Tag Archives: Robert Reich

UN-Plausible Deniability

Posted on by under Bits 'n Pieces, education, Election 2024, Environmental Issues, History, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

You may already be tired of hearing about Project 2025, but you’re almost certainly going to hear a lot more about it over the next four months, so buckle up!  It’s far too critical not to keep talking about.  Yesterday, Felon Trump attempted to distance himself from Project 2025 and from the Heritage Foundation … apparently he realizes just how unpopular it is with many of us.  Frankly, it sounds like a Nazi playbook from first to last word.  Funny, though … Trump claimed he knew nothing about Project 2025, then stated that he disagreed with some of it.  He really thinks we’re all stupid, I guess.  Anyway, here’s Robert Reich’s latest take on it all …

Beware: Trump is Project 2025

He cannot escape it.

By Robert Reich

06 July 2024

“Project 2025” is nothing short of a 900-page blueprint for guiding Donald Trump’s second term of office if he’s reelected.

After the Heritage Foundation unveiled Project 2025 in April last year when Trump was seeking the Republican nomination, he had no problem with it. 

But now that the nation is turning its attention to the general election, Trump doesn’t want Project 2025’s extremism to turn off independents and moderates.

So Trump claimed Friday on his Truth Social platform that he has “no idea who is behind” Project 2025.

This is another in a long line of Trump lies.

The Project 2025 playbook was written by more than 20 officials who Trump himself appointed during his first term. If he has “no idea” who they are, he’s showing an alarming cognitive decline.

One of the leaders of Project 2025 is Russ Vought. Vought was Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, a key position in the White House. Vought is also drafting Trump’s 2024 GOP platform.

Another Project 2025 leader is John McEntee, another of Trump’s top White House aides. (McEntee recently went viral with a video in which he claimed he gives counterfeit money to homeless people to get them arrested.)

Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, and both of its associate directors, Spencer Chretien and Troup Hemenway, were in charge of personnel in Trump’s White House.

Even the national press secretary for Trump’s campaign appears in the Project 2025 recruitment video.

Trump says he “knows nothing” about Project 2025. And he says he “disagrees” with it.

As the former chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele put it, “Ok, let’s all play with Stupid for minute … so exactly how do you ‘disagree’ with something you ‘know nothing about’ or ‘have no idea’ who is behind, saying or doing the thing you disagree with?”

The Trump campaign platform is basically Project 2025. Trump’s Make America Great Again PAC is running ads calling it “Trump’s Project 2025.” The Make America Great Again PAC also created the website TrumpProject2025.com.

Trump might be trying to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation, concerned that it will also alarm independents and moderates.

On Wednesday, Heritage president Kevin Roberts Roberts raised the prospect of political violence. “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” Roberts told the “War Room” podcast, founded by Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

In case there’s any doubt that Trump and the Heritage Foundation are working in close partnership, Trump can be seen in this video praising the Heritage Foundation and saying he “needs” them to “achieve”  his goals.

The close relationship between Trump and the Heritage Foundation goes back years. In 2018, the Heritage Foundation bragged that Trump implemented two-thirds of their policy recommendations in his first year — more than any other president had done for them.

The goals of Project 2025 are the same goals Trump tried to achieve in his first term or has been advocating in this campaign.

One key goal of Project 2025 is to purge all government agencies of anyone more loyal to the Constitution than to Trump — a process Trump himself started in October 2020 when he hoped to remain in office.

Trump has promised to give right-wing evangelical Christians what they want. Accordingly, Project 2025 calls for withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market, expelling trans service members from the military, banning lifesaving gender-affirming care for young people, ending all diversity programs, and using “school choice” to gut public education. 

Project 2025 also calls for eliminating “woke propaganda” from all laws and federal regulations — including the terms “sexual orientation,’“ “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” “gender equality,” and “reproductive rights.”

Other items in the Project 2025 blueprint are also what Trump has advocated on the campaign trail, including mass arrests and deportations of undocumented people in the United States, ending many worker protections, dropping prosecutions of far-right militias like the Proud Boys, and giving additional tax cuts to big corporations and the rich.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that climate change is a “hoax.” Project 2025 calls for expanding oil drilling in the United States, shrinking the geographic footprint of national monuments, terminating clean energy incentives, and ending fossil-fuel regulations.

