Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 6, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 0 comments

What Trump Should Have Done on the First Day of His Presidency



Continuing to Ignore America’s Deteriorating Infrastructure Spells Trouble — Both for Him and for Us


I don’t make it a habit of dishing out political advice to someone I loath.

Today, I’m making an exception.

This unsolicited wisdom, if followed, could provide a desperately needed political achievement for the thoroughly inept Trump Administration, now 75 days into what’s likely to disintegrate into the most shameful presidency in American history.  Despite all the current distractions, now seems like a good a time to speculate on how things might have been different.

On day one, President Trump’s very first act should have been the signing Executive Order #1 — rebuilding the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure.  Whatever it took, whatever the cost, whatever the political willpower required to get things moving forward — a massive public works project intent on fixing America’s crumbling roads, bridges, pipelines, dams, and other indispensable groundwork would have instantly launched the new presidency in a positive direction.

Had President Trump simply announced, “I’m here to make America great again,” followed by the public signing of a massive public works project, he might have parlayed that genuine display of goodwill and willingness to govern into something far greater.  That would have been a stroke of bold new leadership.

Imagine the political fallout of that moment, which cannot be overstated given how bad things have gone since then.  Had “rebuilding America” been the first act of the new Trump presidency tens of millions of American workers would have cheered the news.  Maybe roads and bridges doesn’t sound sexy, politically speaking.  But everyone in America understands maintaining them is a vital function of government.  Republicans, despite budget concerns, would have been forced to support Trump’s initiative.  Democrats, the party typically associated with big government, would have been placed immediately on the defensive, backed into a corner — and likely forced to work with the new administration to bring good jobs and construction projects back to their home districts.  Even those of us who despise Trump, the person, would have supported Trump, the president, on the critical issue towards making massive infrastructure improvements.  Who would oppose the prospect of millions of new jobs being created instantaneously?  On day one?  Answer– virtually no one.

Seriously, who in their right mind opposes making sure our roads and bridges are safe?  It’s was a sure-fire home run.  A can’t miss idea.  A consensus builder.  A national initiative.  The ultimate act of placing “America first.”

That’s how President Trump should have kicked off his new administration.  Had that been the strategy, he would have won “bigly” on that single issue, leading to unforeseen bipartisan cooperation which could have produced additional common political ground.  The foundation for a working relationship would have been bronzed.  President Trump could have rightly called himself a “unifier,” if only for a day.  Perhaps most important, it would have been the right thing to do for America.

Well, none of this happened, of course.  Instead, President Trump spent his first day attending three inaugural balls, which was to be expected.  He also signed four executive orders.  Two of those acts dealt with staffing his new administration.  One was the reversal of a housing program instituted by the Obama Administration which made new homes more affordable to low- and middle-income Americans (not sure why there was so much urgency to reverse that policy).  The fourth and final act of the day was dismantling parts of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”), although Trump admittedly “had no idea healthcare was was so complex,” as he remarked later.

The nation’s infrastructure might as well have been a manned trip to Mars.

Alea iacta est.  The die was cast.  The death spiral began.  On the following day, President Trump began spinning mindless fantasies demonstrated by a bizarre visit to Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters where he spent much of the solemn occasion bitching about media coverage and lying about inauguration attendance.  From there, the lunacy train pretty much ran off the rails and has been flipped upside down in a ditch, ever since.  Oh my, what could have been instead.

Weeks later, President Trump finally raised the forgotten infrastructure issue for the very first time during his faux-State of the Union-style address to members of Congress.  His remarks elicited loud cheers from both sides of the aisle, and even drew high praise from his most vicious critics.  For the first time Trump was even called “presidential.”

Once again, President Trump had a rare golden opportunity to lead and to make good on a critical campaign promise that was important to everyone in the nation.  Unfortunately, the words didn’t match the actions.

