Who Benefits? (Guess)

The other day I had a conversation with a guy who I would characterize as a "sane conservative". What I mean by that term is that he wasn't spouting conspiracy theories or bigoted hatred, just some old school conservative Republican positions regarding government regulation and fiscal responsibility. We were having a civil conversation, agreeing on some things and politely disagreeing on others when he brought up Trump. He mentioned that many in big business were looking forward to Trump being back in office, since he is for getting rid of regulatory overreach and is generally business friendly. I responded that that's a traditional Republican policy position that they could have had with some other Republican instead of  a dementia-ridden, hate-filled, ignorant self-dealing lunatic.  And that's the (or one of the) problems with the heads of large corporations - they're willing to accept the disruption to the economy and the erosion of freedom, the gradual conversion of our democracy to an authoritarian state if it will swell their bank accounts and inflate their stock valuation. 

Regulations have to be balanced. They can't be so restrictive that businesses cannot operate, nor can they be so toothless that businesses will do harm. Regulations often cost money to implement, and costs, any costs, reduce profit. All other things being equal, a business's primary goal is to maximize profit, and anything that stands in the way of that goal is an enemy to be resisted. Fair enough, but government's job isn't to maximize profit, but, at least according to the Constitution, its job is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". Government is not in the business of business, its goal is not to be profitable, but to facilitate a society where all can flourish. If that's the socialism or communism that some rail against, your argument isn't with me, it's with the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution. 

Profit-seeking has it's place in a free nation. Profit is the reward and motivation for taking risks. Government will often subsidize research and development for things that are necessary but not profitable, but so many inventions are the result of risk taking. Those who took the financial risks should benefit when their risks pay off, but not at the expense of the "general welfare". Many of our largest and most profitable businesses not only derive their riches from a return on their investment, but on government largess. Most states have incentives programs that reward companies for locating their factories, or data centers or headquarters to their cities. In Nebraska we have a several incentives programs, most which reward companies for doing what they would have done anyway, and are subject to manipulation by smart accountants. In one program we give the owner of a building being restored to historical standards a credit worth 20% of construction costs. Included in construction costs are developer fees, which can be as high as a quarter of total costs. In many cases the building owner is the developer, so they are paying a $1 million effectively to themselves and receiving a $200,000 tax credit for moving $1 million from one ledger to another. Good work if you can get it. The reason most incentives programs exist is because the next state over has them. 

It's becoming abundantly clear, even to the minds addled by MAGA promises, that the only people who will benefit from Trump's second term will be the people who are already rich. People in his inner circle are already floating ideas to increase certain types of immigration, the kind that benefits big business, despite the rhetoric about immigration being bad for America. We've heard much about how the tariffs Trump wants to enact will increase inflation, but surely Trump's billionaire friends will be able to secure waivers. The billionaires will land on their feet no matter what happens. 

And this brings me back to my point about gutting regulations being a traditional Republican position. The difference between the old guard Republicans and Trump is that the old guard understood that balance had to be maintained. They actually listened to economists, and even if they did prioritize their wealthy donors, they understood how everything was interconnected, and certainly understood who paid for tariffs. A Nikki Haley, or even a Ron DeSantis administration would shape up much differently than the upcoming Trump presidency, even if many of the basic policies would be the same. Eliminating regulations and tightening up immigration enforcement would likely still be priorities, but it's doubtful that there would be the threats of retaliation against political opponents or speculation about buying Greenland or taking over the Panama Canal. Yes, both Haley and DeSantis have sucked up to Trump, and DeSantis in particular has attempted to out MAGA Trump in the way he has governed in Florida, but tellingly they both campaigned hard against him in the Republican primaries when they thought there was a chance of taking him down. Despite the proliferation of Trump sycophants in all levels of the Republican Party, a powerless Trump (or a deceased Trump) would restore some semblance of sanity, even if the core goals are largely unchanged. 

Now? We're just dealing with chaos for chaos' sake. 

 

Can "They" Take Away Our Social Security?

Can Trump and Company actually "take away our Social Security"? 

Maybe.

Before we all start screaming "It's my money!" or "I paid into it since I was twelve!" Let's look at some facts.