Trump has said he’d seek vengeance against those who have prosecuted him for his illegal acts. Project 2025 calls for the prosecution of district attorneys Trump doesn’t like and the takeover of law enforcement in blue cities and states.

Project 2025 is, in short, the plan to implement what Donald Trump has said he wants to do if he’s reelected. 

Trump may want to distance himself from Project 2025 in order to come off less bonkers to independents and moderates, but he can’t escape it. The document embodies everything he stands for. 

60 Years Later …

Posted on by under education, History, Law and justice, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary, voting rights

I missed an important anniversary yesterday.  It was exactly 60 years ago yesterday when three young men were brutally murdered, with the assistance of law enforcement, by the Ku Klux Klan for their ‘crime’ of helping Black people register to vote.  The men, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, were attacked by more than 20 klansmen, beaten to death, shot at point blank range, then their bodies were thrown into an earthen dam 15 feet deep.

You all know the story, it’s been immortalized in many ways including the movie Mississippi Burning, numerous books and documentaries.  Rather than retell the story here, today I think it’s important to focus on where we are today as compared to sixty years ago.  Have we learned from the horrors that took place in the past?  Have we, as a nation, as a society, become more open to the idea of racial equality?  Have we learned to embrace our differences rather than scorn them? Did these three young men give their lives for a greater good, or did they die in vain, as humans continue to judge and condemn people based on the colour of their skin?

Sixty years later, but as I read the news each day, see stories of white nationalists claiming their skin colour somehow makes them superior, see states gerrymandering voting districts to distill the votes of people of colour, I wonder if we have really learned anything.

Robert Reich had a personal connection to one of the three young men so brutally murdered sixty years ago and he’d like to share that story with us …

(Note that Reich told this story and I shared the written version last year, but the video is new this year)

There is only one way we can honour these and other people who have paid the ultimate price in the fight for equality, and that is to DO BETTER!  We must be better, help promote understanding and love, fight against bigotry in all its forms, teach tolerance by living up to our own standards.  It’s up to us, my friends.  Will our grandchildren still be asking when the 100th anniversary of Freedom Summer happens in 2064, whether we have progressed or not?

My Mind Is Bouncing, But Robert’s Is Fine

Posted on by under Economic issues, Election 2024, History, Political commentary, Social commentary

You know how sometimes there is just so much happening that your mind goes into a tailspin and you cannot string two thoughts together without heading off on another tangent?  That’s where I am tonight.  Foremost in my mind is the abominable law just passed in Louisiana to turn all public schools into religious ones, forcing all children to have one religion shoved down their tiny throats.  But running a close second is hearing what Roger Stone is cooking up to overturn the 2024 election five months before it even takes place! (Obviously he’s already aware that Trump will lose!)  And there are other things, too, but it’s all too much for my mind tonight.  So, I am sharing some wise words from our friend Robert Reich about the upcoming debate next week between President Biden and what’s-his-name.

Biden should welcome their hatred

Advice for Joe in his first debate with the convicted felon — one week from tonight

By Robert Reich

20 June 2024

I have only one morsel of advice to Joe Biden as he prepares for his first debate with Trump, one week from tonight: Channel Franklin D. Roosevelt by excoriating corporate America and explaining that Trump is a flack for the moneyed interests.

Eighty-eight years ago this month, on June 27, 1936, Roosevelt delivered his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president. That happens to be the same day Joe Biden will be debating Donald Trump.

FDR’s speech is as relevant today as it was then. We’re at a time like the 1930s, when the super-wealthy and big corporations were seeking to oust an incumbent Democrat who was working for the people rather than for them.

On June 27, 1936, FDR dubbed the moneyed interests “economic royalists” who “governed without the consent of the governed” and “put the average man’s property and the average man’s life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power.”

They used their economic power, FDR charged, to create “a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction … The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor — these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship.”

He warned against giving these economic royalists the political power they craved. “If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place. These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.”

Then, on the eve of his second election — on October 31, 1936 — FDR delivered his coup de grace, explaining the stakes in his fight with the moneyed interests.

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

Today’s economic royalists are backing Trump, and the fight is much the same.

The high mavens of Silicon Valley held a fundraiser for him last week. The Business Roundtable (the voice of big corporations in Washington) is preparing to pump an eight-figure sum into the Trump campaign.

Jamie Dimon, chair and CEO of the biggest and most influential bank in the United States and for years the spokesman for corporate America, is coming around to Trump. Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, is turning his X platform into a weaponized outlet for Trump.

