Gerrymandering On Steroids

Gerrymandering is not illegal. There is no federal law that sets standards for how election district boundaries are to be drawn. However the Supreme Court had ruled that gerrymandering with the purpose of disenfranchising racial groups is illegal, based on the Voting Rights act of 1965, but that it's outside of its authority to rule on partisan gerrymandering, which is not illegal. . However, recently the court has ruled that you have to be able to prove that the intent of gerrymandering is racial disenfranchisement (which is virtually impossible), opening the door for a large number of Southern states to immediately redraw their congressional districts in order to water down the ability of Black citizens to elect representatives of their choice, which "coincidently" happen to largely vote for Democrats. 

Gerrymandering is not new. Its name comes from Elbridge Gerry, one of the Founding Fathers who was famous for his odd-shaped congressional districts, and it's been a feature of partisan politics since his time. What does gerrymandering do? What gerrymandering doesn't do is have an effect on presidential elections. The undemocratic features of the Electoral College are a whole 'nother issue, but other than in Nebraska and Maine, how Congressional districts boundaries are drawn has no effect on how electoral votes are allocated. 

What gerrymandering of congressional districts does do is affect the party balance of the House of Representatives. Since the Republican-Democratic split has been so tight recently, the Republicans are looking for any advantage in order to retain their majority. But the effects of gerrymandering don't start with Congressional maps, but with how state legislative maps are drawn. The process always begins with one party gaining a majority, however slight, in a state legislature. Once they have that majority, if it's a state where the legislature draws the district maps, then they are free to gerrymander so that a slight majority turns into a large majority or even a super-majority, which is effectively veto-proof. A veto-proof majority is important because in some of these states the governor and other statewide elected officers are of the other party. 

Usually redistricting takes place once every ten years, after the results of the decennial census are finalized. This determines the population of each state, which in turn determines how many representatives in Congress each state is entitled to. It also tracks any population shifts within a state. For example, after the 2020 census, the number of Nebraska's congressional representatives was unchanged (3), but the population shifted somewhat from rural to urban. In order to keep each district's population the same (or close to it) district borders needed to be adjusted. Nebraska Republicans attempted to gerrymander District 2, which sometimes elects Democrats, by dividing the majority Democratic City of Omaha between Districts 1 and 2, effectively eliminating the potential for one electoral vote going to a Democrat. (More recently they tried to revert to a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, which would have accomplished the same thing). 

A side note: a one-party House of Representatives delegation is not proof by itself that partisan gerrymandering took place. This blog article analyzes the situation in New England, where none of the states in that region send Republicans to Congress. 

In addition to New England, the following states have no Republican representatives:

• Delaware (1 district, 41% Republican)
• Hawaii (2 districts, 37% Republican)
• New Mexico (3 districts, 45% Republican)

There are also a number of states with no Democratic representatives: 

• Alaska (1 district, 41% Democratic)
• Arkansas (4 districts, 34% Democratic)
• Idaho (2 districts, 30% Democratic)
• Iowa (4 districts, 42% Democratic)
• Montana (2 districts, 38% Democratic)
• Nebraska (3 districts, 39% Democratic)
• North Dakota (1 district 30% Democratic)
• Oklahoma (5 districts, 32% Democratic)
• South Dakota (1 district, 34% Democratic)
• Utah (4 districts, 38% Democratic)
• West Virginia (2 districts, 28% Democratic)
• Wyoming (1 district, 26% Democratic) 

Obviously, in states with only one congressional district gerrymandering is impossible. There are six of these nationwide. Two-district states theoretically can be gerrymandered, but it's more difficult. There are seven of these and all of them are represented by one party. Most of these states' minority party voters make up 30-40% of the total voters. In these states it's impossible to to achieve proportionate representation unless the parties are roughly equal. The only choices are 0% or 50% — in the latter the minority is over-represented in the former (which is usually the case) under-represented. There's no completely fair option. Gerrymandering becomes more feasible as the population, and therefore the size of the House of Representatives delegation, increases. 

 States with independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions typically look for the following when drawing district lines:

1. Equal population distribution
2. Contiguity
3. Compactness
4. Respect for existing boundaries
5. Minority representation
6. Preservation of communities of interest

While partisan maps will attempt to draw district lines so each district contains roughly the same amount of people (constitutionally required), and I'm not aware of any non-contiguous districts, but #'s 3-6 are usually thrown out the window in order to maximize representation by the majority party. 

The gerrymandering that takes place during decennial redistricting is bad enough. Though some states have independent redistricting commissions, other states' redistricting is controlled by the legislature, which is often itself gerrymandered to favor one party. 2025 has been a free-for-all of mid-decade redistricting, starting with Trump's request that Texas redraw their map in order to maximize the likelihood that an additional four or five Republican are elected to the House of Representatives this year. California, which had an independent redistricting commission, held a referendum to suspend it, and did their own redistricting, canceling Texas' projected pickup of five Republican seats. Since then, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee have changed their maps to favor Republicans; in addition to California, Utah has potentially added one Democratic majority district. Currently, this gives Republicans a potential eight seat  advantage. 

