Can We Repair The Damage?

I'm not optimistic that the damage caused by Trump is fixable. 

Even if there is a "blue wave" next week, even if we elect a Democrat in two years, the scale of the damage is worse than most of us realize. It's not just that we have a horrible human being who is incompetent at his job and willfully ignorant of everything. It's the fact that we have a president who seems to revel in destruction that can't easily be repaired. 

Sure, some things are easily fixed. Another president can install competent cabinet secretaries and agency heads. That's easy. It's like redecorating the Oval Office and removing all that cheap gilt décor  — that's something that will occupy White House staff for an afternoon while the Inaugural Balls are happening. Appointing men and women who actually support the missions of their agencies is easy, rebuilding those agencies, restaffing all the positions that were eliminated under DOGE is more like rebuilding the East Wing after it has been bulldozed. Where are those people going to come from?

Perceptions about government waste and the supposed indolence of government employees is one of those things that people have strong opinions about. Since they don't really know in any detail what they do, they assume that it can't be very important. Most people don't think about government employees until they need a government service. Wait times at veterans'' hospitals, Social Security, and the IRS have been evident since the cuts last year — all common contact points between citizens and the federal government. HHS has reduced its workforce, significantly cutting thousands of positions across agencies like the FDA, NIH, and CDC. The NIH terminated thousands of research grants and over 160 clinical trials spanning cancer, HIV/AIDS, and chronic diseases. In Pittsburgh, a VA clinical trial for advanced head and neck cancers was placed on hold due to hiring and contract freezes. During the 2025 Texas measles outbreak, canceled CDC grants forced local health officials in Lubbock to pause response work and eliminated access to federal public health experts. Dallas County Health and Human Services had to cut staff and cancel 50 community vaccination clinics. Rebuilding any of those programs will take time, assuming anyone would want to risk working for the government again. 

The remaking of the military into an organization loyal to Trump, rather than the Constitution will be difficult to undo. The Judge Advocate General corps has been gutted in order to remove any legal obstacles to the Trump agenda. Generals and Admirals who objected to potentially illegal actions, such as blowing up boats of suspected drug runners, or kidnapping another nation's president, have been eliminated.  Secretary of Defense Hegseth is trying to convert the military into a caricature of a bad Steven Seagal movie where everyone is a "warrior" (or warfighter) and apparently you don't need cooks or IT people. The Department of Justice has become the Department of Retribution after anyone who was suspected of being insufficiently loyal has been purged. A Democratic president can appoint a new Secretary of Defense and Attorney General, but rebuilding the leadership structure in each agency will take time. 

Our standing among our allies I fear will never recover. Why should any of our allies ever trust us again when we can so swiftly turn against them, both militarily and economically? When we cozy up to dictators like Putin? And if a legitimate national security goal is to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, have we guaranteed that they'll never negotiate with us again?  

My concern is that a hypothetical Democratic president will be tempted to undo Trump's damage in the same way that Trump caused the damage, by extensive use of Executive Order. The use of Executive Orders as a way around Congressional inaction isn't new, it has been steadily building over several administrations. The next president can undo some of the more egregious Trump EOs by more EOs, but Congress is going to have to step up and do their job. I'm not optimistic that they will. Politicians are more interested in maintaining an adversarial relationship with the other party than with getting anything done. There is scant incentive to compromise or work together. President Biden went into office deluded into thinking that he could reanimate the old way of doing things, he thought he could cajole Congress into passing a comprehensive immigration bill, when they were only interested in preventing one from passing, ensuring that Trump would have a solid campaign issue. 

We have a huge mess and I don't think we have a big enough broom to sweep it all up.

The Cultists in Nebraska

Trumpism is a cult. I've written about it often. Use the search feature on this blog to find what I have said about the subject. I don't think it's even arguable any longer. But what about Nebraska politics? How does Trumpism translate into electoral politics in Nebraska? 

There are several strands of emotional decision making at work here in Nebraska. One is that all politics are now national. Every office holder, no matter how small in scope, is now judged based on how loyal to, or how vehemently opposed to, one is to Trump. So if one is drinking the Trump Kool-Aid, they're going to be voting for Jim Pillen, despite the fact that he is objectively bad at his job, so over his head that it's pitiful. In a state where property taxes seem to be the enduring issue, Pillen is pushing a culture-war issue, a Constitutional amendment to ban  transgender girls from girls athletics despite it already being illegal in Nebraska, and despite there being no transgender girls trying to compete in girls sports in Nebraska. Pillen made property tax reduction his signature issue four years ago; he then failed to achieve any property tax relief despite his shady math, there's a good chance that he will be re-elected. Why? One reason his his fealty to Trump. 

Even before Trump arrived on the scene Nebraskans reflexively voted Republican. Or at least they have done so for the last 30 years. A lot of this corresponded with the reign of Newt Gingrich in Congress and his crusade to move politics away from bread & butter and toward culture war issues. As the nineties ended Nebraska had a Democratic Governor, Ben Nelson, who went on to serve two terms as Senator, ending his second term in 2012. Since then no Democrat was elected to statewide office in Nebraska. Gingrich's handiwork had done its work. A majority of Nebraska voters, usually around 60%, were convinced that Democrats were out to take their guns, were pushing for abortion up to the moment of birth, and that immigrants were going to take their jobs. In recent years additional culture war issues have come to the forefront, with Democrats painted as communists. They can't comprehend that a typical Nebraska Democrat is a far cry from being a radical leftist, or even a liberal. Most Nebraska Democrats would be considered conservatives on either of the coasts. They have gotten to the point where, in their minds, the worst, most incompetent Republican is preferable to any Democrat. 

Finally there's the rural-urban divide. This has always been an issue in Nebraska politics. Farmers and small town Nebraskans resenting the influence in state government of the senators from Omaha and Lincoln. There's always been a tendency among rural and small town Nebraskans to view "coastal elites", people from Los Angeles and New York City, as not real Americans. Eight years ago, former senator and Nebraska governor Bob Kerrey, when running against Deb Fischer, was attacked for being out of touch simply because he took a job in New York after he left the Senate. This has only gotten worse with Los Angeles and New York representing all that they see as wrong with America and as symbolic of Democratic influence. Any Nebraska political candidate who claims to fight for Nebraska values against "those New York communists" will without a doubt receive rousing applause. 

Maybe this will be the year that enough Nebraskans will open their eyes and vote out the Republicans. In 2024 Deb Fisher only received 53% of the vote. Sure, that was enough to win, but it was down from the 57% percent that she got in her first two elections, and the 62% that Sasse and Ricketts received in their last elections. It's heading in the right direction. In the senate race Ricketts and Osborn are polling the same, but the governor's race polls show Pillen ahead though, even though he's unquestionably a failure as governor. 

So, we'll see. Hopefully enough voters will leave their cult and vote what's best for Nebraska. 