The money that came out of your paychecks over the years is long gone. It was used to for Social Security benefits for the people who had retired while you were working. You're eligible for benefits when you retire, not because "your" money is in an account somewhere with your name on it, but because an algorithm based on your lifetime earnings record calculated how much your monthly benefit will be.  

It is true that until very recently the amount being paid out in benefits was exceeded by what was collected in payroll taxes, creating a surplus. That surplus is what is called the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). Currently the SSTF balance is $2.7 trillion. 

Every year that there has been a surplus it has been invested in "non-marketable government securities". This means that the SSTF isn't a Scrooge McDuck type vault full of money, or even a bank account with deposits equaling $2.7 trillion, but what amounts to $2.7 trillion worth of IOU's that are earning market rate interest. Until recently the balance grew each year as revenue exceeded benefits paid out. Since 2020 benefits have exceeded revenue through payroll deductions, so the SSTF balance has been reduced for the last three years. The deficit has been financed through the redeeming of the  "non-marketable government securities", aka "IOU's", which reduces the SSTF balance and is accounted for in the same way as any other government debt obligation, i.e. it is an expense against the general fund. The SSTF deficit for 2023 was $41 billion. 

A popular myth is that Congress, or various presidents, have "borrowed" from the SSTF in order to fund various tax breaks for the rich or foreign wars. While it is true that investing in the securities provides cash to the general fund, all that transfer accomplishes is to lower the amount of outside borrowing that needs to be done to finance the general fund deficit. Congressional or presidential pet projects are funded the way everything else in the general fund budget is funded, by deficit spending fueled by borrowing. 

A related myth is that Social Security will be "broke" some time in the next decade. It is true that by 2035 the SSTF will be depleted. What that means is, not that there will be no money to pay benefits, but that revenue from payroll deductions of then-current workers will only cover around 83% of benefits to then-retirees. Some action in the next ten years will need to be taken to cover the remaining 17%. 

Congress and the president have several options, increasing the cap after which FICA deductions are no longer assessed is one. A small 1% increase in FICA deduction on both employer and employee is another. Raising the retirement age is an unpopular option. Something needs to be done, sooner rather than later. (As unpopular as it was, Reagan's taxing some Social Security benefits when combined income exceeds a certain level, contributed to extending the life of the program)

Or Congress and the president can simply decide to kill Social Security by refusing to honor the debt obligations from the general fund to the SSTF. This would immediately reduce to zero the SSTF balance, effectively eliminating it and reducing benefits to whatever is brought in via payroll deduction. This would immediately reduce the national debt by $2.7 trillion (the total is currently around $31 trillion) They can change the formula by which benefits are calculated. If they only did it for new retirees, we'd never know - how many people know how their benefits are calculated anyway? Whatever solution, some people's benefits will be less than they would have been if no changes are made. 

It's unlikely that there would be enough support to totally kill Social Security. That doesn't mean that the 2025 crowd won't try. Lower and middle income Americans, the ones who depend at least in part on Social Security are far from the administration's priority. Everybody, including Trump, says they won't touch Social Security, but we've already seen how much a campaign promise from Trump is worth.

So, You're Saying That You Aren't Going To Lower Prices?

A few weeks ago I wrote about "What Will He Do?". I think that even with the inauguration more than a month away, we have some more information on what he will, won't and can't do. He made a lot of promises during his campaign, and we're already seeing some of them go by the wayside and other horribly coming to pass.

