough discussion for now about a practical solution to addressing healthcare costs. Likely more later.

 

#366 — Prescription? Conscription for All. (Part 1)

12 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #365.  

If you want to a diversion, there are easy-to-read booklets for download.  These include:

Start of Entry #366.  With the new year, I decided to try, emphasis on try, and get back to outlining practical solutions to complex societal problems. Ideally all of the topics in the coming blog entries will be related to factors that could contribute to the 5th US Revolution, the Revenge Revolution.

Some topics will be more obviously linked to the projected revolution; some less so. Doubtless, there will be entries that are more a reaction to some recent event inside the Beltway, or some inane comment or action by Trump. However, one of my resolutions for 2020 is to keep “reactionary” entries to a minimum, or at least put the entries in a broader context.

A societal issue that seems to generate little discussion but one that has long-term implications for a stable US democracy is how to staff the military. In a previous entry (#293), I recommended conscription be reinstituted in the US. I also recommended that satisfying requirements of conscription could be expanded beyond service in the military. One could satisfy requirements by serving in any number of government agencies – Federal, state, local – as well as serving in certain jobs outside the US – embassies, e.g.

The general benefits of conscription include: (i) exposing “draftees” to jobs, people and activities they would likely never experience otherwise; (ii) providing an excellent way to train people for work in the private sector. Many of the jobs skills learned while serving, especially non-military assignments, would have direct applicability in the private sector; (iii) helping people understand how to build a highly functioning team from a group of individuals with disparate backgrounds. Such an understanding should help reduce the polarization that continues to worsen in this country; (iv) maybe the most important, allowing people to state rightfully and proudly they served their country.  Under the proposed conscription system, let’s change the term “draftee” to “patriot.”

Conscription would help overcome what is a growing problem for the military – a very narrow segment of the population volunteers to serve. According to an article in the New York Times (20 01 11 NYT Makeup of Military Recruits), less than 1% of the US population serves in the military. Further, nearly 80% of the current recruits come from families where someone has served, and 30% of the recruits come from families where one or both parents have served in the military.

The current volunteer system limits the personality profiles of people in the military. While some might find this comforting, my experience has been limiting personality types in a group can result in distorted thinking and/or distorted behavior. Expanding the type/personality profiles of individuals serving in the military can have a moderating influence on “group think” behavior. Such moderation seems especially important for members participating in units subjected to extreme training and precarious assignments – special forces and Navy SEALs e.g. Members of these units may find having a moderating force in the ranks would help mitigate the difficulty in transitioning to civilian life.

Admittedly, the number of former special forces personnel I’ve worked with in say the last ten years is limited. However the actions of each suggest a problem in the transition to civilian life. Of the four (4) in various special-forces units, one was a convicted felon, two were extortionists, and one was a seemingly “normal” individual but who also maintained a significant cache of weapons, including several .50 caliber rifles. Folks, .50 caliber rifles are not for hunting. They’re for armed warfare.

The military seems to be trying to address the most egregious misbehavior of personnel in special forces. Recent examples include the Navy’s conviction of Edward Gallagher, a high-ranking NCO SEAL, and the Army’s refusal to restore a Special Forces tab for Major Mathew Golsteyn, who had been accused of killing an unarmed Afghan suspected of bomb making.

Unfortunately, the efforts by the military have been thwarted by Trump. Trump, who has zero military experience and apparently no appreciation of the need for discipline within the system, pardoned both men and hailed them as true “warriors,” thereby undermining the military justice system.

Whereas reinstituting conscription won’t necessarily stop egregious, even criminal behavior by those in special forces, it will increase the appreciation among a wide swath of citizens, including those inside the Beltway, of what is required to operate a military that can be model of integrity for other countries worldwide. A credible, well-disciplined military with proper, separate oversight is also critical to a functioning democracy.

For “patriots” who serve in government organizations other than the military, the organizations will benefit by being exposed to a workforce with fresh ideas and skills that should be especially useful as more technology is integrated into these organizations. The “patriots,” in many respects, will be like interns in the private sector. Having “patriots” as workers allows managers of the government organization an opportunity to evaluate performance and then potentially recruit the higher performing individuals for employment following discharge.

Reinstituting conscription needs to be fair and equitable. Some ideas in the next entry.

 

#327 Do For-Profit Universities Help Prepare for Coming Technology Tsunami – Yes, No?