Division

Why is there division? The simple answer is because people disagree about things. People have always disagreed about things and always will disagree about things. Some of those things are inconsequential —who is the best rock band of all time?; who would win a bout between heavyweight boxing champions of different eras?; is pineapple an appropriate topping for pizza? While other disagreements reflect fundamental beliefs about the world — should everyone be treated equally under the law?; are some classes of people worth intrinsically less than others?; should everyone have access to affordable healthcare? The former, minor, disagreements can exist without jeopardizing friendships, how you think about the latter, major disagreements says a lot about the type of person that you are. 

Recently I have seen the claim that divisions among us are somehow caused from some outside source. For years I have seen the finger pointed at "the media"; politicians get the blame as well, the latest was that it was the "shadow government", also known as "the cabal". I'll concede that some media feed off divineness because it gives them something to report on. I'll concede that billionaires love to see us squabbling about petty bullshit because it distracts us from their tax financed empire building. I'll concede that some politicians need to foster discord because it makes them look like they're accomplishing something, that they're fighting for us. But despite my concessions on these points, I believe that divisiveness is simply the result of there being positions for which there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. 

Abortion is a stark example. For most of those who are against abortion it's no less than murder. No amount of compromise by the pro-choice side will convince them that abortion, at any point in the pregnancy, for any reason, is anything other than the killing of a human being. Pro-choice advocates can argue for a woman's bodily autonomy, dangers to women's health is some cases, even pointing out to those with religious objections that The Bible doesn't actually prohibit abortion or equate it with murder, but they won't budge. 

But there are many other areas where there is apparently no compromise. 

Most of the areas where there is a clear black or white, day or night difference involve who deserves simple human rights. One can support border security and vetting of immigrants without advocating for a government agency running rampant in the streets, shooting and killing people, or for the administration arbitrarily canceling legal avenues of attaining citizenship. A sincere argument might be able to be made for banning someone whose male biology presents an unfair advantage competing against female athletes without assuming that transgender people are "pretending" to be something they're not, or are mentally ill. We can support  politicians that push back against the current iteration of corporate capitalism, championing policies that value individuals' health and well-being rather than the bottom line without being tarred as communists. Yet cheerleaders for one "side" are fine with shooting people in the street and breaking up families; they push for making it difficult if not impossible for transgender people to live the lives they choose; they prefer that children starve rather than budget more for food assistance programs. 

That's why there's  division. 

No one is forcing them to believe as they do — no one is forcing us either. We all believe what we do because that's what we want to believe. And I want to be divided from people who devalue human life and prioritize religion or racial purity over people. I have no problem being friends with someone with whom I disagree about property taxes, or term limits, or student loan forgiveness. I do have a problem with you if you support shooting people in the streets who aren't actively threatening harm. I do have a problem with you if you think getting beaten up is an appropriate response for speaking against a politician I do have a problem with you if you're a bigot. 

What's crazy though, is some people have a problem with us for not being okay with beating people exercising First Amendment rights, for not being okay with shooting people in the streets, for not being a bigot. These same people believe that the problem with divisiveness is not so much that it exists, but that we have been persuaded by some outside force to be divided from them. Compromise or consensus isn't the answer for them, but acquiescing to their world view. This is similar to the Trumpist view of bipartisanship — not that both parties come to a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the day, but that the other party bowing to his position. 

There are plenty of my fellow Americans that I am perfectly happy to be divided from. 

Do We Have a King?

On Saturday people across the country, and even in other countries, gathered for the "No Kings" protests. I attended the one here in Lincoln Nebraska for a few hours. Afterwards I spend some time perusing social media to see what "the other side" had to say about them Of course, the fact that the Trumpers, and Trump himself, would downplay, and even misrepresent them, came as no surprise. At the nadir of disgustingness, also no surprise, was the Truth Social post by Trump himself. The post featured a video of The Dotard at the controls of a military jet, which had the words "King Trump" emblazoned on the side, bombing the protesters with shit. Most of the other comments sunk merely to the level of childish taunts. 

The commenters who attempted to explain why the protests were a waste of time tended to focus on the fact that, literally, Trump is not a king. He is not a member of a royal family, nor did he inherit his position. He was elected to it. Variations on the theme included references to July 4th being the real "No King" day, or that we haven't actually had a king since 1776. All of that is true, so why have we, the Trump opposition, latched on to the "No King" label? One of the reasons comes from Trump himself. After inserting himself into the congestion pricing debate in New York, he declared that he was canceling it, and added "The King has spoken". He has also posted pictures of himself wearing a royal crown. Most of us, hopefully all of us, realize that Trump is not a literal king. We are using the term as shorthand for the kind of absolute ruler archetype that Trump is aspiring to become. Even those who rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, while using the language of opposition to a king, were in reality opposing the British parliament, since the actual king was at that time in their history not an absolute monarch, and parliament made the rules. It's shorthand, it's an image, intended to convey our protestation against rule by one man. The Trumpers' attempt at cleverness portrays their ignorance of symbolism and nuance. 

There are a number of other words that have been used to describe the Trump presidency: fascist, dictator, Nazi, authoritarian. I have seen some Trump opponents object to some of these because they aren't completely accurate in painting a picture of the regime. Some Jewish friends have pointed out that Trumpism hasn't yet sunk to the level of depravity of the Nazis in World War II; Fascism has a specific meaning that includes the economic in addition to the political side of things. There are even technical differences between an authoritarian and a dictator. This article lists the differences between the two. In short, while both are essentially one-man rule, an authoritarian relies somewhat on a constitutional structure and a dictator controls all aspects of the state and society. The article presents the differences in more detail; Trump's regime resembled the authoritarian model more closely (although I believe the author has defined "dictator" in a way that only the very extreme cases qualify). I have chosen to characterize Trump as a dictator, rather than an authoritarian, mainly because the word has more impact—doesn't sound as academic—and is more recognizable. 

I have had people argue with me that the fact that Trump was elected disqualifies him from the category of dictator, although it is pretty easy to find dictators who were initially elected but eventually accreted all power to themselves, like Putin in Russia. Others have maintained that the fact that we have been able to hold mass protests like Saturday's, or can publicly criticize the regime means that we aren't a dictatorship. I argue that a dictatorship exists on a continuum—not very dictator starts by going full Stalin—but that it builds and gets steadily worse. Yes, the protests were allowed to happen, and our social media accounts haven't been shut down, but the attacks on the First Amendment are already happening—universities are being threatened, former high-ranking officials are being indicted, and the arrests have started with non-citizens. It's only a matter of time. 

In my opinion the defining characteristic of dictatorship in Trump's second term is the fact that he is unilaterally making decisions that are either should be decided jointly with Congress, or are Congress's sole purview. This is entirely separate from the issue of whether what he is doing is beneficial or is harmful for the country, but goes to the question of whether he has the authority to do what he does on his own. This blog post of mine outlines in detail why I think we are now under a dictatorship. But whether you call him a dictator, an authoritarian, a fascist, a Nazi, or a king, the bottom line is that he is acting illegally and extra-constitutionally. He is making unilateral decisions and claiming that, as president, he "can do whatever he wants". This is not how a representative democracy works, not how a constitutional republic works. 