In the wake of a Supreme Court decision virtually eliminating the possibility of creating majority-minority districts, some southern states, in particularly Alabama, South Carolina and Louisiana, are racing to eliminate their remaining Democratic districts that were created for this purpose. Tennessee has already done so, splitting up Black majority Nashville — allocating it's inhabitants to three surrounding districts. The Tennessee legislature had previously done the same thing to the Black and Democratic city of Memphis. Several other states, both majority Republican and majority Democratic are considering their own redistricting. The biggest blow to Democratic redistricting was the Virginia case. 

Virginia law stated that, in order to change the redistricting guidelines the following had to happen:

• The House of Delegates had to pass a resolution for a referendum to amend the state constitution to allow redistricting 
• An election had to have occurred
• The House of Delegates had to pass the resolution for the referendum a second time after an election (in other words, there had to be an election between the two House of Delegates actions)
• The State Senate had to vote to approve the resolution
• The Governor had to sign off
• The referendum needed to be put up for a vote of the people
• The referendum had to receive a majority of the votes
• The district maps could then be redrawn by the legislature

The Virginia legislature did all of these things, however, Republicans mounted several legal challenges resulting in rulings to remove the amendment from the ballot twice, which were overruled by the Virginia Supreme Court twice. Finally, after the referendum had taken place, a judge ruled that the requirement that there be an election between the two resolutions was not followed. The reasoning was that early voting had already started when the first resolution was voted on. The Virginia Supreme Court agreed. Virginia appealed to the Supreme Court which declined to hear the appeal. 

Much of what the Republicans are doing isn't technically illegal. They are relying on two things: the willingness of the Supreme Court to interpret the law in novel ways, ignoring precedent, usually in ways that benefit Trump and the Republicans; and capitalizing on the fact that many of the norms and customs that we observe are not in fact written down anywhere. They are also counting on the sad truth that the Democratic Party leadership for the most part thinks that they can play fair without being permanently shut out of any meaningful role in government. 

Trump, starting back during his 2016 campaign, planted the seeds for his cult to be convinced that a loss for him meant that the election was rigged or stolen. He still complains about 2020 being stolen from him. His appointees refuse to give a straight answer when asked who won the 2020 election. Their ravings, without ever being based on facts, involve vast conspiracies that include poll workers all over the country, voting machines that mysteriously change votes, and phantom ballots. But what is going on now doesn't require any of that. Republican are changing the very systems that facilitate our ability to vote. Voter I.D. requirements are put in place while simultaneously making it more difficult to secure identification...in Democratic majority areas. Early and mail voting faces new restrictions. Voter rolls are purged, disenfranchising legitimate voters. Polling places are moved to inconvenient locations...in Democratic majority areas.. Ballot drop off locations are eliminated...in Democratic majority areas. The Voting Rights Act, which has stood for over 60 years, according to the Supreme Court majority, has been misinterpreted for those six decades. Now, ignoring 200 years of precedent, they're not even hiding the fact that they're nullifying the votes of Democrats, and not incidentally, Black voters with the hyper-gerrymandering. Why now?

The electorate is pretty evenly split. Trump's share of the vote was only 1.5% greater than Harris', a statistical dead heat. In the House of Representatives if just three Republican districts had flipped to Democrats, then the Democrats would have had the majority. The Republican Senate is only three seats, despite the huge advantage given to rural, Republican leaning states. Elections are won and lost not on who has more registered voters, but on the tiny minority of unaffiliated or undecided voters. Republicans razor-thin margins are endangered due to an unpopular president. Sure the cultish core of Trump voters would still vote for him if he dropped a nuclear bomb on Florida, but it's not the cult base who'll decide an election. Trump got elected mainly because voters on the fence believed that he would be better than Biden on immigration, the economy and keeping us out of war. He's arguably got immigration under control (by authoritarian and fascistic means) but we're in a war and his promises to cut energy prices in half, reduce inflation, and roll back prices not only haven't happened, but have gotten worse. Unless he dies (he's not going to be removed via the 25th Amendment) he'll be president for 979 more days. The only way to address his malign influence is to remove his allies from Congress. 

He and his Republican allies know this. They've been working assiduously to make it harder for Democratic-leaning people to vote. Now, through this unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering on steroids, they are attempting to erase Democratic votes. The one hope the Democrats have at this point is that the anger at Trump is so great that there will be a record turnout of voters choosing Democrats — that some of these new "Republican" districts will surprise them due to all the Democratic voters that have been moved into them. There's also the Senate, which isn't affected by gerrymandering. 

November is a long way away. 

Are The New England States Gerrymandered In Favor Of The Democrats?