10 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Common Sense Policies, Education Issues, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ 1 Comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. Here’s another aspect of public education that needs more discussion.

Do for-profit universities help prepare students for the coming technology tsunami? My view? No. First, let’s define for-profit universities, or FPU`s. These are institutions with a primary purpose of making a profit for investors. In an FPU, education happens to be the product. The product to generate a profit could just as easily be processing waste – e.g., Waste Management Incorporated – or selling coffee – e.g., Starbucks.

While doubtlessly some FPU’s are well-intentioned and focus on educating students, let’s not forget the primary purpose of any for-profit company. Duh, sell a product/service, make a profit and return money to investors.

But you ask, “What about private colleges and universities? Aren’t they in business to make a profit? I mean, Harvard has a huge endowment — maybe $10 billion or something?”

Harvard’s endowment is more like $35-40 billion.

“Alright, lots more endowment than I thought. I’m confused. What’s really the difference between Harvard or MIT and say Trump University? Maybe Trump University is a bad example, but what about say University of Phoenix? It’s for profit and from what I can tell, University of Phoenix does more public good for lower-income people than either Harvard or MIT. University of Phoenix educates a lot of people who otherwise could not attend college. Your argument against for-profit universities sounds elitist.”

Agreed that University of Phoenix seems a lot more affordable than many private education institutions. But such an argument creates a false equivalency. Realistically, 99.9% of the students attending University of Phoenix could not qualify academically to attend the top-end academic institutions in the US. Not being qualified academically does not mean these students are dumb; they lack demonstrated skills in key areas.

Maybe the better question about public good is, “When all the costs are taken into account, is there a less costly and more effective alternative to teach basic skills than such places as University of Phoenix?” Let’s also be honest about education and skills. Not everyone has the same skills or can even acquire the same skills. My crayon jungle drawing from grammar school might have won 2nd place prize at the county fair, but no amount of training is going to make me a successful professional artist.

From a public good perspective, how can we… the proverbial societal “we”…make sure all students have an opportunity to learn basic skills that will enable them to secure and retain a reasonably well-paying job? While everyone in the US is supposed to have access to free public education through high school, a remarkable percentage of students do not complete high school.

As of 2016, the high school drop-out rate was 25% or more in some states. (When reviewing the data by state, reported graduation rates in some states seems highly inflated…or the standards to graduate in those states are exceedingly low.) Lots of reasons for not finishing, including recognizing that not all students learn at the same rate or the same way. In addition, some families have such limited income that children must work to help support the family as soon as possible, even if it means dropping out of high school.

While the reasons may vary for dropping out, should society ask these students to pay to finish their education, especially through for-profit institutions? Asking them to pay a very high price just to finish their high-school education is a disincentive to complete the degree. Plus the cost of attending remedial classes at a for-profit institution creates an excessive financial burden on someone who’s likely to be earning low wages and have little or no savings.

Wouldn’t society be better off to pay for their education? Paying to complete high school would provide those who didn’t finish a better opportunity to secure higher-paying jobs and, with those jobs, pay more taxes for their entire life. Providing an opportunity to complete high school and maybe two years additional education at no cost could likely help reduce crime and the cost of incarceration.

As noted in Entry #326, the estimated cost of incarceration per prisoner per year ranges from roughly $30,000 to $60,000. Based on the analysis described in Entry #326, paying for prisoners to secure a technical degree or college degree while incarcerated resulted in a return on investment to taxpayers of 400-700%, and possibly higher.

“OK, I’ll buy your logic but what’s wrong with using for-profit universities to offer such some education? Besides, the private sector is always more cost-effective than government.”

Why use public education rather than private for-profit institutions?

  1. No additional facilities required to host classes. The remedial, technical and early college classes could be held in the evening and/or weekends using existing high school, junior college or some government buildings. Virtually all of these buildings are used more during the day and have surplus capacity in the evening and on weekends.
  2. Alternative teaching methods in place. Virtually all public school systems have implemented alternative teaching methods, which could be adopted for older students who learn differently.
  3. Public education does not add additional financial burden on the student. University of Phoenix, for example, charges about $1,200 per course. For student needing say ten classes to complete high school (equivalent about one year), the cost using the University of Phoenix rate would be at least $12,000. What may be even more of a problem for these students is the course material for what is usually a semester course – say 3-4 months – is crammed into five (5) weeks. Cramming material into five weeks leaves virtually no time for course material to “sink in.” Think of drinking out of a fire house. If a student does not fully grasp the idea when presented, the student is immediately behind. For institution like Phoenix, this approach can lead to the same person attending yet again…and another tuition payment.
  4. Class content can be tailored to help prepare students to continue their education in community college programs, whether technical training or prep for college.