The defenses of Trump have fallen into two main camps. One type of Trumper is fully on board with his policies and is willing to accept anything that puts those policies in effect. A Trumper friend the other day rationalized the blowing up of boats alleged to be smuggling drugs to the United States by stating how reprehensible drug dealing was. I don't disagree with his assessment of drug dealers, but there are several illegal things happening with these attacks. We are using the military in what is essentially a law enforcement capacity. Trump has declared the drug cartels, not just a criminal conspiracy, but a terrorist group supported by the Venezuelan government. We have not be shown any evidence that these boats are running drugs, or in any way connected with drug cartels—we are summarily executing people from a country with whom we are not at war and have not been accused of, let alone convicted of, a crime. We also already have a method to stop drugs coming in by boat: the Coast Guard stops and searches them, and if carrying drugs, subjects them to the legal system. Yet my friend believes the end justifies the means. The other camp believes that the actions that Trump has taken are legal, and believe his assertion that he can do whatever he wants. These people truly believe that the president has the authority to take whatever action he deems fit. They don't understand, and don't want to understand the constitutional nuances. 

So yes, if we are speaking figuratively, we have a monarch wannabe. We have a president who craves the unrestricted power that the absolute monarchs, exercising the divine right of kings, had once upon a time. That's why we march.

What Do We Focus On?

A good friend of mine often (accurately) points out how the latest Trump social media blow up is a distraction. I agree to a point. Trump does do and say things with the express purpose of getting us to forget about the last unethical, illegal, unconstitutional thing that he did. He says things just to piss off his opponents that he has no intention of following through on. There are insignificant blips on the political radar which are unworthy of our attention. However, there are so many unethical, illegal, unconstitutional things going on, all at the same time, it seems like everything is a distraction from everything else. 

Steve Bannon articulated the "flooding the zone" strategy. Throw so many outrages at people, all at once, and keep on doing it, so that no one can focus on all of them. And if there is any strategy coming out of the White House, this is it. What do you want to rage against? What do you want to protest? ICE? The War against Iran? DOGE? Tariffs? Corruption and self-dealing? Epstein Files? Bypassing Congress? Ignoring court orders? Attacking press freedoms and free speech? Retribution against political opponents? Destroying part of the White House? Do we ration some of our anger for his recurring claim that he actually won the 2020 election or that he is thinking about running again in 2028?

The other side of the coin is the short attention span and lack of intellectual depth of the typical voter. So many people would rather mock Trump's spray tan, his weird hairdo, his clumsy dance moves, his cheap suit, his weight, his gifts of ill-fitting shoes, his mispronouncing words, or his stupid insults than any of the dangerous actions he and his administration are taking.  And so many of us who oppose Trump hardly comprehend the danger he poses to the Constitutional order, to democracy (or to the Republic, if you prefer) and to the nation itself and see him as nothing more than a bumbling clown who simply says offensive things. 

He is a bumbling clown who says offensive things, but a bumbling clown who has a cadre of loyalists who will make his rambling retribution fantasies and destruction of democracy a reality. 

Follow The Money (Or the meme coin)

If you believe that Trump cares about anything other than enriching himself, you have not been paying attention. This attribute goes back to way before he even thought about running for president. 

It's not exactly new information that he bankrupted several casinos, lost money on several big real estate ventures, and started up numerous businesses (Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, Trump University, Trump Magazine...) that failed. 

He's infamous for refusing to pay contractors what they were owed on many of these catastrophes. In fact, despite running what should have been successful businesses into the ground, he always managed to make sure he got paid. Without getting overly technical, Trump did this by hiring accountants who knew the tax code inside and out. It was extremely rare that Trump was investing his own money in these endeavors. Set up an LLC, take out a loan, list himself as a consultant or advisor with a guaranteed fee, and even if the business goes under, he still received his check. The loss and loan default is against the LLC, not Trump personally, and as a bonus, the loss flows through to its owners, including Trump, reducing his tax liability. None of this is illegal. I saw similar shenanigans on a smaller scale when I worked in Tax Incentives, but it illustrates that Trump wasn't a good businessman, i.e. someone who grows a business, providing jobs for a community while providing a return on investment to shareholders, but someone who was extremely adept at self dealing. 

Why would we believe that this basic fact of his personality would somehow disappear when he became president?

Trump's financial disclosure report for 2025, his first year back as president, was made public recently. It showed income of over $2 billion, triple what he reported for the previous year. (Who knows how accurate his reporting even is?) About half of that was from cryptocurrency. Here is a quote from an NPR interview with Eric Lipton of the New York Times:

"The two biggest chunks come from his meme coin, which he launched three days before his inauguration. It was a kind of a collectible that surged in value initially, and the people who quickly invested made a boatload of money, but then it crashed, and hundreds of thousands of people then lost money.

Trump made hundreds of millions of dollars from that gamble that he asked people to follow on him on. And many of his followers ended up as losers. The second big chunk of revenue comes from World Liberty Financial, a company that he and his sons started in October of 2024.

That company is now one of the biggest issuers of what's called stablecoins in the world, and it was bought secretly and — half of it — by the United Arab Emirates in January of 2025, just as he was being sworn in to be president.

And the UAE separately has invested $2 billion into its stablecoin, making it one of the biggest stablecoin issuers in the world. So, I mean, the it is really intensely tied up with a foreign government. And the president is profiting from that foreign government's investment in his own business at the same time as he is acting as commander in chief and working with that foreign government to negotiate a war in the Middle East."

I admit that there's a lot about cryptocurrency, starting with Bitcoin and including every scam by some guy with a laptop, that I don't understand. But this sounds a lot like a pump and dump — like was portrayed in the movie Boiler Room — convince people that worthless stock is a great investment. Trump made a ridiculous amount of money selling...nothing. The meme coin, if it ever had any value, certainly doesn't now. All it accomplished was providing a cash pipeline to Trump from credulous investors.  Or maybe they weren't all that credulous. Doesn't it seem like a stable coin without any real value would be the perfect conduit for bribes? What value are the "investors" receiving if not the access any large donor would expect? The opportunities for money laundering aren't insignificant either. 

"......there are new real estate deals in the Middle East, in Vietnam, in Romania, in the Maldives. He's struck a bunch of deals that include some deals that are actually with foreign governments, like the government of Saudi Arabia and in Qatar as well.

And then there are, as you mentioned, settlements from lawsuits and that are being paid to him from media companies. And there's also money in there from Melania, from Jeff Bezos and Amazon for the documentary. I mean, there's just — it's quite a crazy array of sources of revenue going to a sitting president.

...there's nothing like this in American history."

I'm not sure if Trump is donating his presidential salary as he did during his first term, but his $450,000 salary is peanuts compared to what he's raking in from what amounts to influence peddling. A lot of hot air has been exchanged about insider trading, and how stock trades by Congress should be banned. All of that pales in comparison to what is being done by Trump. 