Another month-and-a-half has elapsed, since then.  During that time, President Trump released his first proposed federal budget.  Guess what?  Inexplicably, and to everyone’s astonishment, his budget slashes spending on infrastructure!  There’s no trillion dollar increase investment in America.  Once again, Trump is lying.  He talks a big game out in front of the folks while continuing his adoration tour of self love.  Then, when ink meets paper we actually see that his policies obliterate the funds necessary to so the job.  It’s yet another bait and switch.  Here’s the latest update on Trump’s false infrastrcuture promises and mess:  Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Could Be His Biggest Con Yet

So, what happened?  Well, perhaps this administration is just way too caught up at the moment in Kremlin-gate.  One can see why that would be a distraction.  Perhaps Trump is too busy focusing on the musical chairs within his own staff, which continues changing by the minute.  Maybe Steve Bannon misplaced the smeared cocktail napkin on which the nation’s priorities were scribbled.  Who knows the real reason why infrastructure now seems like the last thing on the president’s mind.  Trump’s out on the golf course so often (13 times, so far) that he’s forgotten all about America’s deteriorating roads and bridges and water supplies.  I guess it’s hard to see rusted bolts from the 18th hole tee-box at Mar a Lago.

Whatever the reasoning, if reason even exists at all, President Trump is blowing it — big time.  He’s blowing it policy wise.  He’s blowing it politically.  Trouble is, this isn’t just bad for him.  The consequences are far worse — for us.

This isn’t an problem that can wait much longer.  It’s not like another four years can go by without taking some significant measures.  If roads were arteries, then we’re an overweight nation with a three-pack-a-day habit and cholesterol levels off the charts.  We don’t just need a new diet and an exercise program.  We need electric shock therapy.

There are other Flints out there waiting to detonate.  Years ago, we saw what happens when critical infrastructure is ignored.  Seven people died needlessly when a bridge servicing an interstate highway collapsed in Minneapolis.  Last week, another bridge collapsed in Atlanta.  These might seem like isolated incidents, but the reality is — the ice is melting fast on the lake and we’re all exposed on a warm spring day.  One recent study found that a whopping 59,000 bridges across America are structurally deficient.  Each one of these roads and bridges is a ticking time bomb.

Here’s an idea:  Instead of wasting our precious national treasury constructing a worthless border wall with utterly no benefit to most Americans, that money should instead be spent on things that really matter.  We’re realizing now that making America great again wasn’t a sincere promise, so much as an empty slogan.  The infrastructure issue was just a cheap applause line for Trump during his feel-good campaign, intended to opiate millions of Americans into believing he’s really committed to governing when his actions have revealed that he’s the antithesis of governance.

Our roads are cracking.  Our bridges are swaying.  Like Trump’s unraveling presidency, it’s just a matter of time before things start to collapse and disaster occurs.



Read More

Posted by on Mar 30, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 1 comment

A Mirror Reflection: Republicans and Russians Entangled in a Perverse Love Affair


Over the past year or so, President Donald Trump has viciously attacked several targets.

He’s attacked his victims at campaign rallies, press conferences, interviews, and most notably on social media (Twitter).  Each attack plenty of evidence.  No one disputes these attacks have occurred, which number in the hundreds.  Momentarily, I’ll get to a partial list of those Trump been attacked.

Amidst all the bombastic bluster, there’s one notable person who hasn’t been attacked.  Moreover, the nation he rules with an iron fist and the acts of aggression he’s taken haven’t received even a peep of criticism, despite what’s become an autocratic state teetering on fascism now engaged in hostile military action against its neighbors.

Not a single tweet from the President of the United States in response.

Not once.

Not a single time.

Not a single comment.

So, who is this individual enjoying presidential immunity?  And what makes him the unlikely beneficiary of so much love and admiration in the face of so many other petty attacks on far less significant public figures.

Let’s examine the record.  Here’s a partial list of notable people and public institutions which have been attacked by President Trump within the past 12 months.  There’s ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION:

President Barack Obama — former President (blasted ceaselessly by Trump for the past six years dating back to birther nonsense and recently accused of committing a felony).

CNN — worldwide new organization (blasted numerous times and called “bad people”).