Tump has asked the robber barons of Big Oil for $1 billion as an advance quid pro quo for rolling back environmental regulations. Miriam Adelson, heir to the casino magnate, has pledged $100 million to Trump.

Today’s moneyed interests are far richer in proportion to average Americans and the American economy as a whole than they were when FDR took them on. Corporate profits are near record levels, and many big corporations are keeping prices high in order to reap even more. CEO pay is through the stratosphere. The stock market is hitting record highs.

The moneyed interests have done wonderfully well under Joe Biden, despite Biden’s support for labor unions and his crackdown on monopolies.

But it’s apparently not enough for them. They want additional tax cuts and regulation rollbacks and are willing to support Trump — and flush democracy down the toilet — in order to get them.

They are also more politically potent today than they were in the 1930s, when the Great Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression had discredited them.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to pose as a hero of the working class who will fight for average working people. He is not, of course. He is a stooge of the moneyed interests.

Which makes it doubly important for Biden to channel FDR a week from tonight and speak the truth — that only once before, 88 years ago, have the moneyed interests been so united against one candidate as they stand today against Joe Biden.

They hate Biden — and Biden should welcome their hatred.

No, My Friends, It’s A Trickle Down Lie

Posted on by under Economic issues, Election 2024, Environmental Issues, History, Political commentary

A plutocracy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.

Once again, the Republicans are dragging out that tired old concept of “trickle down” economics in their effort to justify cutting back essential regulations such as workplace safety and environmental protections in order to put more money in the pockets and investment portfolios of the uber-wealthy.  I explained in 2017 and again in 2022 how trickle-down economics is a lie, it doesn’t happen.  The theory is that if we take steps such as cutting back regulations that cost businesses money, and giving large tax cuts to the already wealthy, then those wealthy barons will share their wealth with We the Little People through more jobs, higher wages, etc.  It. Does. NOT. Happen.  They merely pour the extra money into their own pockets and we are still earning a paltry $7.25 per hour minimum wage, still have a large portion of the nation living in poverty, etc.  People fall for this b.s. because it looks good on paper, but in reality it does not work!

Two items crossed my radar last night that explain why and how it doesn’t work and I hope you’ll take the time to check them out.  The first is a short video by our friend Robert Reich, and the second is a post by Steve Ruis in his blog Uncommon Sense.  And, of course, feel free to revisit my slightly older post explaining why it doesn’t work.

The wealth inequality in the U.S. is staggering, and reason enough not to give in to the demands of the wealthy for more, more, more.  However, there is another reason and that is that those federal regulations the wealthy corporations are whining about are serving an essential purpose!  They are protecting workers from the dangers of shortcuts some businesses might take to save a buck, and they are protecting … or trying to protect … our environment from the excess CO2, deadly chemicals, and more that manufacturers and the fossil fuel industry are polluting our air and water with.  If we continue to put wealth ahead of environmental concerns, there will be no future for humans on Planet Earth … the science is real and if you don’t believe it, just look at your weather report and compare it to 10 years ago!  The economy will be the least of our grandchildrens’ worries if they cannot step outside without choking and if they have no potable water to drink!

Don’t … please don’t let anybody try to tell you that ‘trickle down’ economics is a good thing … it is naught but a lie in order to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Saying The Quiet Part Aloud

Posted on by under Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry

The big news of the day yesterday was the ‘secret’ recording by journalist/filmmaker Lauren Windsor of Justice Samuel Alito and his wife at a Supreme Court event last week whereby Alito generally indicated his desire to turn the U.S. into a ‘Christian’ nation, and his wife spewed her hatred for the LGBTQ community.  I suppose that none of this should come as a shock to us, but … hearing the quiet part spoken aloud does rather give us a jolt.  The Supreme Court … is no longer very ‘supreme’ in my view.  They are selling this country downriver at a dizzying pace.  I’d like to hear what Robert Reich has to say about it all, so let’s head over to his place … oh, and I LOVE his drawing of Alito!

Alito’s Admission

By Robert Reich

10 June 2024

I’m no fan of secret recordings designed to entrap public officials into saying things they’d rather not have the public hear, but Justice Sam Alito’s remarks to filmmaker Lauren Windsor at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner on June 3 — released today — confirm everything I assumed about Alito’s approach to the law.