"...the big question here is, if Mr. Trump was not president, could he or would he have made the same amount of money that he did?

It's hard to imagine that if he were not president that there would — that his meme coin or — it would be as profitable as it has been, or that there would have been the scale of investment in World Liberty Financial and the stablecoin.

It is — it seems as if his status as president is intimately intertwined with the success of those companies. And, I mean, the fact that he launched the meme coin as they were gathering in an auditorium in D.C. three days before his inauguration for what was called the Crypto Ball — it was a bunch of crypto executives and administration — soon-to-be administration officials there to celebrate his inauguration.

And that's the night he launched it. And it was like, follow me as I lead the world. These things are so intertwined, I think it's hard to imagine he would have made as much money. He's never made this much money in his entire life as he's made in this one year. So I think that's part of your answer right there.

The pay-to-pardon scheme that Trump has going has also become a lucrative income stream. Anyone with a few million lying around can get a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Not-So-Free card from Trump. 

Let's not forget all his shady stock trades. From Democracy Now:

"...he purchased as much as $5 million in SpaceX bonds shortly before he signed a new space policy that could benefit Elon Musk and his company. In total, Trump bought up to $250 million in stocks in August, including an investment of up to $25 million in Meta, the parent company of Facebook. Such stock trading by a sitting president is unprecedented. ABC recently reported Trump made 21,000 securities trades during his first year back in office. By contrast, Joe Biden made a total of 13 trades during his entire term. In related news, on Thursday, Trump honored SpaceX founder Elon Musk and other tech executives at a White House science summit."

From The New York Times:

I"t is hardly the only issue to arise from having a businessman serve as president. The president’s family business, the Trump Organization, has also capitalized on Mr. Trump’s popularity in certain parts of the world, licensing the Trump name to properties in countries that are crucial to U.S. foreign policy interests, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Those two deals alone generated more than $14 million for Mr. Trump last year, the filing shows."

With Trump, if you want to know the answer to why anything is being done, just follow the money. 

Nebraskans Cheering The Nuking Of California

“And again, remember, with the war it's just artificial, it's a little bit high [referring to gas prices]. It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city. Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. That's [this is] a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over very soon. It's essentially almost over with."

One of the things that irritate me to no end is when words are taken out of context and used to attack someone. There's an anti-Lynne Walz ad going around which quotes in writing an ally of hers from when she was a State Senator says "I will burn this session to the ground" — metaphorically of course. The Senator was making the point that she would do whatever it took to prevent a harmful bill from being passed. However the voiceover quotes her as saying that she threatened to burn down the state capitol building, which is, of course, not the same thing. It's irritating and infuriating when the red hats do it, it's irritating and disappointing when people with whom I share political views do it. What's been going around social media this past week is the claim that Trump, while speaking in Grand Island, either encouraged Iran to bomb Los Angeles and San Diego or said that bombing Los Angeles and San Diego was a small price to pay. I maintain that his words are being taken out of context and interpreted incorrectly.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, or even follow me on Facebook, you know that I am far from a Trump supporter. I regularly write about how dangerous he is, how incompetent he is, how he is essentially ruling as a dictator. I'm writing this because I believe in accuracy, and that there are plenty of things to criticize Trump about without creating issues that aren't there.

FactCheck.org posted an analysis of Trump's remarks on their website. (Quotes from that article will be in this fontI had posted a short statement n my Facebook page as well. It's my opinion that the context doesn't support the conclusion that Trump was encouraging Iran to bomb Los Angeles and San Diego or that he said that bombing Los Angeles and San Diego was a small price to pay.

Trump is one of the worst public speakers that I have ever heard. He rambles & changes course in the middle of what I loosely call his thoughts. His cult says they love him because he says what he means, but then have to explain that what we heard isn’t really what he meant. Part of the problem is that they’ll excuse anything, another part of the problem is that he makes no effort to speak clearly and concisely. Most presidents employ speechwriters who will take the president's thoughts and craft them into something concise and coherent. Trump thinks he knows better. He thinks he's a great extemporaneous speaker. He's not so great at reading a prepared speech either. The goal of reading a prepared speech is to act like you're not reading! Trump appears like he's a seeing the speech for the first time and stumbles through as if he's a remedial reader. That's the problem (as it always is) with Trump. Even when he's not lying he has no ability to express himself clearly.

"While his wording is confusing, a more plausible interpretation is that he meant the war would prevent Iran from posing a threat to U.S. cities, and higher gas prices are a small sacrifice to make. He’s made versions of those points before, using similar language."

I believe that it's the more plausible interpretation because of the context. He starts off by saying “And again, remember, with the war it's just artificial, it's a little bit high" — referring to oil prices. He follows up with "It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe." This is a point that he and his cult have made repeatedly, that high oil prices are the price we need to pay to keep us safe. It's a separate issue whether that's true or not. It's not obvious that Iran is a threat to us, or that they are building a nuclear weapon. And of course high gas prices under Biden was a huge problem to them in 2024 — so much so that it was the excuse many gave for voting for Trump. Let's not forget the whole "Peace President Schtick".

Nonetheless, Trump has been consistent in his messaging that high gas prices are temporary and the necessary result of protecting the nation from an Iranian threat. He said this on September 28th: “The one thing already has happened is, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” he said in the Oval Office on Sept. 28. “That’s a very big thing, because if you want to see turmoil and a travesty, let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon. I’m not only talking about Israel and big parts of the Middle East, but let them hit us with a nuclear weapon.” Note his use of the wording "let them". Contextually, it means "if it happens", not "I am allowing it to happen". 

Trump's next phrase, the one that has been consistently taken out of context is "They can take out a city. Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.". And out of context it sounds terrible. It's as if he's telling Iran: go ahead and "take out" these cities. See the quote above from FactCheck.org regarding his previous use of the phrase. I have seen this phrase quoted over and over, mostly without the lead in phrase about gas prices, which causes it to mean something completely different than the context suggests. And the following phrase "That's a very small price to pay, and it's going to be over very soon. It's essentially almost over with." which, without the initial phrase “And again, remember, with the war it's just artificial, it's a little bit high" it sounds like he's saying that the destruction of two American cities is a small price to pay.

My conclusion is that Trump was justifying the high cost of oil by claiming that (1) It was temporary and (2) It was a necessary price to pay for national security and invoked the image of Iran hypothetically destroying American cities to make his point that the war was all about protecting the American people.

All bullshit, but consistent bullshit.

The bigger issue in my view was the cheering that accompanied his phrase "Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego". Trump may not have meant it as the destruction of two (liberal) American cities being a small price to pay, but the crowd sure thought he did. And they cheered for it. A reliable applause line in any political race in Nebraska is the demonization of people from New York and California. Bob Kerrey, a former Senator and Governor who grew up in Nebraska, was a business owner, was a Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient, who lost a leg in war, was vilified because he took a job in New York. I imagine if I had ever run for office the prime thing used against me would be that I grew up in New York City — never mind that I have lived here since 1981. But cheering for nuclear annihilation of fellow Americans? I guess that's just the other side of "Nebraska Nice".