Hillary Clinton — former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, ex-First Lady, and two-time Presidential candidate (attacked innumerable times, often with fabricated accusations).

The New York Times — one of the world’s most trusted and respected news organizations (attacked dozens of times and repeatedly tagged as “failed,” even its though financials have never been healthier).

The Cast of “Hamilton” — the hottest ticket on Broadway (referred to as “overrated” even though no once can get a ticket at face value and tickets are being scalped at $1,200 a seat).

“Saturday Night Live” — An American television institution (which has been going strong for 41 years and is currently in the midst of a ratings renaissance, largely fueled by Trump-related humor).

Jill Stein — Flawed third-party presidential candidate (which made her an inviting target, because she’s a strong woman and Donald Trump is uncomfortable around strong women).

Sen. Chuck Schumer — Senate Minority Leader (even though Trump donated more money to Schumer than any other senator over the past 20 years, he’s became a frequent target of attacks once Trump became a Republican).

Arnold Schwarzenegger — Disgraced former Republican Governor of California (attacked numerous times for stepping into the starring role on a shitty “reality” television show once fronted by a con-man).

Meryl Streep — A 20-time Oscar nominee — more than any actor in history — and perhaps the most honored film icon of all time (described by Trump as “overrated” in his tweets).

Rosie O’Donnell — Not typically worth anyone’s time or attention (but whom appears to be an unhealthy obsession by the President).

The U.S. Intelligence Community — The NSA, the CIA, the DIA, et al.  Roughly 100,000 professionals working around the clock to keep America safe (recently compared to Nazis by President Trump in an incendiary tweet that caused mass derision).

Angela Merkel — Chancellor of Germany and arguably the world’s leading advocate of true democracy (accused by Trump of “ruining Germany” and being “the worst Chancellor of all time”….might want to re-think that one and pick up a textbook referencing “Year 1933,” Mr. President).


Vladimir Putin — Russian dictator and murder.


Take a guess which individual has not been criticized, not even one time, by President Donald Trump.


So, what’s with the bizarre secret love affair between Republicans and the Russians?  

Its not just a cozy relationship.  It’s a consensual orgy.  Please explain how the patriotic political movement which supposedly champions “love of country” over just about every other virtue has this freaky attraction to a tyrannical regime which has been at odds with the United States for a nearly a century?

Let’s look at history.  Thirty years ago President Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union “the evil empire.”  Today’s tryst between President Donald Trump and Russian murderer-dictator Vladimir Putin would have been unfathomable back then.  Now, Republicans aren’t just silent.  They’ve become willing accessories, like plodding the alcoholic with free booze and daring him to drink like a man.  Based on the volcano of evidence emerging about the Russians meddling in the 2016 American presidential election, it appears that some Republicans might even be traitors.

Indeed, today, when it comes to America’s stance on Russia, Sen. Joe McCarthy would probably be to the left of the Republican Party.  That’s how dangerously far out of the mainstream these sycophants have moved, who proclaim the peculiar dictum, “America First.”  Sounds like Republicans should change their slogan to “Let’s Make Russia Great Again.”


This isn’t just a Trump thing.  The previous Republican president wasn’t so much corrupt, as painfully naive.  When George W. Bush met Vladimir Putin for the first time in 2001, he infamously remarked, “I looked (Putin) in the eye.  I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.  We had a very good dialogue.  I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

During that jaw-dropping exchange, it should be noted that Putin wore a large cross, symbolic of the Russian Orthodox Church.  Bush, an impressionable figure holding deeply religious convictions saw Putin wearing the holy amulet and somehow drew the astounding conclusion that Putin’s character could be assessed with affection.  Never mind that Putin has never once been seen wearing that cross since that meeting with the former Republican president.  In short, Putin played Bush like a cheap fiddle, tapping into his religious gullibility.

The Republican Right, once convinced Russia was the anti-Christ, did a quick about-face.  They snapped into line and marched behind Bush’s stunning personal appraisal of a leader widely-known by every other world power to be a vicious thug.  Republicans haven’t departed from this naivete since.  They’ve collapsed into an echo chamber of deceit and denial.  While Putin consolidated his power within, in part by murdering 293 people in the Russian apartment bombings and later on killing at least 40 political rivals via poisonings and other mysterious methods of murder, few Republicans raised objections.  Certainly not President Trump.