The question posed in the title of this Entry, “Do for-profit universities help prepare for the coming technology tsunami?” I continue to say, “No, these institutions do not.” As frustrated as we sometimes are with the public education system, the system is designed for the public good…and not to generate a profit and provide (some believe maximize) a return to investors.

The US needs to prepare for the oncoming technology tsunami. One key component of preparation is to increase the number of qualified workers. Much like educating prisoners, providing classes/remedial training to those who have not completed high school is in the public interest by increasing at very low-cost, the pool of skilled workers. A larger pool of skilled workers is essential for the US to maintain production of goods and services and remain competitive worldwide.

What about for-profit institutions designed to train people to become technicians, designers, hairdressers and a host of other occupations? Don’t these for profits offer a benefit to the public? Possibly but maybe a more cost-effective approach is to the scope of public education to include such training. (The question is a bit off-line from the more serious issue of preparing for the technology tsunami. I might offer a few thoughts in one of the next couple of entries.)

 

#323 Turning Point and a Really Bad-Hair Week for the Donald

28 Monday Jan 2019

Posted by in Economics, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author.  Many entries are formatted as conversations. Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution.  Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.”  One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog.  Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.” 

Regular readers know I try to avoid getting hung up on daily/weekly events. The purpose of this blog is to analyze if and how long-term patterns might contribute to a post-2020 revolution in the US, aka the Revenge Revolution. However, events this past week seem to be beyond the usual “Beltway noise.” The week’s events could help change the trajectory of politics in Washington. “C’mon,” you say. “A heady week but not that heady.” I think that heady. Read on.

Key events during the week: (i) Michael Cohen, Trump’s long-time lawyer and now convicted felon, proposed delaying his volunteer testimony before the House Oversight Committee. One day after the announced delay, the House Intelligence Committee issued a summons for Cohen to appear; (ii) Roger Stone, long-time associate of Trump’s and known dirty trickster for approaching 50 years, was arrested on a number of charges related to the 2016 presidential campaign. More charges are expected; (iii) Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell caved and agreed to end the government shutdown of more than 35 days; (iv) Rudy Giuliani’s continued to disclose suspicious events previously denied. In addition to Rudy’s babbling, an article in the New York Times indicated one or more members of the Trump campaign met with the Russians at least 100 times before inauguration.

A fifth, less publicized event, was the appearance of Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chair, at a hearing to determine if an additional 10 years should be added to Manafort’ s existing prison sentence. The prosecution charged that Manafort intentionally withheld relevant information about sharing data with the Russians. The judge delayed the decision.

The events, if considered individually are interesting, but not necessarily significant. When combined the events, at least in my view, represent a major shift in power in Washington. The federal government is no longer controlled by the Bully-in-the-Oval-Office as Republicans in the House and Senate cowered. Power in Washington took a turn back toward the people.

As a result of pressure from constituents and some Republican senators, Mitch McConnell came out of hiding and convinced Trump that he should agree to reopen the government. The House and Senate then passed bills and Trump signed…with no guarantee there would be a wall at the southern border. While the agreement to open is limited to three weeks…and despite Trump’s huffing and puffing and threats to blow the house down if he doesn’t get his wall…pressure from constituents likely will prevent another shutdown

How do these events tie together? The key seems to be Republicans in the Senate are starting to show some backbone. Until a few weeks ago, Trump had free reign to do whatever he wanted. He felt immune from impeachment because of a Republican controlled House and Senate. Well, no more and no doubt this week Trump felt the noose tighten around his neck.

Start with Cohen. When testifying Cohen has nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling all. There’s a chance Mueller et al will again recommend a shorter sentence. Based on comments from several members of the committee, as much of Cohen’s testimony as possible will be made public.

Next we have Roger Stone. While defiant after his arrest and claiming loyalty to Trump, Stone may end up behaving like many of Trump associates already indicted as a result of the Muller probe – and flip. When the reality of a likely long prison sentence sets in – and for Stone it effectively could be a life sentence according to several former Federal prosecutors – Stone may drop the “never-tell-on-Trump” boast and decide saving the Donald is less important than trying to save his personal life.