I'm in the process of writing a blog article about gerrymandering, but I want to divert from that project to address one of the recurring Republican talking point excuses for what's going on in many southern states: the New England states House delegations. 

A map of New England, supposedly showing congressional district boundaries, has been making its way around social media. The map shows that every district is represented by a Democrat, even though around 40% of the population votes Republican. Let's look at it more closely. We'll compare the representation by party with how the whole state voted in the most recent presidential election. 

 Maine

Maine has two congressional districts. Both are represented by Democrats. Trump, the Republican candidate received 45% of the vote in 2024. The odd thing about Maine is that, like Nebraska, electoral votes are allocated by district. A majority of one of Maine's two districts voted for Trump, so he received one of Maine's four electoral votes. Nonetheless, they still voted for a Democrat for Congress.

No gerrymandering detected.

Vermont

32% of the state voted for Trump. The state has only one congressional district. 

No gerrymandering is possible. 

New Hampshire

There are two districts, both represented by Democrats. Trump received 47% of the votes. Looking at the vote distribution, it's possible that some gerrymandering took place. The latest map was drawn up by a Democratic legislature, but was vetoed by a Republican governor. The State Supreme Court stepped in and appointed a Special Master. 

Possible gerrymandering.

Rhode Island

Another two district state. Both are represented by Democrats. Trump received 41% of the vote in 2024.  Rhode Island's district maps are drawn by a bi-partisan commission. 

The redistricting commission follows specific criteria in drawing district lines, including equal population, compactness, contiguity (lines connecting areas of the same district must be continuous), preservation of existing political subdivisions (such as cities and counties), and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. The commission’s decisions are also subject to judicial review.

As for gerrymandering, Rhode Island law prohibits any redistricting plan that disproportionately favors or discriminates against a political party or racial or language minority group.

Gerrymandering unlikely in the extreme, if not impossible. 

Connecticut

There are five congressional districts, all represented by Democrats. Trump received 41% of the votes in 2024. A glance at a map of precinct results from the 2024 presidential election suggests that it may have been possible to draw a map that gave Republicans an advantage in one, or even two districts, however, Connecticut has a bipartisan redistricting committee. 

In Connecticut, the responsibility for drawing redistricting maps lies primarily with the bipartisan redistricting committee. This committee is composed of six members, with equal representation from both major political parties in the state. Additionally, the Secretary of the State serves as a non-voting, ex-officio member of the committee. 

When drawing redistricting maps in Connecticut, several criteria are typically considered:
1. Equal population distribution
2. Contiguity
3. Compactness
4. Respect for existing boundaries
5. Minority representation
6. Preservation of communities of interest

Gerrymandering unlikely in the extreme, if not impossible. 

Massachusetts

There are nine districts, all represented by Democrats. Trump won 36% of the votes in 2024. Massachusetts has had Republican governors and Senators in recent memory, but it's been a while since any Republican was sent to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts. The short answer is that while there are plenty of people who vote for Republicans, they are spread out fairly uniformly throughout the state. A precinct map from the 2024 presidential election suggests that it may have been possible to draw a map that gave Republicans an advantage in one, or even two districts. 

This article does a good job explaining the situation and includes a mathematical analysis backing up that hypothesis. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/elj.2018.0537?cf-mal-redirected=true&

Gerrymandering is possible, but not likely. 

Conclusion

While I don't deny that there is Democratic gerrymandering going on (I'm looking at you, Illinois) the New England states aren't a good example of it. Congressional representation that is not proportional to party affiliation, or to how people vote in a presidential election does not necessarily indicate gerrymandering. It's impossible in one-district states, and extremely difficult in two-district states. In some states, like Massachusetts, one party's voters are so spread out that grouping them in their own district is difficult, if not impossible. (Wisconsin is an example on the Republican side, with two of nine districts represented by Republican, even though the state is virtually evenly split between voters of the two major parties)

The Idiot's War

The United States has intervened in other nations' conflicts with impunity for as long as we realized that we could. Most of the time there was at least some fig leaf of a national security or national interest reason for doing so. Not always, but usually. Sometimes we we deposed the dictator de jour and extricated ourselves, or bombed whatever group that was giving us trouble and went home. Sometimes we respond to attacks against us or our allies. 

But there are times when we think we have a good reason to start a war but find ourselves bogged down long past the time our initial goals were achieved and have even seen the mission morph to the point that we have no idea what winning looks like. Afghanistan is a fresh example. We went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban who had given sanctuary to Al Qaeda and allowed their country to be a haven for worldwide terrorism. We did that pretty quickly but ended up staying for twenty years, propping up corrupt leaders, fighting regional warlords whose loyalty shifted on a weekly basis. We paid the salaries of thousands of Afghan soldiers who didn't actually exist. We pulled out amid chaos and the result was that the Taliban were back in charge. 