[Note:  Years later after leaving office, in 2010, former President Bush retreated from this opinion and admitted his previous assessment had been a mistake]


When Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine in 2014, the Obama Administration took swift action.  President Obama instituted bold economic sanctions against the Putin regime and many of his well-connected financial interests, which eventually hampered the Russian economy, including slowing down their oil production and mining exports.  Much of the international community joined in the sanctions and bombarded Putin with public criticism, not just for the illegal Ukraine invasion, but for his own internal crackdown which has essentially turned Russia into a dictatorship.

About two years ago, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President.  While all the other candidates from both political parties accurately noted that Putin was a bad guy, Trump stunned everyone.  He professed support for many of Putin’s brutal actions.  He even expressed personal admiration for Putin.

No one really knows yet why Trump has this mysterious deep-seeded love affair with Putin, a flame-hot attraction which shows no signs of burning out anytime soon.  While just about everyone else on the planet calls Putin out what he is — a dictator who rules over Russia like a 21st century version of the Mafia, the president looks the other way.  Trump’s odd affections certainly aren’t based on fears of triggering a military escalation.  After all, Trump has repeatedly attacked other potential adversaries — including China and North Korea — which pose similar threats to global stability.  Only Putin and Russia get a free pass.



Paul Manafort, the corrupt slime ball lobbyist who’s burrowed into each of the last four Republican presidential administrations, has made quite a fortune shilling for many of the world’s most awful dictators.  He’s carried the baggage for some real pricks.

Manafort is willing to do anyone’s dirty work, provided they’re willing to shell out millions in “consulting fees.”  Manafort, recently exposed for having 15 bank accounts with millions in secret funds [READ MORE:  MANAFORT’S SECRET MILLIONS], was discovered to be the beneficiary of about $10 million annually in payments from at least one Russian bank, with close political and financial ties to Putin.  Oh, and Paul Manafort used to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager.

Follow the money.

How about Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s hand-picked National Security Adviser, who was booted out of the fresh cabinet before he even had a chance to order new business cards?  He had meetings with the Russians, too.  Flynn committed the blunder of lying about his relationship with the Russians (make that at least one Russian known to be an intelligence agent), even misleading his closest political ally, Vice-President Mike Pence at one point during the internal White House game of musical chairs.  Now disgraced, Flynn could emerge as the talking yellow canary as investigations continue to ramp up.  [Breaking News:  Flynn is now offering to provide full testimony, if provided immunity.]

There’s also the President’s dirty son-in-law, Jared Kushner.  His daddy, who initially bankrolled baby Kush when he was first starting out in New York real estate, once served prison time for his financial crimes.  Kushner, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, now sits in a plum chair as a White House adviser with easy and instant access to top-secret information as well as a direct 24-hour speed dial to the President of the United States.

Trump Administration spokespeople, and even the President himself, have repeatedly denied any connections or secret dealings with the Russians.  Nothing to see here, move on, they insist.  However, just last week Kushner was exposed to be less than forthcoming about his private talks with the Russians.  When it leaked that Kushner met with officials from at least one of the Russian banks currently under economic sanctions, that triggered yet another mad scramble within the West Wing to get their crumbling story straight.  Kushner is scheduled to testify soon about his secret relationships with the Russians in front of the House Committee on Intelligence, the highly-partisan panel now engaged in what’s masquerading as an “investigation.”