One of the processes that are different this time around is way he's putting together his cabinet and other key positions. In 2016 it was obvious that he and his core team had no idea how many slots needed to be filled or what qualifications were required. He ran the selection process like a small town job fair - taking applications and holding interviews, announcing on Twitter who the "finalists" were. (Who can forget the way he humiliated Mitt Romney, dangling Secretary of State and unceremoniously dumping him) This time around he's doing it more like the traditional way: deciding ahead of time who he'd want in various jobs, or sifting through those who expressed interest, then making an offer. A very much behind-the-scenes, opaque methodology. The difference between Trump's transition and an actually normal transition is that for many of these posts their qualifications are an antipathy toward the mission of the agency they have been chosen to lead.  The main qualification, however, is a servile loyalty to Trump himself. There are several nominees that would fit into any Republican administration, Senator Marco Rubio is one example, but even he has transformed from a typical Republican into a Trumpublican over the last eight years. In addition to cabinet picks who want to burn it all down, and traditional types, there are the truly unqualified. Loyalists whose only qualifications is loyalty. There are several potential appointees whose experience consists entirely of being a Fox News host. Even Pete Hegseth, nominated as Defense Secretary, whose qualifications appear to be National Guard officer and Fox News host, has no experience managing a large organization. This would be equivalent to viewing my nine years working for the Nebraska Department of Revenue as sufficient qualification to be Treasury Secretary. Let's not overlook the Attorney General and FBI picks who not only support the January 6th Insurrection and lies about a stolen election, but have made it clear that they plan on investigating, prosecuting and jailing political opponents. 

The biggest clue to what actions Trump will take came this week in the realm of economics. Many people who voted for Trump based their decision primarily on the economy. (Whether that was a rationalization to cover anti-immigrant bigotry or other categories of hatred is another subject). It is inarguable that inflation was high during most of Biden's term, compared to relatively low rates during Trump's first term. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics understood that a president has little to do with prices. (Not nothing, but the effect of presidential policies, with a few exemptions, is negligible). The inflation that we saw was caused by multiple factors: supply chain disruptions post-pandemic, increased demand for some items during Covid, and increased demand for different items after the pandemic died down, stimulus checks heating up demand, increased travel compared to a virtual shutdown causing shortages in fuel, widespread wage increases, opportunistic price increases by big corporations, and home valuations going up resulting in higher property taxes. 

Most people saw this as a binary economic choice. With inflation as the determining factor, Trump was good, Biden was bad, despite most other economic measures such as unemployment, stock prices, and job growth, being positive, people focused on inflation. They didn't want to hear the nuanced explanations from the Biden team and fell for the simplistic slogans from the MAGA camp. Trump doubled down on this, making all kinds of promises that would, if enacted, financially help most Americans. The problem was that it was all bullshit.

Trump promised to eliminate taxes on tips (Harris did this too) overtime, and social security. He promised to cap credit card interest at 10% and make interest on car loans tax deductible. Naturally he received loud cheers for this. But his most bullshitty promise was to reduce the price of gas and groceries. The price of a box of cereal is based on so many variables like supply chain increments, labor, and the cost of ingredients, that over the long haul prices go up but they never go back down. Deflation is not a good thing. Nonetheless, Trump has promised to bring down prices...quickly. The price at the gas pump has always seemed to operate under its own rules though. The trend is always upward, although there are peaks and valleys in the prices over time. The average gas price sunk to around $2.00/gallon in 2020 because people weren't driving. The peak prices of $4-$5/gallon in 2022 have since sunk back down to reasonable levels of under $3.00/gallon. 

Trump has already waffled on his promise to lower prices, which all of us who didn't vote for him knew was unattainable. In an interview last week Trump was asked if his presidency would be considered a "failure" if he didn't deliver on his promise to slash Americans' food bills. "I don't think so. Look, they got them up. I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard”. Yeah. It's hard. How about it's impossible. Which we knew. Let's not forget that two of Trump's other promises, to increase tariffs  and deport millions of immigrants are among the few actions that a president that are guaranteed to cause inflation. 

What does this tell us? That Trump simply doesn't care about lower and middle income Americans once he has their votes. He can't run again, so he doesn't need to court the electorate, except to stroke his insatiable ego. We can count on any of his campaign promises that would have helped 99% of Americans to be forgotten as he prioritizes actions that help the 1% and smooth the way for revenge against those who tried to hold him accountable. 

What Will He Do?

What will he do? That's the question that has been consuming everyone who pays attention to politics. While we should always consider with a skeptical eye any campaign promises a candidate makes, the second Trump administration leaves us with more questions than usual.

Even with a "normal" president, campaign promises are often more aspirational than concrete. Congress may not support the campaign promises. Global events may completely derail presidential plans. Bursting housing bubbles and pandemics change everything. 