The arrest of Stone leaves but a few people in Trump’s inner-circle not indicted. Steve Bannon may be next on Mueller’s list. Bannon will be quickly discredited by Trump, providing incentive for Bannon to flip – if he hasn’t already. The group remaining to be indicted is all in Trump’s family. Junior and Jared look like shoe-in’s for an indictment. And the odds for Ivana are better than 50:50.

So, who in the family might flip? If you’re a Trump family member, covering up for the Donald is high risk. When all the dust settles, especially after investigations and prosecutions by the Southern District of NY, the State of NY, and the IRS…along with a likely plethora of civil suits by condo owners, contractors, etc…there likely won’t be any money left in the Trump piggy bank.

So, if I’m a family member, let me consider my alternatives. If I refuse to cooperate with Muller, I go to jail and when a get out, I’ll probably get little or no money. Or, I can cooperate with Mueller et al and maybe avoid jail time. Mmm, which one should I choose?

As far as Trump, he’s acting like most bullies. When confronted with a tough opponent, the bluster goes away and the bully caves. And for Trump-the-Bully, his nemesis is not some physical tough guy. His nemesis is an older woman (by a few years) who’s raised five (5) kids. The past few weeks Nancy Pelosi treated Trump the same way she probably treated one of her kids, when a two-year old and throwing a tantrum. She hung tough and the kid folded.

What may be the final mental straw for Trump, however, the adoring, brain-washed base of supporters is shrinking. The 35-day government shutdown started shedding light on how Trump was willing to screw over the working class to save face over a physical wall. Many people now understand a Trump-style wall would do significant harm to the environment and offer little protection against illegal immigration and shipments of illegal drugs. Based on reports I’ve read, 85-90% of the illicit drugs enter the US through monitored ports of entry.

While the information from Mueller probe could…and probably should…lead to impeachment proceedings, Trump also faces another hurdle that seems to trump (pun intended) most presidents seeking re-election – “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The US has experienced an exceptionally long period of economic growth. The growth started under president Obama following efforts through the Federal Reserve to kick-start the economy following the financial crisis at the end of the Bush Administration. While the current economy appears strong based on certain indicators – unemployment rate and some increases in wages, e.g. – there are many soft spots.

The problem facing the Trump Administration is how to counter an economic downturn. Normally, monetary policy is the first step – the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to stimulate borrowing and investment. This option is almost off the table since interest rates remain near historic lows. Fiscal policy follows with an increase in government spending (and the deficit) for such high-employment projects as road building/repairs. Oops, the deficit is climbing while the economy is strong so this is a limited option. Why is the deficit climbing? Because of the Trump tax cut. (I’ll save a longer discussion on the economy for another entry.)

There is a solution. While the solution is an enigma to current Trump Republicans, I have a feeling that over the next few years many of these Republicans will support the solution. What can be done? Raise taxes and redistribute income through a number of different means. And no, the approach isn’t classic socialism. The approach is called Keynesian economics. If you don’t think it works and is necessary for a stable society, then ask your parents or grandparents to tell family stories about what life was like during the Great Depression. If no one in the family has stories, then there are lots of books and movies. I’m not suggesting we’re headed for another Great Depression but there are few options left for countering a recession. (And, FYI, higher taxes did not slow growth in the 1990’s under president Clinton or in the 1950’s under Eisenhower.)

So, what does the Donald do? In the face of all the problems, he resigns to avoid being indicted. Remember, the Donald is a bully. Bullies cut and run when faced with a difficult situation. Even if he doesn’t resign, he doesn’t seek reelection…maybe because his bone spurs start to act up.

What about the Revenge Revolution? Still going to happen or will these events prevent it? Still going to happen. There’s a group that supported Trump that still feels screwed. First they felt screwed by the establishment and now screwed by Trump. If the Democrats in the House can begin to pass legislation that will help mitigate some of the inequities, real and perceived, then there will be significant pressure on the Senate to support the legislation. Such legislation will help mitigate the intensity of the Revenge Revolution.

The Revenge Revolution will be more cultural, although expect some bloodshed. For reference think of the cultural changes in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. We’re going to see another sea-change in society. Lots of issues to address – managing contributions to climate change, reducing income inequity, improving public education for all ages, implementing universal medical care, and more. To get an idea of the changes ahead, all we have to do is look at the mix of incoming members of the House. That group is more like America’s future and that group is going to force the 5th US revolution and societal changes.