Manafort.  Flynn.  Kushner.  That’s just a few of the Trump officials now tainted in this dirty cesspool.  What is it with all these Trump advisers and the Russians?  [READ MORE:  TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDES AND RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE]


President Trump has lied numerous times about these relationships and secret meetings.  It seems implausible he didn’t know his son-in-law, campaign manager, and National Security Adviser were meeting multiple times with the Russians.  Hell, it doesn’t seem just implausible.  It appears absurd.  This begs the famous question that was asked once before during another Constitutional crisis — “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

What’s been discussed here are the financial ties and behind-the-scenes dirty deals which might favor Russian economic interests and Trump’s financial empire.  This doesn’t even begin to take into account creeping suspicions about the Russians meddling in the presidential election, which could be closely related.  On one occasion, then-candidate Trump committed an appalling act of treason — which should have been an automatic disqualifier — when he encouraged the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.  [READ MORE:  TRUMP’S CALL FOR RUSSIA TO SPY ON CLINTON]


What’s most puzzling here isn’t so much the questionable behavior of President Trump or his associates, which has become all-too predictable.  What’s far more puzzling is the perverted sense of twisted nationalism exhibited by nearly all of his strongest supporters, who continue to deny, deflect, and discard any suggestion that we should be concerned about Russian espionage.

The party that supposedly puts “America first” shares Trump’s cozy feelings about Putin and the Russians.  This love fest has now been going on for 16 years, since President Bush’s initial meeting.  The party that was once so mistrustful of the Russians (remember “trust but verify?”) now are willing to take them at their word.  The party that once stood up for human rights in the former Soviet Union during the dark days of the gulag is all but silent when it comes to Putin murdering his political opponents and shutting down the press.  The party of Reagan has morphed into the party of Trump.

Enough said.

This isn’t patriotism we’re witnessing, folks.  It’s treason.  It’s an unwillingness to face stark reality.  It’s refusing to ask legitimate questions that demand answers.  It’s about trusting the Commander-in-Chief who might have been compromised by a foreign power.

These are the ugly truths about two political paramours on opposite sides of the globe, but who may, in fact, be much closer in terms of their own tactics and shared world view.  It’s way past time to start asking questions as to why President Trump seems so infatuated with Vladimir Putin.

The rest of the world sees a dictator.

President Trump likely sees Putin as a mirror reflection.


Read More

Posted by on Mar 13, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 2 comments

Should We Support “Ban the Box” Laws?



Question #1:  Should ex-convicts be forced to answer questions about their criminal backgrounds when seeking employment?

Question #2:  Do prospective employers have a right to know about the criminal history of applicants?


These two questions present an obvious contradiction.  You either support an applicant’s right to privacy.  Or, you support the employer’s right to know who they’re hiring.  You can’t be in favor of both.

Legislation which would prohibit asking questions about criminal histories has been proposed in several states, including here in Nevada.  What’s known as the “Ban the Box” law means making it illegal to ask questions about criminal history on employment applications.  Some of these proposed bans apply only to government-related employment, including states and localities.  Other bans are far more comprehensive and would impact employers hiring workers in both the public and private sectors.

Compelling arguments can be made on both sides of this debate.  That’s what makes this controversial issue so problematic.  There are no easy answers.

See if you agree:



“Ban the Box” supporters point out that ex-convicts have paid their debts to society.  They shouldn’t be stigmatized by prior criminal history, which (when disclosed) makes it far more difficult for them to re-enter society as working citizens.

Fact is, ex-convicts face paralyzing levels of discrimination in virtually all areas of daily life — including housing, finance, child custody, and even in developing personal relationships.  This is especially true for employment, as well, which is often the most important single factor in determining what happens to ex-convicts after they’re released.

Consider the following:  When two applicants are up for the same job, and one is an ex-convict, the applicant with the clean criminal record is almost certain to get selected.  Repeated failure and disappointment at securing steady work means ex-convicts have far fewer options to make a decent living.  Hence, some of them return to their old ways and go back to a life of crime.  That’s not good for them.  It’s also not good for society.

We should all try to empathize with ex-convicts who honestly want to turn their lives around.  I think they deserve our support.  They face enough obstacles already during various stages of rehabilitation without the added hardship of not being able to get a good job.