Trump campaigned on the promise of ending "forever wars". That was one of the few things where I agreed with him. But once he got back in the White House he started acting much more belligerent toward enemies (and allies). An argument can be made that not every use of the military is a war. I thought that he was justified in bombing the Houthis in Yemen when they were attacking shipping. I was less sanguine about his attacks on supposed terrorists in Syria, Nigeria, and Somalia. None of these were "war" in my opinion. He crossed a line with his abduction of a foreign head of state, Venezuelan President Maduro. He crossed a line with the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025. But there's no question that what's happening in Iran is a war. 

There's no question regarding whether or not Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. They have funded militias in Yemen, Israel, Iraq, and Lebanon. They have brutally suppressed their own people. They are emphatically not the good guys. Degrading Iran's ability to support regional terrorism is a legitimate goal for our allies. Preventing them from developing a nuclear weapon is a valid objective as well. The problem with trying to achieve this with military might is that military might is insufficient. Military leaders and intelligence analysts have long known this. The Iranians don't fold that easily. Our aims needed to be reached with diplomacy, not bombs. Great idea! We should do that!

We did. 

In cooperation with Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union an agreement was reached that limited Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons and reduced or eliminated economic sanctions. It wasn't perfect, but it was working. Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the agreement and imposed maximum economic sanctions, complaining that the agreement was "weak". Iran immediately resumed its nuclear research and development and ramped up it's support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others, especially after Israel's response to the October Seventh attacks resulted in devastation of the Gaza enclave. Trump created the problem that he was now vowing to solve. 

One of the pillars of Trumpism is "America First". It's not something you can really argue with, despite it being a motto of the early Ku Klux Klan and mid 1900's Nazi sympathizers. Our leaders should put America first. Part of that would logically include strong relationships with our allies, both military and economic. Trump has made it clear that if we aren't making a buck from our alliances, then they are worthless. From imposing insane tariffs and insulting foreign leaders, he's made it clear that he doesn't value our alliances. Israel and the Gulf states are exceptions. The antisemites among us would propose some variation on "The Jews Run The World" to explain our alliance with Israel, throwing in a dollop of Epstein, George Soros, and whichever Rothchild is hanging around, to flesh out their conspiracy theory. Attempting to win the votes of American Jews, as well as the Evangelical Christians who believe that Armageddon is nigh, in addition to large checks from Israel-affiliated political action committees, is more likely. Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and other rich Gulf States are also big contributors, not only to the Republican Party, but directly to the Trump family. Unlike Israel, they prefer that the United States do all their fighting. I'm not convinced that Trump is mesmerized by Netanyahu, or the World Jewish Cabal, but has acted on his invented competition with Obama. 

Trump, who is proudly ignorant of how anything works, and won't listen to the people who do know how things work was convinced that we would bomb Iran, kill some of their top leaders, and they would meekly agree to all his demands. Iran hasn't surrendered yet, unconditionally or otherwise. Their military has been severally reduced but they're still attacking (until the recent ceasefire anyway) with drones and missiles. They still have all the means for constructing a nuclear weapon that they had two months ago. Their top tier of leaders have been killed, but new ones have replaced them. The Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war, is open sporadically, with Iran charging tolls and the United States blockading it. What have we accomplished so far? Not much. 

Trump doesn't understand the existence of true believers, of fanatics, and how they will stick to their beliefs no matter what. He has been dealing with politicians and businessmen in the United States who are transactional — they will alter their ideology when it benefits them financially or politically. His followers among the electorate will change their priorities whenever he changes his — look at how the Trump voters who were up in arms about inflation and gas prices in 2024 and were against foreign wars are now cheerleaders for the Iran War and think high prices are worth it. The Iranian ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard generals are true believers. They are religious zealots and Iranian patriots who will not give in to American demands. They would rather rule from the rubble than bow down to America. They will, however, negotiate. They have done so in the past, but they will not be bullied.

Trump has never understood diplomacy. In his world view, a negotiation is a discussion wherein the other party simply accedes to his demands. The concept of win-win, or anything other than a zero sum scenario is foreign to him. Consensus and compromise is for losers in Trump's world. His so-called negotiations prior to the attack on Iran were his usual clumsy ultimatums. Iran's refusal to acquiesce was his casus belli. Diplomatic negotiations should be conducted by diplomats, people who are trained as negotiators, who know what they're doing, and realize that compromise is often the best you're going to get. Trump, on the other hand has sent in a real estate guy, his son-in-law, and JD Vance (or whatever his name is). None of these guys knows what they're doing other than repeating Trump's ultimatums. 

But what is he trying to do? Is it regime change? Is it obliteration of their nuclear facilities? (re-obliteration?) Is it degradation of their military? Is it opening the Strait of Hormuz, which already was open before the war? Who knows? Trump apparently doesn't, since his rationale has changed more often than I change my socks. His kaleidoscopic objective shifting isn't helped by his minions, who give conflicting information, all the while bellowing Holy War rhetoric, including pseudo-Biblical quotes from Pulp Fiction. Oh yeah, and the Pope is weak on crime. 