After Windsor told Alito that, as a Catholic, she couldn’t see herself getting along with liberals in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end, and that the Court should be about “winning,” Alito responded:

“I think you’re probably right. On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.” 

When Windsor said people must fight to return our country to a “place of godliness,” Alito said, “I agree with you. I agree with you.”

As you know, Alito wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson, issued June 24, 2022, which overruled the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, establishing a woman’s right to an abortion.

Alito’s opinion began by noting that “Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views,” and then went on to hold that “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but … the right to abortion does not fall within this category.”

Alito spent the next 75 pages (including 69 footnotes) seeking to justify the his decision. But not once did he admit that his personal his religious convictions influenced him. Nowhere did he say that America should be a place of godliness. At no point did he convey his belief that there is no room for compromise on such a fundamental moral issue.

Alito’s secretly-recorded remarks about his true beliefs will come as no surprise to anyone. The remarks signaling his religious bias are like the flags flown in front of his houses signaling his political partisanship.

But what is lost in these revelations is the naïve hope that justices of the Supreme Court put reason over personal bias, logic over religious preference, and public duty over partisanship. This hope is invaluable in maintaining public confidence in the Supreme Court.

The other cynical consequence of the secret recording of Alito’s remarks is to besmirch the legitimate roles played by journalists and investigative reporters. Windsor posed as a conservative to bait justices into saying things they would otherwise never say in public, and secretly record them. Windsor later said she felt justified in doing so because the court is “shrouded in secrecy, and they’re refusing to submit to any accountability in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious ethics breaches.”

She is right, but it is still a shame we have come to this.

(The recordings were published by Rolling Stone and Windsor’s activist site The Undercurrent, and on X.)

Authoritarianism vs. Facism — A Good Explanation

Posted on by under education, Election 2024, Global Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

I think that the two terms, “authoritarian” and “fascist” are often confusing … are they interchangeable?   Do they mean the same thing?  Well, in the sense that a peach is a fruit, yes, but the explanation goes a bit deeper than that.  I, too, have been confused and often used the words interchangeably, but I’d like you to take a look at Robert Reich’s video explaining the difference between the two terms.  In short, ‘fascism’ takes ‘authoritarianism’ as its base and builds on it, taking it to new levels.  Take a look … it’s short, just over six minutes …

It’s Right There Before Our Eyes!

Posted on by under Election 2024, Free Press Issues, Global Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

I don’t remember when I first made a comparison between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, but probably sometime before the 2016 election.  At the time, I was told it was hyperbole, that I was seeing things that didn’t exist.  Although I continued to see Trump-Hitler similarities, I tried to keep mention of them to a minimum so as not to appear too off the wall.  But, have you noticed how today we’re seeing those similarities pointed out even by the most respected journalists, writers, analysts.  In fact, it almost seems as though Trump and his minions want us to see the similarities.  One of those respected writers is Robert Reich, whose work I often share and am doing so again today.  Reich is well-respected in political circles, has worked at many levels, and is definitely not known for hyperbole.

But seriously, is Trump now openly embracing fascism?

It may be the ideological heart of his campaign.

By Robert Reich

22 May 2024

As I’ve noted, on Monday evening Trump posted a 30-second video on his Truth Social site featuring images of hypothetical newspaper articles celebrating his 2024 victory and referring to “the creation of a unified Reich” under the headline “What’s next for America?”

References to “the creation of a unified Reich” appear three times in the short video, including “German industrial strength significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich.” One hypothetical article asserts that Trump deported 15 million migrants in a second term, while text onscreen lists the start and end days of World War I. Another headline says he rejected “globalists.”

There have been indications of Trump’s fascination with fascism before this. Consider his uses of fascist language — calling immigrants “vermin” who “poison the blood” of America — and his repeated fascistic claims that “I am your voice. I alone can fix it.”

Besides, the white Christian nationalism that Trump touts bears a remarkably close resemblance to Nazism.

During his time in office, Trump reportedly claimed that Adolf Hitler “did some good things.” Trump berated his generals with insults like, “you f—king generals, why can’t you be like the German generals … in World War II?” according to the account of former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

More generally, see this.

But this Third Reich video is the first time Trump has explicitly embraced Nazi fascism.