With Trump it's a whole 'nother game.

Attempting to figure out what Trump will do in his second term is not as simple as listening to what he says. One reason for that is that he's a shameless, unrepentant, liar. Not just the typical politician's lies to make themselves look better, but lies about everything. Who else would spend valuable time during a debate arguing about crowd size? Or continuing to bring up a "Michigan Man of the Year" award that never happened? A corollary effect of his lying is that he will say whatever it takes to get people to applaud during his rallies. In Nevada, where the hospitality industry provides the lion's share of employment, he promises to eliminate income taxes on tips; in industrial areas, it's taxes on overtime. To his typical anti-immigrant audience he emphasizes deporting millions. His stance on abortion changes depending on who he's talking to.  

Another aspect of Trump's personality which effects the actions that he takes is that he is a narcissist. He has be to be the main character of every story, the guy in the spotlight. If any of his cabinet members, advisors, or supporters looks like they're getting credit for a program, even if it conforms to a known Trump priority, Trump's ego will prevail over getting his agenda implemented. Trump may say things that make his supporters think that he has their best interests at heart, that he loves our country and is doing things that they believe are best for the nation, but Trump is only in it for the boost to his own ego. He only ran for the second term because he couldn't stand the humiliation of losing in 2020 to the man he derided as "Sleepy Joe". 

Let's not forget, despite having been the president from 2017-2020, he is still profoundly ignorant about how things work. The most obvious example is his repeated misrepresentation of how tariffs work. He has no desire to learn how to connect the dots regarding any of his ideas or their ramifications. An observation that I saw the other day was a speculation about what minor concessions would Trump accept from Mexico, Canada (Canada!) and China in order to claim that his threat of tariffs "worked". He has already lied about the President of Mexico's response, claiming that she agreed to "close the border" - she responded that she would never do that. 

The previous examples focus on how things he said he would do might not get done. But there are a number of his pronouncements that are illegal, or unlikely to garner Congressional support, that a reasonable person might conclude can't get done. But this is an area where his ego and ignorance could very well combine into an arrogant attempt to circumvent the Constitution. His success at evading any meaningful accountability for his actions, combined with the Supreme Court ruling giving him virtually unlimited immunity from prosecution, will surely embolden him to ignore Congress and the courts. Of all his cabinet picks, the selection of Pam Bondi, who unlike Jeff Sessions, fully supports prosecuting Trump opponents for whatever imaginary crimes she can dream up, is the most disturbing. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will comply with Trump's "suggestion" that adjourn so that he can make recess appointments and avoid Senate confirmation hearings, but it's an authoritarian "suggestion" nonetheless. 

I'm under no illusions about this administration. But I just don't know how bad things will be. 

The Ultimate "Get Out of Jail Free" Card

Donald Trump has spent his whole life evading accountability for his actions. Most rich people do. Fight rich people in court and they can delay and delay, racking up the legal fees until you're exhausted and broke. Rich and powerful people flout the law with impunity, knowing that while they aren't necessarily untouchable, it takes a lot more effort and resources to hold them accountable.   

Until recently, Trump's legal problems were civil suits, not criminal charges. In the aftermath of his electoral defeat in 2020 he faced criminal charges for the first time. Several indictments were related to his attempts to overturn the results of the election, including inciting the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He was also indicted for retaining government records and refusing to return them when requested to do so. He was adjudicated a rapist (technically sexual abuse, a distinction without a difference) and lost a defamation suit by the woman he raped. He was convicted of falsifying business records in a scheme to hide payoffs to a woman he had an extramarital affair with. (He was convicted on 34 counts, which were basically the result of there being 11 checks written, 12 ledger entries and 11 invoices for legal services, all for the same underlying crime). But all of that is going to go away. The federal charges will be withdrawn when the new attorney general is appointed in January, or Special Counsel Smith may withdraw the charges in anticipation. The Justice Department has no jurisdiction over any state charges, but even if convicted, any sentence will be effectively moot - are we going to jail the serving president of the United States? Even before his re-election myriad legal maneuvers delayed accountability. The Supreme Court that he in large part appointed ruled that he had immunity for a large swath of actions taken while in office. A friendly judge dismissed charges, not on the merits, but because she thought the office of Special Counsel was unconstitutional. 