The Constitutional requirement that it be Congress who declares war has been weakening for generations. Presidents before Trump have made use of the military without a declaration of war. But now, even the War Powers Act, which allows the president to conduct military operations for up to 60 days before getting permission from Congress has been sidestepped. They were calling it anything other than a war, unless Trump slipped up and called it a war. It was a war, but now it's over and the blockading of the Strait of Hormuz is a new operation. The ceasefire "paused the clock". And is it a ceasefire if we and the Iranians are still shooting at each other? 

Meanwhile, the president who promised to stop inflation and lower prices on "Day One", who vowed to cut energy costs in half (also on Day One) has made matters worse, while mocking "affordability" as "bullshit". 

The 2025 Tax Breaks - Follow Up

One of the Republican talking points as we progress to the next phase of the never-ending election season is that Americans have benefitted from Republican leadership in the form of larger-than-usual tax refunds. 

The size of your tax refund is a not-very-accurate method of determining whether any tax law was or was not beneficial to you. Unless you qualify for tax credits like the Earned Income or Child Tax Credits, or tax credits derived from Tax Incentives programs, your tax refund will consist of taxes that you overpaid during the year. It is effectively an interest-free loan to the government. (Line 24 on Form 1040, is where your actual tax is listed.) This year (2025 tax year, filed in 2026) was different. There were three major tax deductions that affected lower-to-middle income taxpayers.  

Let's start with Social Security, and how portions of it are taxed now. First of all, not all Social Security benefits are taxed. For a taxpayer filing singly, if total adjusted gross income plus half of social security benefits is $25,000 or greater, then up to 50% of benefits count as taxable income. If the total is greater than $34,000, then up to 85% of benefits count as taxable income. (The exact percentage is a sliding scale — the formula can be found in the Form 1040 instructions). For married couples filing jointly the thresholds are $32,000 and $44,000. So whether someone's Social Security benefits are taxable or not is based entirely on whether their combined income exceeds the levels mentioned above. 

If the formula indicates that a portion of one's benefits will be taxed, this is not deducted from their monthly benefits, but is calculated when completing the annual tax forms and determines tax liability, and therefore either the refund or amount due. 

The new tax law does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. What it does is provide an additional deduction for seniors (age 65+) of $6,000 per individual ($12,000 for married filing jointly). In other words, it reduces taxable income by these amounts. This phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 or married filing jointly over $150,000. This reduces the number of  seniors who will have their benefits taxed, but does not eliminate the tax itself. For example an individual who is still working with combined adjusted gross income and half of benefits exceeding $31,000 (the statutory threshold plus the new deduction) will have some of her Social Security benefits taxed. 

This additional deduction is only in effect for four years. It will also hasten the insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, since taxes on benefits go back into the Trust Fund. This additional deduction is for all seniors, not just those who are receiving Social Security benefits. 

Next up: tips

Tips are taxable income, the same as any other source of income like W-2 or 1099 remuneration. The only reason it appears to be tax-free is that many people who receive tips do not report them as income unless compelled to do so by their employer. It's virtually impossible for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to track every tip paid in cash (i.e. not by credit or debit card). The IRS has attempted to make it more difficult for employees to avoid paying taxes on their tip income by holding their employers accountable. Currently, in a business with tipped employees, the employees are required to report all tips to their employer who will include those tips as part of their gross income, and withhold federal and state taxes, as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Since it's possible that not all tips will be reported, the business is required to calculate what reported tips would be if they equaled 8% of sales. If total reported tips fall below 8%, the business is then required to allocate the difference between actual reported tips and 8% among all tipped employees. (Not sure if this allocation is based on sales or hours — nothing prevents an employer from having a stricter policy). This results in a tipped employee being taxed for income that they may or may not have actually received.  

The new law does not eliminate taxes on tips. What it does do is allow workers in "occupations that customarily and regularly received tips" to deduct $25,000 in tipped income from their taxable income. (This clause is supposed to prevent people who don't receive their income from tips to classifying their fees as "tips" and avoiding some taxes. With all the cuts in IRS staffing, I'm sure there will be abuses.)  All tips above $25,000 are taxable. One recurring misunderstanding is that this deduction applies only to tips paid in cash. The IRS defines "cash tips" as tips paid in cash, check, card etc. The definition of "cash tips" excludes in-kind gratuities or services in lieu of cash. This change will not benefit low income workers if their total income was already below the standard deduction, but it will reduce taxable income for many tipped workers. 

Expires after four years. 

Finally: overtime

This is similar to tips in that overtime pay is still taxable, but that a portion can be deducted from taxable income. Individuals can deduct $12,500 and married couples filing jointly can deduct $25,000. This deduction only applies to the "and a half" portion of "time and a half" paid for overtime hours. 