Update:

Someone I briefly engaged with on social media claimed that Trump repeated the same remarks the next day (actually two days later) "proving" that he DID mean it. Mean what exactly? That he was saying that the destruction of Los Angeles and San Diego is a small price to pay? I don't think so.

Here's his quote from his rally in Texas: “Just as I promised, I am ensuring that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, oil prices are a little” high but will come down as soon as the war ends. You want to see trauma? You want to see problems? And I said it the other day, let them hit a missile into San Diego or Los Angeles on the way. You want to see a horror show? Let them hit San Diego. Let them hit Los Angeles, you want to see some bad things happen? You want see a country in free fall? We’re not going to let that happen. We protect our cities. We protect our country. We’re not letting that happen.”

I stand by my comments that Trump was not suggesting that Iran "taking out" Los Angeles. He is addressing what he believes is unwarranted complaining about high fuel prices, maintaining that American cities are at risk of an attack by Iran if he doesn't pursue the war against Iran. His reasoning is bullshit, but he's not saying what many people are saying he's saying. 

Monopoly Money?

We've heard this song before. Once again Trump is promising to send people money. 

The latest, $500 to people supposedly overcharged on "Obamacare" user fees during, you guessed it, the Biden administration. The first thing I asked myself when I heard this was "What's an Obamacare User Fee?". I briefly had subsidized insurance through the ACA Marketplace in 2016 and was never charged a fee. Mainly because there wasn't one, not on individuals anyway. Insurance companies were charged a fee based on a percentage of the premiums that were collected. The fees were supposed to be used to defray the costs of running the program. Theoretically the costs of these fees could (and probably were) passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums, but I doubt any detailed forensic accounting has been done to determine how much each individual was overcharged, if it all. 

"Obamacare", The ACA, despite popular misconceptions, is not a health plan, is not an insurance plan, but is a matrix of connected laws regulating the health and health insurance industries. You can't but "Obamacare Insurance". Some insurance companies offer individual health insurance to individuals through a government-regulated "marketplace". Premiums are subsidized based on reported income. When filing their federal income tax return, an adjustment is made based on the reported income's deviation from the reported income. The purpose of the promised $500 checks is twofold: (1) To serve as a bribe to wavering voters and (2) To undermine the effectiveness of the ACA — an ongoing Republican and Trumpist goal. The second point ties into the announcement last week that a half million people would lose their ACA subsidized insurance due to murky claims of fraud (by insurance brokers, not individuals) with no public accounting of how this figure was arrived at. 

This isn't the first promise of free money that Trump promised to distribute. The $5,000 "DOGE Dividend" never materialized. Despite promises of the inaccurately named "Department of Government Efficiency" to root out waste, corruption, and fraud, it managed to achieve little more than chaos. It illegally eliminated programs and fired thousands of government employees. It's money saving efforts, when not completely fictional, were miniscule. We never got those checks.

Next was the "Trump Dividend" ostensibly a $2,000 rebate (or $5,000, depending on his mood) that supposedly represented all the extra billions (sometimes trillions) of dollars that the Treasury was raking in due to Trump's tariff hallucinations. The Supreme Court ruled that some of his tariffs were illegal and companies that paid them received refunds. But not individuals. Now we get another promise of free money — this time predicated upon the assumption that Republicans retain control of Congress — $5,000 to every adult. As much as my household could use another $10,000, I'd rather see the Republicans lose power in November. 

What's the authority for these dividends and rebates? The stimulus checks that went out at the end of the first Trump and in the Biden administration were debated and eventually approved by Congress. The Tariff Divided was debated by Congress, but went nowhere. Trump gets to claim he's for giving us money while blaming Congress for not doing it. 

Aside from authority, where is this money coming from? As of the end of August the annual deficit was close to $2 Trillion, with one month left to be calculated in the fiscal year 2026. Here's the annual deficits through the Trump and Biden years in trillions of dollars. 

• 2016 0.59
• 2017 0.67
• 2018 0.78
• 2019 0.98
• 2020 3.13 (Covid)
• 2021 2.77 (Covid)
• 2022 1.38
• 2023 1.70
• 2024 1.83
• 2025 1.78

A deficit means that we're spending more than we take in. Interest payments make up around half of that annual deficit. If we're in such dire shape fiscally, why not divert some of that we vacuumed up in tariffs and saved through DOGE into reducing the deficit. Maybe because it's not as much as we were told and the almost $2 trillion shortfall already takes into account these supposed tariff trillions and DOGE savings. 

What a bunch of bullshit.

Billy Bob And The Winning Team

“Billy Bob in f**king Red Cloud, Nebraska, who lives next door to the f**king Trump store as you pull into town and is waving the Trump flag … all he knows is he’s like on the winning team...He’s been so effective at taking Billy Bob and his wife Mary Jane or Mary Jo and telling them, look we’re winning. You’re on the winning team. And that’s all they care about, because their lives probably suck so f**king...”

This is a recording purportedly by Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn. Sure, it sounds bad. It sounds like it's another "basket of deplorables" moment. But is it? Where's the lie? 

Politics these days isn't about who has the better ideas, about who is better prepared to lead, who better represents their constituents, it's about which team is "winning". That's right. The debate over who is best suited to lead is about as nuanced as which college football team you root for on Saturday. And just as a true football fan will support their team no matter what, partisan "fans" will vote for their "team" no matter what. It doesn't matter how wide the gap between campaign promises and reality is, how bad their personal circumstances are, the partisan "fans" will ignore the evidence of their own eyes and convince themselves that they are "winning" even when, by any objective measurement, they are losing. 

When voters treat politics like a sports competition, partisan identification becomes part of one's personality, similar to religious faith and just as immune to being talked out of it. Partisans will believe any horrible thing that they're told about the other team and reflexively disbelieve anything negative about their guys. This is why political ads lack any substance and are usually little more than mud slinging. 

This is why I don't find this quote, allegedly by Osborn, to be shocking at all. He's going down he same road that many of us go down when we identify Trumpism as a cult. Prices are going up, and with gas and diesel prices likely to keep going up, it's going to get worse. Tariffs are screwing Nebraska's farmers even more than the rest of us. We're in a war that is causing prices to escalate even further. Amid all of this, Billy Bob and Mary Jo, who railed against the inflation that spiked during the Biden administration, who insisted that high gas prices (and eggs too I guess) were the reason they were voting for Trump, who cheered his declaration that he wouldn't start any wars, are now making excuses for all the failures. They have changed their priorities because Trump told them to. They have redefined "winning" to mean whatever Trump says it is. And will change what they think is important the next time Trump does. 

Were Osborn's remarks crude? Sure they were, but they were honest. 

I thought that was what MAGA valued in a politician.