The “Third Reich” was the official Nazi designation for its regime from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor to the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (which the Nazis designated the First Reich) and the German Empire of 1871 to 1918 (which they called the Second Reich). Hitler stoked resentment against the loss of the German Empire and against Jews, whom the Nazis often referred to as globalists.

The Trump campaign has distanced itself from the video. A campaign spokesman claimed it was “not an [official] campaign video” and was “reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word.”

Yet it remained posted on Truth Social for 19 hours before finally being taken down yesterday.

In July 2015, during Trump’s first bid for the White House, his campaign’s official Twitter account posted — and then quickly deleted — an image featuring Nazi soldiers superimposed between the stripes of an American flag. At the time, the executive vice president of the Trump Organization — a fellow named Michael Cohen — blamed the post on a “young intern” who apparently “did not see very faded figures within the flag.”

Trump’s defenders argue that there’s no valid comparison between Trumpism and Nazism, yet Trump and his campaign continue to invite the comparison.

I don’t believe the Monday post was a mistake. I believe Trump is now moving to openly signal his embrace of fascism.

What do you think?

Note to readers:  Further reading … An interesting discussion on this topic can be found in an OpEd in The Washington Post from back in December 2023.

Point The Finger In The RIGHT Direction ➡️

Posted on by under Economic issues, Global Issues, History, Political commentary, Social commentary

Given free rein, I think hardcore Republicans, those I refer to as the ‘radical right wing’ of the GOP, would gladly shut down all humanitarian programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, not to mention aid to other nations such as Ukraine, environmental programs, infrastructure, education, healthcare and more.  They claim to be oh-so-concerned about the federal debt and would happily sacrifice We the People to see their dream of still more military spending and further tax cuts for the rich.  But in blaming humanitarian spending for the debt, they are barking up the wrong tree, as Robert Reich points out …

What to say to a Republican who complains about the federal debt.

By Robert Reich

30 April 2024

Republicans are attacking Biden for expanding the federal debt, and the House “Freedom Caucus” is livid that speaker Mike Johnson has agreed to more funds for Ukraine, claiming it will expand the debt even further.

Can we just have some sanity here?

The federal debt is a problem. This year, the United States will spend about $870 billion, or 3.1 percent of gross domestic product on interest payments on the debt. That’s more than the entire defense budget.

But take a closer look.

The major reason for the huge federal debt is Trump’s and George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which together added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment. They’re responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the ratio of the national debt to the economy since 2001.

Excluding the one-time costs of responding to Covid-19 and the Great Recession, the Bush and Trump tax cuts account for more than 90% of the increase in the debt ratio.

Most of the benefits of those tax cuts, not incidentally, have gone to the rich. 65 percent of the benefits of the Trump tax cuts have gone to the richest fifth of Americans, 22 percent to the top 1 percent.

And as the federal debt has risen, most of the interest payments on it have gone to the rich, too. Wealthy investors park their savings in treasury bonds directly or indirectly in treasury bonds held by mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, banks, insurance companies, personal trusts, and estates.

Decades ago, wealthy Americans financed the federal government mainly by paying taxes. In the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate on the wealthy was above 90 percent. Even including all tax credits and deductions, it was higher than 50 percent.

Since the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts, though, wealthy Americans have financed the federal government mainly by lending it money and collecting interest payments on those loans — profiting when the rest of us pay them back.

Which means a growing portion of everyone else’s taxes are now paying the rich interest on those loans instead of paying for government services everyone needs.

So the next time you hear Republicans complain about the federal debt and our swelling interest payments on it, remember that: (1) the debt has grown mainly because of Republican tax cuts, (2) those cuts have mostly benefited the rich, (3) the rich are now the major recipients of interest payments on that debt, (4) and those interest payments are crowding out spending on childcare, elder care, affordable housing, better schools, paid family leave, and everything Americans need.

Tomorrow’s The Day — Will Justice Or Chaos Reign?

Posted on by under History, Law and justice, Political commentary

Well, tomorrow is the big day … the day when “the Donald” will have to appear in court to answer charges that he falsified and misused campaign funds to pay off a woman, Stephanie Clifford (aka ‘Stormy Daniels’) in order to keep her from telling the truth about an affair she had with Trump in 2006, shortly after Trump’s wife, Melania, had given birth to his son, Barron.  This is the first of his many charges to actually come to trial, despite his lawyers’ multiple attempts just last week to delay or derail it.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes Judge Merchan to lose patience with Trump, for there is no doubt in my mind that Trump will do whatever he can to wreak havoc inside the courtroom, despite the gag order that is supposed to keep him from doing so.  Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him escorted out in handcuffs after his 2nd outburst tomorrow!