Expires after (you guessed it) four years. 

The bill requires that the IRS formulate regulations to govern withholding for both tips and overtime by 2026. For the portion of 2025 after this law as passed taxes continued to be withheld as before. This caused the withholding to be greater than it should have been, which is partly why refunds are greater this year. 

How will this affect state taxes? This remains to be seen. For Nebraska, taxable income is mostly based on federal adjusted gross income with a few Nebraska-specific adjustments. (Nebraska already completely exempts Social Security benefits from state income tax.) So, if these deductions reduce federal taxable income, will it also affect state taxable income? States can adjust their tax codes to compensate, or they can go along with the federal regulations; although Nebraska's legislature is out of session for the year. It looks like I got out of the Nebraska Department of Revenue just in time. FICA withholding will continue to be based on an employee's gross wages, so tips and overtime will still be subject to FICA. 

Nebraska LB 30 makes tips & OT deductible for NE income tax — still in committee

For someone whose marginal tax rate is 12% claiming the full $12,500 deduction for overtime, they'll see a reduction in taxes of $1,500. Tipped workers who claim the full amount will see their taxes reduced by $3,000. Seniors will see a $720 drop in taxes. All of these amounts are deductions from the adjusted gross income and not credits. If they exceed what taxes would have been otherwise, it doesn't generate a credit. Zero is as low as you can go! How does this affect refunds? 

Withholding tables were scheduled to be adjusted starting January 1, 2026, which should eliminate the larger refunds that many people saw this year. All overtime and tipped income is also still subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes. 

 All of these deductions expire in four years unless extended by Congress. So, the Republicans aren't lying when they say that the 2025 tax law has benefitted many Americans. Theoretically it has.

The Logic Of Violence

I don't know if the latest apparent attempt to kill Trump was staged or not. And neither do you. (Yes, I realize it really looks staged) And, with his sycophants in charge of law enforcement, we never will know for sure. But it says something about the state of the nation when a significant percentage believes that the President of the United States faked an attempt on his life. Several times. 

It's not really a stretch though. We have a president who lies about everything, even when there's no reason to do so, even when there's no clear benefit. I'm not going to get in the weeds regarding all the reasons to believe the three attempts were faked, but I will mention the big one. The ear. I don't have any insight into what circumstances would result in all the blood that we saw yet not lead to any visible damage to his ear. But I do know that we have never had any medical doctor step forward to explain how an ear being grazed by a bullet (or hit by shrapnel) would seem completely unscarred in the aftermath. Maybe I just missed that interview with drunken Doctor Ronnie. 

What I want to talk about, assuming that these incidents aren't staged, is why are people so determined to kill Donald Trump? 

At the risk of receiving a call from the Secret Service, why aren't more people trying to kill him? 

[Really - I'm not advocating violence of any kind, let alone political assassination — but just speculating on why people see it as a solution]

Trump has taken the presidency to new lows. He has enriched himself and his family with nonstop corruption; has dismantled government programs that helped millions of people (while somehow still increasing the deficit); has governed as an autocrat, cutting Congress out of any decision-making; treated the White House and government buildings and monuments as if they were his personal property; has turned the Department of Homeland Security into an unaccountable secret police that has terrorized and killed people; his disjointed policies have raised the cost of living for ordinary Americans; he has embroiled us in a war with no coherent goals and a mission that shifts daily; he has embarked on a mission of revenge and retribution upon those who opposed him; he has pardoned convicted criminals who bribed him as well as those who attempted to subvert the 2020 election; he is a serial abuser of women and an alleged pedophile and rapist. 

Sounds like some pretty good reasons right there. 

And no one is stopping him. 

He is apparently immune from any legal consequences, or at least has the means to delay judgement indefinitely. as we saw in 2024. Political consequences are off the table — there's no scenario where 67 senators vote to remove him from office. He has been impeached twice with no Senate conviction either time. The Nixon-era days of a bipartisan push to remove a corrupt president are gone. The 25th Amendment solution that gets floated regularly isn't going to happen either. Other than the officials responsible for initiating it are all Trump sycophants, it's a slow moving process with plenty of points where it can be derailed. 

Sure, we have an election for Congress later this year, but there's no guarantee that the Democrats can achieve a majority in the Senate, even if they do retake the House. The Senate is where federal judges are confirmed, including any possible Supreme Court vacancies. But voting records in two heavily Democratic districts in swing states have been confiscated. The gerrymandering battles are in full swing. How certain can we be that elections in key states won't be subverted?

So, for all practical considerations, we're stuck with him until January 20, 2029, unless he dies first. 

Cole Allen, the alleged would-be assassin, gave plenty of reasons why he was going to take out, not only Trump, but all of his top officials (except for FBI Director Patel for some reason). It can be found in this note (aka "The Manifesto") that was provided to media by his brother. Among his reasons were his statement that "I am a citizen of the United States of America. What my representatives do reflects on me. And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." In other words, he was fed up with what we collectively have been putting up with. 