The consequences of discrimination against ex-convicts isn’t just personal.  Society, at large, is also adversely effected.  If employers screen out ex-convicts based on their pasts, this creates a large group of both unemployed and under-employed, especially among younger men.  Since the United States imprisons far more of its citizens than any nation in the world (many for abstruse drug offenses), the numbers here are quite significant, even reaching into the millions.  It’s also one of many contributing factors towards inner-city squalor and decay, with a devastating impact on minority communities which already suffer disproportional levels of discrimination.

Of course, “Ban the Box” laws will not solve all the problems that ex-convicts face, nor magically the lift the poorest communities out of poverty.  However, this law would help quite a large number of people, many with good intentions who desperately want to turn their lives around and become a productive part of society.

Everyone who applies for a job deserves a fair chance.



Employers have rights, too.  Employers are entitled to know exactly who they’re hiring, especially for jobs involving trust and public safety.  Ex-convicts have already demonstrated some degree of personal failure when it comes to issues of trust and public safety.  Prospective employers are entitled to know about those deficiencies.

Opponents of “Ban the Box” laws point out that workplaces are not cross-cultural laboratories for social experimentation.  Employers shouldn’t be forced to take all the risks, nor bear the occasional burden of an ex-criminal who continues committing illegal acts after serving time and being released back into society.

Indeed, if the actions of an ex-convict who committed a terrible crime in the past aren’t known to the employer in advance, there’s a chance that person might do bad things that will harm the company and endanger other employees.

“Ban the Box” laws don’t necessarily restrict hiring practices.  Some ex-convicts who apply for jobs might make such a positive impression that they get hired anyway, and eventually become outstanding employees and good citizens.  However, employers should be able ask questions related to criminal records in advance and conduct background checks to find out this information.

There are already plenty of laws on the books which prohibit many types of discrimination in employment based on age, race, and gender.  Most agree that those are rights which should be protected.  Government has an obligation to make ensure to the best of its ability that all citizens receive fair employment opportunities.

However, once someone commits a crime and gets convicted in a court of law, the same rights to privacy should not apply equally to everyone.  Citizens with clean criminal records are entitled to the presumed advantages of good behavior in future employment over ex-convicts who have made bad decisions in the past.

Employers have a right to know who they may be hiring.


So, what’s your opinion?  Should we support “Ban the Box” laws which make it easier for ex-cons to fit back into society?  Or, should employers be allowed to ask questions about the past criminal convictions of applicants?

If you were a state legislator, how would you vote?



Permit me to offer the following opinions:

(1)  The notion of restricting access to information is very troublesome.  Prohibiting what seems to be perfectly normal questions about an applicant’s background contradicts the fundamentals of honesty and transparency.  However….

(2)  Society would be much better off with “Ban the Box” laws.  Many ex-convicts who otherwise would be summarily rejected for employment would enjoy far greater opportunities.  Accordingly we would all benefit from ex-convicts returning productively to the workforce, since there’s less a chance for recidivism.  That means less crime, less strain on the overworked judicial system, less prisons, and better workers.  It also means more opportunities for ex-convicts living in inner cities, resulting in some measure of economic growth and greater family cohesion.

(3)  The chances of “Ban the Box” legislation passing in many states is slim to none.  Elected officials don’t want look “soft on crime.”  Hence, such laws present a political conundrum.  Many elected officials who oppose government intrusion on business and who also fear repercussions at the ballot box, might agree in private that the positives of “Ban the Box” laws outweigh the bad.  However nowadays, political courage is exceedingly rare.


Read More

Posted by on Mar 12, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Personal, Politics | 1 comment

Friendship is Non-Partisan



A close friend of mine was recently offered a political appointment in the Trump Administration.

This might be difficult to believe, but I do have many Republican friends.

I won’t identify him by name.  He can come forward and identify himself, if he wants to.

I heard this story firsthand from my friend a few weeks ago.  He even told me quite an amzing story of speaking personally with the President a few times — once during an informal interview, and second, a short follow-up telephone call at which time he was offered the job.

From the way things happened, I expect that he’ll take the job, if he hasn’t already done so.  No doubt, he’ll be very good in that position.  This person is a hard-working.  He’s highly experienced.  He’s someone that can be trusted at all times to do the right thing.  Our country needs that right now.  We will be lucky to have him involved in our government.