Trump and his supporters have accused the Biden administration and the mostly Democratic prosecutors of "lawfare" unfairly and illegally targeting him. Other than the so-called hush money case in New York we'll never know whether Trump would have been guilty as charged in any of the other cases. To anyone not blinded by worship of Trump, his actions clearly warranted some kind of legal action. He was indicted in all of these cases. Indictments are handed down, not by the prosecutor, but by a jury of 16, who in each case concluded that there was reasonable cause to hold a trial. The fact that someone aspires to political office shouldn't be sufficient to ignore potentially criminal actions. A majority of Americans apparently believe that it is. Many are even claiming that he's not really a convicted felon for reasons that don't make sense. And now, in typical Trumpublican doublespeak, they're cheering for using the Justice Department to go after Trump's 'enemies", not for any legally supportable reasons, but to enact retribution. There's talk of investigating Special Counsel Jack Smith apparently for doing his job. 

A majority of voters decided that the rule of law doesn't apply to Donald Trump. 

Why?

Why did Harris lose? Why did Trump win? Everybody has an opinion about what Harris did wrong. The truth is that nothing Harris did was going to make a difference. Nothing that any Democrat did was going to change the result. Why?

• People believe that the president is responsible for the economy and most people believed that the state of the economy was bad. 
• A president's policies affect illegal immigration and illegal border crossings were up significantly
• Many people who would have voted Democratic, or at least anti-Trump, stayed home because they believed that we were enabling a genocidal war in Gaza. 

Of course there were other reasons: misogyny and bigotry cannot be discounted. There are without a doubt demographics that usually vote for Democrats but harbored prejudice against women as leaders. 

The economy was the most common reason that I heard among voters who had voted for Biden in 2020 and didn't fit the stereotype of a Trump voter. Despite most metrics indicating that the economy was healthy, including the inflation rate being back to normal (around 2% annually), the results of several years of high inflation had not gone away. Prices are still high and aren't going back down. Many people remembered that there was low inflation during Trump's time in office and contrasted it with Biden's term and came to the conclusion that Trump was better suited to preside over the American economy than Biden or Harris. This belief required one to have no understanding of economics. The high inflation rate was a global phenomenon, not just in the U.S. and was the inevitable result of several interlocking factors. Supply chain issues, ballooning demand in the wake of Covid shutdowns, increased wages and even companies artificially raising prices to take advantage of the situation all contributed. Property taxes for home owners and rents for non-owners were big budget busters - the result of skyrocketing home valuations - a local, not a national issue. Gas prices were much higher during the first few Biden years compared to the last Trump year. Gas prices were low in 2020 mainly because few people were traveling and shot up in 2021 for the same reasons everything else went up - gas prices at least have settled back down to pre-2020 levels. Voters weren't wrong to be frustrated by the lingering effects of several years of high inflation, but ignorantly blamed Democrats for their predicament. 

While much of the criticism of immigration policy and border security falls into the tinfoil hat category, there's no question that Biden's approach to securing the border were inadequate. Was it all his fault? It was not, attempts to address the problem through legislation were sabotaged by Trump, who wanted there to be a border problem that he could run against. All many voters saw was a huge increase in illegal border crossings, ignoring the lack of Congressional cooperation. Also ignored was that although illegal crossings were lower under Trump, he was constantly crying wolf about "caravans" and even declared a national emergency at the border so he could divert funds to build his "big, beautiful Wall". Voters were apparently incapable of  seeing the nuances of the situation. 

Single-issue voters, or just people who thought that the Democrats were no different than the Republicans totaled around 1.6% of total votes nationally (0.5% to Jill Stein). Trump has 50.4% and Harris 48%. I haven't seen the state-by-sate breakdown to determine whether "3rd Party" votes would have made a difference if they had gone to Harris, but it's undeniable that a lot of 2020 Biden voters stayed home. Trump received almost exactly the same number of votes that he won in 2020 - 74 million. Harris however received 10 million fewer votes than Biden did. The most vocal of the anti-Harris, or sit-it-out electorate, were those who were opposed to our support of Israel in their war in Gaza. I'm not going to use this post to talk about what the U.S. should be doing (anyone who thinks they know what the "right" answer is over there doesn't know what they're talking about) but it's clear that no matter what position the United States takes a lot of people will be angry. One thing that is indisputable, our support of Israel's action in Gaza will continue, or even escalate, in Trump's administration. 