Once again we are hearing whining from the Trump Cult about the "dangerous and divisive rhetoric" that they believe has brainwashed people into opposing Trump, as if he himself doesn't post hatred and vitriol every day on social media and in his speeches, tarring his fellow Americans as the enemy. As if the long list of reasons why he is bad for the country, weren't glaringly obvious. There are many reasons why a world where Trump and his enablers weren't in power is preferable to the world in which we now live. 

Somebody allegedly took things into his own hands.

Or — it's just another distraction from the distractions about other distractions. 

[Once again, nothing in this article should be construed as advocating for political assassination, or any related violent solutions to our nation's problems. ]

The Manifesto

Accused White House Correspondents’ Dinner gunman Cole Allen sent a sprawling... manifesto to family members about 10 minutes before Saturday’s attack [according to], sources... [for] The Post.

The 1,052-word missive obtained by The Post Sunday morning — signed Cole ‘coldForce’ ‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen” — outlined his “rules of engagement” for the shooting and stated he believed it was his righteous duty to target administration officials. ~~ New York Post

Hello everybody!

So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.

I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”

I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)

I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.

I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.

I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.

On to why I did any of this:

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

What my representatives do reflects on me.

And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)

While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)

Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security

National Guard: same as Hotel Security

Hotel Employees: not targets at all

Guests: not targets at all

In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)

I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

Rebuttals to objections:

Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.

Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.

Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.

Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.

Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?

This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.

Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.

Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.

Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.

Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack

Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)

Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.

Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.

Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.

Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.

Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.

Thank you all for everything.

Sincerely,

Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen

PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.

Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.

What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.

No damn security.

Not in transport.

Not in the hotel.

Not in the event.

Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.

I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.

Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.

Actually insane.

Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.

Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.

So, You Want To Join a Cult - Never Mind, You Already Have

Part of being in a cult is that you don't realize that you're in a cult. 

"No one wakes up in the morning, and after a shower and that first cup of coffee, decides that they’re going to join a cult. No one approached by someone with an engaging smile and an encyclopedic knowledge of the bible thinks “Cool! A cult! Just what I’ve been looking for!” Yet, every day in America, people join up with groups that are labelled cults."
So, You Want To Join a Cult - Part I- Aes Duir Blog

But it's not just religions that spawn cults. The most insidious cult in America right now is the MAGA  Cult, the cult of the man I call "Losin' Don", Donald J. Trump - former President of the United States. 

It didn't start out as a cult - they never do. I don't think it even started out as a serious run for the presidency. 2015 seems like a lifetime ago, but Trump's announcement that he was running for the Republican Party presidential nomination seemed like a big joke. There was no shortage of respectable, experienced, serious contenders among the crowd of Republican governors and senators. But Trump stood out from that crowd. Not because he had any new and exciting ideas, or had a proven track record of leadership, but because he was brash, loud and Americans love a spectacle. 

American politics is seldom about who is best qualified. In a crowded primary field there is a feedback loop of polls and money. Those with name recognition have an early advantage - in polls conducted before any voting takes place typically no one receives anywhere near a majority, but the ones that lead the pack are viewed as "winners" and receive the lion's share of funding, enabling them to run ads to increase their name recognition. News organizations stop paying attention to those with low poll numbers, reinforcing the name recognition of the leaders. Voters, if they're thinking at all, start considering "electability". They figure that if Candidate "A" is polling so low and isn't attracting much in donations, he or she can't win in the general election, so they slowly (or not so slowly) fade away and have to drop out. Trump benefitted from all of this. As people began to drop out it became a contest between Trump and various "not-Trumps". 

Even after he secured the Republican nomination, I'm not sure if it was a cult yet. There were still plenty of Never Trumpers in the Republican Party who wished he would just go away, but once a nominee is chosen, the parties typically close ranks around their candidate. In the general election the irrational hatred that many people had for Hillary Clinton made the difference. Many voters who would have voted for Senator Sanders or Vice President Biden held their noses and voted for Trump. "How bad could it be?" many Republicans thought, "We'll keep him in line".  

It was once Trump was elected that the vast army of his voters transitioned from an amorphous mob into a cult. It was when he had the power of the presidency that he began to wield his power as a cult leader. 

The Way, the cult that I was a member of, started out as just another rural small town church. From the mid fifties to the mid sixties its leader was just a guy who travelled around teaching his Bible class and holding services at his family's farmstead. It wasn't until the sixties were almost over when he convinced a bunch of hippies that he had "The Truth" that he was able to turn his small potatoes operation into a worldwide movement with him as the virtually infallible head of it all. 