However, just before he shared this information with me, he prefaced our conversation by acknowledging my unabashed disgust with President Trump.  “I know you can’t stand Trump, but I have to share something with you….” he said.  That was the way our conversation started.

Actually, my personal opinions on political issues are totally irrelevant here.  We all want our friends to succeed.  We all want those closest to us to do well in life, and advance in their careers.  We all want key positions in our government to be staffed with qualified people.  That’s a non-partisan viewpoint most of us probably share.

After hearing about the details of his political appointment, presumably now pending, I was absolutely thrilled for my friend.  What amazing news.  How could I not be thrilled?  After all, the prestige of being personally picked for such a high position in the federal government by the leader of the executive branch really has no comparison.  It doesn’t matter what someone thinks about President Trump or President Obama before that, and so forth and so on — that’s one of the highest honors in public service, to be chosen from millions of people and then personally asked by the President to take a job in a new administration.

Indeed, my reaction would be the same for anyone who’s asked to serve — be it for a position in a Donald Trump Administration or a Bernie Sanders Administration.  Success is success.  Friendship is friendship.

This is something we should all pause and remember, moving on in the weeks and months ahead.  While I shall continue to do everything within my power to stop the Trump Administration from imposing what I consider to be a dangerous and destructive agenda for America, I shall also applaud those I know who are good people for now getting to experience one of the rarest of opportunities in anyone’s professional life — which is to work for the White House.

Before writing this, I’d never thought much about this before, and I certainly don’t have any poll data to back up the following claim.  However, my best guess is that I have roughly an equal number of friends and family members who are either liberal or conservative, or somewhere in the middle.  The people I run around with are all over the map, politically speaking.

If I’ve lost any friends from expressing my political views, or engaging in discussions that might have turned into arguments, then I’m not aware of it.  Perhaps some people who I mistakenly thought were friends no longer reach out anymore, or like to hang around.  But I can’t name a single person who was banished from my inner circle of trusted friends based on their political viewpoints.  To the contrary, I hope the best for all of them.

Hence, when one of those friends told me that he be might be working for President Trump, I write now what I said to him then:  Congratulations.  I believe the President made an excellent choice.

Go for it.  Do your best.  Make a difference.


Read More

Posted by on Mar 5, 2017 in Blog, Essays, Politics, What's Left | 6 comments

Is the Federal Government Really Too Big?



How big is the federal government exactly?

If we listen to critics, especially conservative pundits and fiery activists who constantly attack the size and scope of Washington’s reputed bureaucracy, we’re led to believe the federal government is a behemoth, incurably dysfunctional, and even parasitical — sucking the very life’s blood out of society.

Is this true?

Let’s examine the most reliable statistical evidence that’s available as to the true size of government, which is the total number of federal employees.

In 1960, as the final months of the Eisenhower Administration were winding down and John F. Kennedy was about to take office, there were about 1.8 million bureaucrats working within the federal system.  That number doesn’t include military personnel, nor employees of the U.S. Postal System.  Remember that number — 1.8 million.

Many opponents of “big government” cite this period — circa 1960 — as the golden age of America’s dominance when we were the world’s preeminent economic and military superpower.  Yes, that’s an accurate assessment.  The United States was unquestionably the most prosperous nation in the world at the time, by any measure.

Since 1960, much has changed.  Now 57 years later, our nation’s population has increased from about 180 million to nearly 325 million.  That figure represents about an 80 percent increase in population within a time span of only two generations.  The federal system has also expanded significantly, just as one might expect with a booming population increase (in addition to perhaps 8-10 million more undocumented workers who also reside here).