The President of Peace

Trump campaigned on keeping us out of "forever wars" and was a harsh critic of our involvement in foreign conflicts. I agreed with him  — one of the few areas where I thought he got it right. One of the recurring problems with American military adventurism is mission creep. We go in with a stated goal: overthrow a dictator who we see as a threat (Iraq) or his harboring factions that attacked us (Afghanistan — even tough Bin Laden turned out to be hiding in Pakistan, our ostensible ally), achieve that goal relatively quickly, and then stumble around without a clear plan on what to do next. We ended up spending 10 years in Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan propping up corrupt and ineffective governments. Iraq has become a virtual ally of Iran and the government we overthrew in 2001 is back in power in Afghanistan. 

Trump, jealous that President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, wanted one of his own. He has been lobbying public opinion and the government of Norway since he was re-elected, inserting himself in conflicts around the world, claiming that he has ended eight wars — spoiler alert — he has not! He has even created an organization called the Board of Peace, although it appears to be just another grift, collecting billions while accomplishing nothing. So we could all be forgiven for thinking that, despite all the other harmful things Trump is doing and will do, getting us into another war wasn't among them. 

Surprise!

Let's not delude ourselves about Iran. They are not the good guys. They are a theocracy. There are elections for civil officials, but the real power is held by the religious leaders and the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards. (And guess what? They're republic! It's right in the name" The Islamic Republic of Iran. What makes them a republic? The fact that they're not a monarchy. Which they were when they were our allies.) They assert dictatorial control over their own people and do not hesitate to throw them in prison or shoot them in the streets for protesting. Sure, that's terrible, but it's hardly unique. I'd venture to say that a significant percentage of nations abuse their own people in a similar fashion. Our own ally, Israel, arguably treats its Palestinian population much worse. An early justification for attacking Iran was regime change: overthrowing its leadership and encouraging the people to rise up and take over the government. Why is it our business and if it is, why aren't we doing the same to North Korea? We don't hear too much about that these days. 

Iran doesn't confine its depredations just to its own territory. They bankroll a network of allies in neighboring countries; Hamas in the Occupied Territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as militias in Iraq and Syria. Our military fought against some of these proxies in Iraq. They stir up trouble in every country where they have a presence. An argument could be made that their actions destabilize the region, but our allies in the region seem perfectly capable of defending themselves. Why is it our job to personally fix the problem? I don't think it is, but it's probably the strongest argument for any kind of intervention.

Finally there's the issue that gets talked about the most: the possibility of Iran building its own nuclear weapons. Iran maintains that it doesn't want to build nuclear weapons. Maybe they're lying, but what if they did? Do we imagine that they would initiate mutually assured destruction by using a nuclear weapon against Israel or Saudi Arabia? How do we treat problem nations who have nuclear weapons versus those who don't? Libya was bombed, their dictator killed and the country left in an ungovernable shambles after they gave up their nuclear ambitions. North Korea, on the other hand, has nuclear weapons, demonstrates their ability to use them, and is belligerent toward adversaries. Why? Because they have nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't Iran want that level of security? 

Previous presidents, ones who actually listened to their advisors, knew that war with Iran was a hopeless endeavor. Whatever perceived threats exist today have existed for 50 years. The best course of action was diplomacy, which is what was accomplished during the Obama Administration. Iran agreed to abandon any nuclear ambitions (which they may not have even had) in exchange for a loosening of sanctions and the release of frozen funds. China, Russia, Germany, The United Kingdom and the European Union in addition to the United States and Iran were signatories to the agreement. There was no sign that Iran was reneging in the agreement. Trump, in his first term, unilaterally reneged on it however, reinstating economic sanctions. It is quite probable that any action that Iran took to move toward building nuclear weapons can be traced to Trump's breaking the agreement. 

So, the possibility of an Iranian nuke, which it was unlikely to use became an emergency that had to be addressed by assassinating its Supreme Leader and others in leadership positions as well as extensive bombing of the country's infrastructure. This is where having advisors who weren't yes-men would have been handy. Or having a president who made decisions based on facts and intelligence rather than gut feelings. Why shock and awe didn't work is that Iran's leaders just don't give a damn how much their people suffer in a war and are so fanatical that they just keep on hitting back. They're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, biting away as his arms and legs are sliced off. And of course it didn't take the world's largest army to close the Strait of Hormuz, strangling the world's oil supply (and now the Houthis are cutting off the Mandab Strait on the other side of the Arabian peninsula). After all this, we have accomplished nothing and have caused energy prices to spike. 

A discussion of Trump's actions wouldn't be complete without reference to the cultish behavior of his supporters. The very people who were up in arms about inflation and high gas prices during Biden's presidency and claimed that was why they were voting for Trump were now leading the cheers for this unnecessary war and saying that high gas prices were worth it in order to keep a nuke out of the hands of our enemy, Iran. Oh yeah, they were against war back then too. 

But hey, Trump is definitely focussed on the right priorities: destroying the Kennedy Center if he can't have his name on it, building a ballroom and an arch, and kicking reporters out of the White House. 

Nebraska Tax Incentives in Political Ads

Governor Pillen is accusing Candidate Walz of supporting giving data centers millions of tax dollars in handouts. The ad references LB 1107 from 2020. LB 1107, also called the ImagiNE Act, was the major statute authorizing Nebraska tax incentives after the previous statute expired.

There are several tax incentives programs in Nebraska. The largest are the Nebraska Advantage Act (NAA) and ImagiNE (a relatively new program). There are a also smaller programs like Microenterprise (for businesses with five or fewer full-time equivalent employees) and Nebraska Historic Tax Credits (NHTC),for rehabilitating and renovating buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, but the bulk of tax incentives go to companies participating in NAA and ImagiNE. Before I retired from the Department of Revenue in 2025 I worked with tax incentives. From 2016-2022 I was an initial reviewer on NAA tax refund claims as well as doing preliminary audit work for new applicants. From 2023-2025 I also reviewed the work of the initial examiners and approved claims for payment. I had little to with ImagiNE, since claims were just starting to come in a few months before I retired, but I was familiar with the basics of the program. 

The goal of NAA is to reward companies who do two things: (1) Increase employment compensation in Nebraska and (2) Increase investment in Nebraska. There are multiple tiers within the program — each tier has a different benchmark for how much additional employment (measured by total compensation) and investment is required. For example, Tier 1 projects require $1 million in additional investment and 10 additional Full Time Equivalents (FTE's); Tier 2 requires $3 million in additional investment and 30 additional FTE's. The requirements increase with each tier. There are sub-tiers for large data centers and a tier for investment only. 

The year that a company applies is called "the base year". The applicant must show increases in compensation and investment compared to the base year. In order to determine what is an the increase a "qualification audit" is done to determine what the increase in compensation and investment actually is. A preliminary review of the applicant's calculations is done by an examiner. The applicant provides a list of employees and investment in the base year as well as the years that they believe they have met the requirements of the tier in which they are applying. The examiner is basically checking the math. If it adds up, an auditor takes over and examines the applicant's books to determine whether they have met the requirements for an incentive project. Once the auditor approves the project, the applicant can now begin earning credits.