Something that all cult leaders love is persecution. It allows them to present themselves as fighting against the evil system. I used to hear how when we were being attacked it showed how the Devil was worried and was trying to stop us. This soon became the line that Trump and his followers took. According to them, everything that Trump did was godly and patriotic, therefore anyone who opposed him was satanic and un-American. Any reporting that pointed out his corruption, or even his policy mistakes, was fake news. News organizations were "the enemy of the people". Other politicians were "treasonous" or "traitors" and should be "locked up". 

One of the characteristics of cults that is often overlooked is the fear of looking stupid. I don't subscribe to the idea that cult members are brainwashed (at least in most cases), but that they have so much time and energy invested that they can't bring themselves to admit that they may have been wrong. (I wrote some blog posts about this concept (Brainwashing, Deprogramming). Trump's followers have made MAGA such a part of their identity that any suggestion that Trump was a bad president, or indeed any criticism at all of him, becomes a personal attack. They support positions that Trump holds that are in direct opposition to their own long-held beliefs and do so without any awareness of the contradiction inherent therein. Two examples illustrate this phenomenon:

At one time mainstream Republicans were the party of moral uprightness (or so they claimed). To them the Democrats were the party of hedonism, licentiousness, and ungodliness. In the nineties they viewed the Clintons as prime examples of this. Much of the conservative opposition to Bill Clinton was ostensibly due to his sexual escapades with an intern in his White House office. They prized religious piety as a characteristic to which politicians should aspire. (We'll ignore for now their dislike for Carter, the most visibly Christian of all recent presidents) Yet with Trump, who has cheated on all his wives, has a history of behaving unethically in his business dealings, and is seemingly ignorant of even the basics of Christianity is viewed as a messiah figure, sent by God to save the nation and its Christian citizens. This isn't hyperbole. Many Christians compare Trump to Cyrus, a Persian monarch who according to the Bible, freed the Jews and allowed them to return to Israel and rebuild their temple. And is called messiah in the Bible. This is not something that is believed by a tiny fringe, but is a widespread belief among Trump followers. 

The other example is more recent. Trump followers tend to be Second Amendment absolutists. They made Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two people and seriously wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha Wisconsin, into a hero. Kyle was all-in with MAGA world and even had a personal meeting with Trump. Trump people loved him and defended him in social media, viewing his actions as perfect examples of self defense, and why gun ownership is a sacred right. Kyle reciprocated with unqualified support of Trump. Trump, however, isn't a Second Amendment absolutist, he changes his positions when it's convenient — if he even has core beliefs other than securing a payday for himself. Last week Rittenhouse posted on X that he thought Trump was weak on the Second Amendment and could no longer support him or vote for him in November. The reaction from the MAGAverse was swift and vicious. The thousands of Trump acolytes, instead of considering that Murderin' Kyle might have a point and having an open debate about Trump's Second Amendment bona fides, decried Rittenhouse's words as lack of loyalty. The previously holy Second Amendment took second place to their holy avatar, Donald Trump. 

One might ascribe the obstinacy of Trump voters to a simple desire to see conservative politics overcome liberalism. And in a general election where Democrats are demonized as socialists, communists and pedophiles, that may be part of it, but what about their fealty to him even against other Republicans? Trump has convinced his faithful that politicians whose conservative credentials are unimpeachable, like Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz and former Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse are Republicans In Name Only (RINOs). Republicans who could have been much more efficient at advancing a conservative agenda have been lumped in with far left lawmakers and as equally worthy of MAGA scorn. They had a chance to nominate someone else this time around. Ron DeSantis, as unlikeable as he is, has proved as governor of Florida that he knows how to implement the MAGA agenda, but he is efficient — he knows how to get things done (as much as I dislike those "things"). Nikki Haley, as much as she toed the right wing line, was actually a fairly moderate governor. Nonetheless, Trump got at least 50% of the vote in all but one primary. 

Not everybody who votes for Trump is in his cult. Some people just hold their noses and vote against the Democratic candidate, because they dislike the Democrats' policies. Even among the cultified, there's a continuum. There's the full-blown nut jobs who fly giant Trump flags, wear their red MAGA hats wherever they go and will tell anyone within earshot how God saved him that day in Pennsylvania and that "he alone" can save our country. These are usually the same people who still believe that Hillary Clinton was running a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant that didn't have a basement. There's the people who perhaps don't view Trump in religious terms but rationalize the January 6th riots at The Capitol as just another group of tourists and think that California legalized abortion after birth. There's the people who are convinced that Trump loves our country and is a godly man. He has convinced people that it's a good thing to be friendly with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un but to antagonize and insult our allies. He has convinced his minions that the 2020 election was stolen and had people calling him "the rightful president" after he lost in 2020. He would have done it again if he had lost in 2024. 

Most Trump supporters will say that they don't agree with everything Trump does and don't put him on a pedestal, but won't admit to anything that they really disagree with and excuse and rationalize any behavior that they would abhor in anyone else. If that's not a cult, I don't know what is.