Consider what’s happened since 1960 in terms of the actual composition of government.  No significant programs have been cut.  However, many programs and new responsibilities have been added.  No federal agencies were eliminated.  However, many were created.  Medicare became law (in 1965) which provided tens of millions of seniors with health coverage.  Six new cabinet-level agencies were also formed — including Housing and Urban Development (1965) , Transportation (1966), Energy (1977), Education (1979), Veterans Affairs (1989), and Homeland Security (2003).  Moreover, the EPA was created (1972).  Oh, and then there are other federally-funded initiatives — including the Peace Corps, the National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, NPR, and several other agencies which might lead us to believe the size of government has mushroomed in size.

Indeed, since the Eisenhower era, government has assumed an important role in health care, retirement planning, public housing, education, energy, workplace safety, civil rights, domestic security (consider the size of the TSA at airports), and the environment.  That’s a lot of new federal workers doing stuff that government didn’t used to do.

Given what’s seemingly been a huge increase in the size of our government, combined with a significant population increase nationwide, now here’s my question:

What would you estimate the number of federal employees to be today?

Remember, back in 1960, there were 1.8 million federal workers.

Take your time.  When ready, take a guess.

The actual number may surprise you.  Even the staunchest liberals among might be shocked to learn the total number of federal employees is approximately….2,079,000.

For those who are bad at math, that’s about a 14 percent increase over the past 57 years.

14 percent.


[A complete breakdown from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can be found HERE at the government’s official website.  The number of federal employees is listed by year, since 1940.]

Given these startling facts, is it really fair then to keep on criticizing so-called “big government?”  The number of government employees has hardly gone up at all.

Why is this so?  Well, the federal system has become far more efficient within the past six decades.  Civil servants are doing far more work with less employees than before.  Certainly, office automation and various technological advances have contributed to what’s been only modest-size increases in the number of federal workers.  However, there’s even something more remarkable happening here.

What we’re seeing is this — government works quite well when it’s managed properly.  Government provides us with the essential protections and services that we need, and at a relative bargain for what we’re getting.  And, it’s never functioned more efficiently, as is reveled by looking at the number of workers and the broad spectrum of duties entrusted to the federal government — including everything from making sure our hamburger meat is safe enough to eat to keeping planes in the sky from crashing into each other.

Now, hold on.  There’s more.  Here’s the real shocker.

While the number of federal employees it takes to do all the important things that government does has remained stagnant over many decades, what’s happening within the murky macrocosm of the defense establishment is downright scandalous.

Since President Eisenhower warned us about the evils of the military and defense establishment in his farewell address in 1960, for-profit contractors have pigged-out at taxpayer expense like no other beneficiaries of government.  In fact, there are nearly as many defense-related contract employees now feeding off American taxpayers as full-time civilians who work for the Department of Defense.

Citing research performed by John J. Dilulio at the Brookings Institution, and published in his 2014 book titled, “Bring Back the Bureaucrats,” conservative political columnist George Will took on this important issue recently.  He noted there are about 770,000 for-profit contractors working in defense, compared to about 800,000 federal workers doing similar work.  That’s an astonishing overreach of budget and manpower appropriation, amounting to tens of billions of wasted tax dollars, especially so if the current Administration’s call for decreasing international intervention is to be believed.  Other national security-related agencies too, most notably intelligence, are just as wildly out of control when it comes to federal employees, private contractors, and overall spending in light of all the belt-tightening elsewhere.

So, next time you hear the same old stage complaints about the alleged evils of “big government,” let’s remember the actual data.  Look at the facts.  Facts are not partisan.

We should all agree on at least one thing.  Part of the federal government is way too big.  Yes, indeed.  Federal spending is out of control, and there are way too many workers — at least in one sector.  And that sector is the bloated defense establishment.

Not to be outdone by his hawkish predecessors, in his first federal budget (for fiscal year 2018), President Trump has just proposed $54 billion in cuts to various federal agencies.

President Trump also proposed an increase of $54 billion….for defense.


FOOTNOTE:  While we’re at it, let’s also dispel the falsehood that the size of the federal government increased during the Obama Administration (2009-2016).  According to the OPM’s own data, the number of federal workers during President Obama’s first full year in office was about 2,774,000.  During the most recent year statistics were available (2014), the number of government employees was 2,663,000.  That’s a decrease.


Read More