For most tiers, the entitlement period (the number of years in which the project owner can earn and use tax credits) is seven years. The amount of the tax credits available for use is calculated using a standard formula. The incentives company can then use the tax credits earned to receive a tax refund. The refund is most commonly used for a refund of sales and use taxes, but also can be used to refund payroll taxes or corporate income taxes. For sales and use taxes, the refund can only be for tax paid at the location listed in their incentives application (for example sales tax paid for a corporate retreat at a hotel, or tax paid at an out-of-state location are not eligible). Once the seven-year entitlement period ends the incentives company no longer earns credits, but there is a "carryover period" of varying length when they can continue to use credits. 

The incentives company is required to meet the benchmarks for their tier every year within the entitlement period. If they do not meet the requirements in any of the seven years they will be charged back 1/7 of the refunds previously received; future refund claims will be reduced by 1/7 for each year the benchmarks are not achieved. 

For example: Company XYZ has an incentive project with an entitlement period of 2012-2018. They have a carryover period from 2019-2023. This means that they are earning credits from 2012-2018. They can use the credits if the tax was accrued any time from 2012-2023, even if they submit their claim after December 31, 2023. (There is a three-year statute of limitations for filing sales tax refunds, unless a request for extension is filed — these extensions are routinely granted)

A common criticism of tax incentives is that we're simply giving away money. I personally worked many claims for several million dollars each in sales tax refunds. The Tyson plant in Lexington received close to $16 million in benefits over the life of their project. (this is publicly available information). The goal, however, is to attract businesses to the state, and to encourage businesses already here to expand their operations. In many cases, if we didn't have a generous incentive program, these corporations would locate elsewhere. The tax refunds are viewed as taxes that the state wouldn't have collected anyway if there had been no incentive program. Of course it's not perfect. It's no secret that companies which benefitted from years of huge tax refunds left the state after their ability to claim refunds ended. (Tyson again) A certain amount of gaming the system occurred as well. Since credits were calculated based on an increase in compensation and investment from a base year, sometimes the base year that was chosen was an unusually slow year where the "increase" was just a return to normal. 

When the Nebraska Advantage Act expired there was no doubt that something was going to take its place. At the time the Unicameral was debating what would go into the bill, the public resistance to large data centers had not yet surfaced. The Nebraska Advantage Act had a tier for large data centers, and there were already several that were receiving credits. Millions of dollars in credits. The new incentives bill, LB 1107, would continue the ability of large data centers to receive tax refunds as part of incentives programs. Unlike the culture war issues that so often distract our elected officials, this was a largely bipartisan bill. It passed with 41 votes and with Governor Ricketts' signature. Then Senator Lynne Walz was one of the "yes" votes. *

While it's true that Lynne Walz supported a bill that could result in millions of dollars in tax dollars to be refunded to large data centers, this was merely a continuation of the status quo. It had broad support. It's reasonable to assume that had Pillen been governor at the time, and not Ricketts, he would have signed the bill as well. Pillen is attempting to project current outrage against data centers six years into the past, when such outrage had not reached a boiling point. His ad his dishonest. No surprise there.

* One of the biggest changes in 2020 LB 1107 was that it was jointly administered by the Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Department of Economic Development (DED) instead of wholly by DOR as with previous incentives programs. This change meant that initial approval of a company to participate in an incentives program bypassed DOR's rigorous preliminary audit process. Applicants were able to begin receiving benefits before an initial full audit was completed. 

 

Lincoln Ballot Measures For This November

Since I wrote this the Lincoln City Council determined that these measures did not meet the deadline for putting the measures on the November ballot; they would be on the May 2027 ballot instead. The Nebraska Attorney General filed suit to compel the City Council to place the measures on the ballot in November. A Nebraska Supreme Court judge (not the whole court) gave Lincoln until Monday August 31st to respond or to agree to place it on the November ballot. 

Last week I wrote an article about term limits where I lay out my opposition to them, despite the visceral appeal that they have for most people. Republican operatives just got a petition certified that would limit the terms of Lincoln City Council members, setting the stage for it to appear on the ballot in November. In all likelihood, it will pass, just as the mayoral term limits passed a few years ago. As is my habit, I asked myself "why?" when I saw this come up. 

The first thing to understand is that isn't an effort by a group of citizens who want to improve the functioning of local government. On the contrary, it's sponsored by right wing partisans frustrated by their inability to elect Republicans in Nebraska's second-largest city. Republicans in the legislature have gotten a constitutional amendment on the ballot to increase their term limit from two terms to three. 

The sponsors of Lincoln's term limit petition have also gotten one other change approved for a vote of the people: a change in when Lincoln holds its elections. Currently Lincoln votes in odd numbered years, when statewide lections occur in even numbered years. As part of that change, the mayor and district city councilors elected in 2027 will only serve for one year, which will count as a term for term limit purposes. At-large councilors elected in 2025 will have their term extended one year to 2030. How this is supposed to make for better government I fail to comprehend. Maybe they think that there is more Republican turnout in years when there is a presidential election, which the mayoral and district city council elections will align with if this passes. 

A third petition that has not yet had its signatures certified allows Lancaster County residents in the 3 mile buffer around city limits to vote in Lincoln elections. (They are already affected by Lincoln zoning regulations, but pay no Lincoln taxes). If I had to guess, I'd wager that many of these voters are Republicans. It has since been certified.

I'm against term limits in principle, but I'm really against this one. Don't let your gut opposition to perpetual office holders lead you to support this Republican con job. 

We're A Constitutional Republic, Not A...

It doesn't matter what the subject is, the right wing likes to remind us that we're a constitutional republic. The problem isn't that we're not a constitutional republic, we are. We're a republic and we have a constitution. It's that they don't seem to truly understand what makes a republic a republic, or that some of the features of how our government is set up are not requirements of a republic, nor is our constitution the only way a constitution can be written. 

A response to any mention of our nation as a democracy is probably the most common scenario where we hear "constitutional republic". Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, and "democracy" is shorthand for "democratic republic". But what is a republic?

Simply put, a republic is "not a monarchy". Republics can take many forms, as long as they aren't monarchies. Not every republic, however, is a democracy. The People's Republic of China, for example, certainly isn't a democracy. On the other hand, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy, but isn't a republic — it's a constitutional monarchy. A republic may or may not have a constitution, it may be a federal republic, or a unitary nation. The United States of America is a democracy because we vote, a representative democracy because we vote for our leaders. Rightists tend to conflate democracy with direct democracy, where there aren't any representatives — they call this "mob rule", not inaccurately. 