No matter what the reasoning for voting for Trump, or enabling his election by inaction, no matter how logical it may sound, how perceived self-interest had to prevail, a Trump voter had to be okay with the division, the hatred, the bigotry and the lies. A Trump voter, no matter how "normal" they may seem, had to be okay with his attempts to subvert an election, to rule autocratically, to jail his opponents. A Trump voter has to be okay with his ignorance of how things work, his cozying up to dictators while screwing our allies. A Trump voter has to be okay with the utter contempt with which he holds most Americans, including his own supporters. A Trump voter has to be okay with how he changes what he promises to do based on what gets the loudest applause, or who gives him the most money. A Trump voter has to be okay with his obvious mental decline. A Trump voter has to be okay with the economy being disrupted by increased tariffs and mass deportations. A Trump voter has to refuse to think. 

A Trump voter is complicit. 

Brainwashing and the Trump Cult

I've written a lot about the cultic aspects of Trumpism - how Trump fits the definition of a cult leader, how his core followers are no different than any religious or doomsday cult. What I haven't done is pin the label of "brainwashed" on them. 

What spurred me to write about brainwashing was a recent conversation with a friend whose mother accused him of being brainwashed. She brought up "coming to get him" and having him deprogrammed. This friend was not a Trumper, his mother is, and was offended at the "hate" (i.e. no holds barred opinions about Trump and his supporters) that he posted on social media. 

Trump and his supporters continually employ projection, accusing their opponents of the things that they are doing. Their own cultishness is projected onto Democrats, who are in turn painted as brainwashed cultists.

"Brainwashing" gets brought up a lot when it comes to cults. Although there is room for disagreement about whether those in religious cults are brainwashed or not, let me define the term as I understand it. Brainwashing is not a scientific term, and actually has no widely accepted meaning. But the way I understand it, it would involve the forcible conversion of an individual from one set of beliefs to another set that they would not have changed to without physical, chemical or mental coercion. Brainwashing could involve torture, it could involve sensory or sleep deprivation, it could involve threats to family members. Some kind of forcible change from one set of beliefs to another. 

I do not believe Trump supporters, even the most ardent, the most committed, have been brainwashed. Accepting the idea that they have been brainwashed would necessarily absolve them of any responsibility for their actions, most notably the Trumpists who participated in the January 6th Insurrection. No one tortured them into buying that giant Trump flag. No one drugged them in order to get them to attend one of his rallies. No one was locked in a sensory deprivation tank to force them to vote for him. Rather than Trumpers having their minds forcibly remolded in Trump's hate-filled image, Trump molded his image to conform to the hate that was already present. 

This isn't to suggest that Trump isn't a hate-filled misogynistic, ignorant, bigot - he is that. But that there was already a mass of grievance fueled resentment animating the electorate and Trump was giving voice to it all. It's as if there was this amorphous proto-cult just waiting for its cult leader to give it form, and Trump came down that golden escalator and it all coalesced.   

Assuming that Trumpists are brainwashed into their support assumes that they have no access to sources of information. Members of some religious cults were sequestered away from society - the cliche of the "cult compound" comes to mind. If a cult leader can control what information his followers have access to, he can mold how his followers think. It has been argued that this is exactly what Trump has done with his characterization of any news organization that didn't kiss his ring as fake news. Trumpists have eschewed professional news sources in favor of bloggers and podcasters who echoed Trump's nonsense. Much has been made of the social media echo chamber, where we are fed content mirroring what we already believe. But no one is forcing anyone to remain in their bubble. The sources of information are virtually unlimited and differing points of view are easy to find. Facts are easy to find. Trumpists who remain in a feedback loop of Trump fantasies are there because they choose to be there. 

Trumpists are not fooled, they're not tricked, Don't absolve them of their complicity.