The United States of America is also a federal republic, i.e. composed of subnational units, the states, that retain a level of sovereignty. American states are not simply administrative divisions, but derive from our pre-independence days when every colony was a distinct entity. During the Articles of Confederation era the thirteen states were closer to independent countries, bound together by treaty obligations, than parts of a common nation. I've heard people argue that our federal structure is a necessary part of our status as a constitutional republic. France, for example, is a unitary nation. The French provinces are simply administrative units, not unlike the counties in an American state, and do not have subnational sovereignty. Federalism is an attribute of our constitutional structure, but is by no means a requirement for a constitutional republic. The origins of the founding states as distinct colonies with their own unique histories was recognized as the Constitution was drafted, with the various state representatives still viewing themselves as representing sovereign states with varying interests and priorities. This led to a framework that included equal legislative representation for states in parallel to representation by population, which in turn influenced how the president was chosen. 

Speaking of how the president is chosen, I often hear Electoral College proponents cite the fact that we're a constitutional republic as a reason to have a method of presidential election like the electoral college. Of course our constitution requires the Electoral College, but that was the choice of the members of the Constitutional Convention, not an inevitable path that constrained them to create it. There are other ways that nations choose their chief executive. 

Although I have heard people claim that we're a republic and not a democracy for 40 years, it's definitely picked up in the last ten years or so. An ignorance of what the terms mean is part of it, but why the vehemence in the way they state them? My theory is that the those who most vociferously defend that position are part of a demographic has been seeing their dominance steadily erode. The same people who are making it harder to vote and gerrymandering their way to permanent power. They are embracing the anti-democratic aspects of the Constitution in an effort to hold onto to power and influence. To them "democracy" means letting people that they feel are inferior rule over them. 

It's more than just an ignorant slogan.

Term Limits

I don't think it's controversial to state that most people, at least in theory, support term limits. We look at superannuated Senators, the last two presidents, and many other elected officials, hanging on to power year after year, term after term, and think it would be a good idea to rotate in some fresh blood. It seems like a no-brainer! But it's my contention that the problem of elected office as a career is caused not by a  lack of term limits, but by an ignorant electorate. 

How often do we hear a political ad without questioning what we're hearing? Sure, we may dismiss what a candidate for the "other" party is saying simply because they're the "other guys", but do we ever question our candidate's ads? Do we ever dig into the claims and determine whether there is any truth to them? Recently ads for Republican Governor Jim Pillen have been claiming that his opponent, Democrat Lynne Walz, has a plan to automatically raise property taxes every year. When I first heard this, my bullshit detector was in the red — I couldn't imagine that any candidate for office in Nebraska, where property taxes are the hot button issue, would have any such plan. After I watched the ad a few times I noticed that there were several legislative bills and a Nebraska Examiner article listed in small type in the corner as the source of the claims in the ad. I found the text of the bills and the article and was not surprised to find that they did not support the assertion that Walz had a plan to raise property taxes. Walz was the chairperson of the legislature's Education Committee. The bills the ad referenced changed the formula for state aid to school districts. She was quoted in the article as opposing the 3% cap on school district budget increases as too low. Doing that research required nothing more than an internet connection and about 20 minutes of my time. 

On the other side, there is an ad where it is alleged that Republican Senator Pete Ricketts, who is running for re-election, saw his net worth increase by 29%. Of course the conclusion that we are meant to reach is that he achieved this by nefarious means. A 12 second Google search reveals that he has benefitted from increased valuation of his Charles Schwab stock, which he received due to the sale of TDAmeritrade, which was owned by his father. He also has a stake in many family owned businesses and other assets. He's a rich guy. He owns stuff that increases in value. The fact that he's richer than he was last year doesn't make him a crook. 

As informed voters we should be investigating political claims to the best of our ability, not just accepting whatever the candidates or their campaigns say about themselves or their opponents. 

The influence of money in politics isn't a surprise. Every quarter we hear how many millions the candidates raised, and there's ongoing arguments about "dark money", political action committees (PACs), individual donations, and the source of all these dollars. The ability to convince people to give you money is one measure of how popular you are, how viable you candidacy. In large primary fields the candidates who can't bring in the big bucks usually drop out before the first votes are cast. But the importance of money connects to the importance of advertising, which depends on the indifference, apathy, and ignorance of the electorate. The propensity of the public to be manipulated is a crucial component of any political advertising strategy. 

A related issue is the influence of the institutional political parties. A constant refrain from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders' run for the Democratic presidential nomination was how the DNC screwed him over and tipped the scales in favor of Secretary Clinton. If the DNC was indeed so powerful that their support could sway a majority of Democratic primary voters, what does that say about the credulousness of the primary election electorate? (The idea that "superdelegates" swung the nomination to Clinton is a myth. The convention votes of party leaders and Democratic office holders, the so-called superdelegates, only factored in if no candidate received a majority of delegate votes. Clinton received a majority without superdelegates). Yes, the party has influence, but mainly because voters are not doing their own vetting of candidates. 

So, how does all of this tie in to term limits? Term limits are nothing more than an attempt to protect us from our own indifference, apathy, and ignorance. There are regular elections where we can turn out the incumbents and elect new blood. Incumbents have an advantage you say? Other than name recognition, their main advantage is they have a record that you can look at and judge their fitness against. If the majority think a politician is doing a good job representing their constituents, why not keep electing them? If they are 90 years old and senile, don't vote for them! 

Term limits are often a species of voter suppression. The minority party is frustrated that they can't get elected, so they push a term limits petition in order to dilute the power of the majority. Currently Lincoln Republicans, irked at their inability to get a toehold in city politics, is sponsoring a term limits petition drive. The mayoralty was term limited a few years ago when the Democratic mayor announced his intention to run for a third term. Despite the drive's problems with fraudulent signatures, there's a good chance that term limits would pass if it was on the ballot — people will vote for term limits, decrying the career office holders while simultaneously voting in those same office holders. 

An issue that generally doesn't get considered in any discussion of term limits is the lack of institutional memory. A legislature with a core of experienced members knows how things work and how to get things done. When a legislature is filled with rookies, you end up with what we see in the current version of the Unicameral: people who don't know how to write legislation, who focus on culture war issues, and are reflexively partisan. During my ten years in state government I saw firsthand how newbie senators consistently did not think through the downstream consequences of legislation, or even how it would be implemented. In most cases lobbyists were writing bills, with senators having only a cursory understanding of what they were voting on. And let's not forget former Senator Ernie Chambers, who kept the Unicameral honest through his detailed knowledge of procedure. And of course presidential term limits exist because Republicans saw that the nation kept electing a liberal Democrat. 

One area where I believe term limits would be useful is the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices currently serve lifetime terms. Ideological majorities long outlast the whims of the electorate, and new appointments depend almost entirely on deaths in office. Whereas we can vote out a president, or a senator, or a member of the House after 4, 6, or 2 years, once a Justice is in, it's virtually impossible to remove them. I've seen various proposals for a rotating retirement, ensuring that each presidential term would see an equal number of appointments. Something like that would tie the makeup of the court more closely to what the majority of voters want to see. 

Term limits exist because voters are lazy. Lazy and illogical. They complain about politicians staying in office forever, yet pass up the opportunity to get rid of them in regular elections.