It is a misnomer and injustice to refer to this case, as many in the media have, as the “hush money” case, for it is much more than that … it is actually a case of election interference and should be treated with the seriousness that tampering with an election deserves.  Robert Reich explains the difference and why it matters …

Don’t call it the “hush money” case

Trump wants you to think that all he did was try to cover up a sexual affair

By Robert Reich

Trump’s first criminal trial — the first criminal trial of a former president, ever — is scheduled to begin Monday. The 34-count business falsification case may be the only case against Trump to reach a verdict before the November election.

Many people I speak with are worried that this is the weakest of Trump’s four pending criminal trials because it has to do with an illicit affair.

Wrong. Although this case is commonly called the “hush money” case and referred to as Trump’s “coverup of a sex scandal,” this way of describing it minimizes its importance.

This case is really an election interference case — just as are the criminal cases charging him with seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Together, they establish an ongoing pattern: Trump will do anything to gain and keep power, even if his actions violate the nation’s laws.

This case alleges that in 2016 Trump arranged to pay off an adult entertainer in order to hide his affair with her from the public. The important thing to keep in mind is that the money was given to protect Trump’s campaign for the presidency — not to protect his marriage or protect him from personal embarrassment.

The entire purpose of the payoff was to help Trump become president.

Had its sole purpose been to hide a personal sexual affair, it would not have been criminal.

It was criminal because Trump interfered in an election. He violated campaign finance laws. He deprived voters of information that might have affected their votes. Trump then sought to cover it up with false entries in business records.

The mainstream media keeps referring to Trump’s upcoming trial as based on “charges that he covered up a sex scandal.” That’s exactly how Trump wants it characterized. So it looks like the district attorney is tarring Trump with having had an extramarital affair with a porn star — a form of character assassination, not a crime.

But that’s not what the trial is about, and it’s not what’s at stake. Trump tried to keep relevant information from voters on the eve of the 2016 election. This trial is about the integrity of our elections system.

As Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg explained, Trump was out to:

“bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. Trump then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.”

In calling this the “hush money” or “sex scandal” case and implying that Trump was merely trying to hide his tryst with a porn star, the mainstream media is minimizing its significance and misleading the public.

The way Trump’s actions are characterized — the words used to describe what Trump has done to America — are critically important. Please make sure you describe what’s at stake in the upcoming trial accurately, correct others when they misdescribe it, and write or email any media that misstate what it’s about.

Game of Monopoly Anyone?

Posted on by under Economic issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

It seems that no matter what else is going on in the nation or the world, the single issue that people care most about is the economy and how it affects them personally.  I suppose this is natural, but frankly if I’m paying a few more dollars for my weekly groceries or having to cut back on some things is of far less importance to me than things like an entire nation (Ukraine) fighting for its very life, or democracy and human rights being flushed down the toilet as will happen here in the U.S. if a certain madman somehow walks away with a win on November 5th.

The U.S. economy overall is doing quite well … a significant number of new jobs have been added each month and unemployment is at the lowest level it has been in years.  But it’s that sticker shock at the grocery checkout that bothers people most, and inflation is still with us as the Consumer Price Index indicated at the end of March, with prices up 3.2% over the previous month.  So … who to blame?  Far too many people will point their fingers in the wrong direction, blaming President Biden and his policies.  Robert Reich does a nice job of explaining the truth of the matter … and please do take 5 minutes to watch the video!

Why are we still suffering inflation? Monopoly power!

By Robert Reich

10 April 2024

We learned today that the Consumer Price Index climbed 3.5 percent in March from a year earlier, up from 3.2 percent in February, and faster than most economists anticipated.

This poses a conundrum for central bankers who have made it clear that they want to see further evidence that inflation is cooling before they cut interest rates.

The Fed’s high interest rates haven’t pushed America to the brink of a recession, fortunately, but they haven’t slowed inflation as much as policymakers had hoped.

The question is whether Fed officials can cut interest rates at all this year.

President Biden acknowledged today that “prices are still too high for housing and groceries”, and said he was “calling on corporations, including grocery retailers, to use record profits to reduce prices.”

What’s Biden getting at?

Corporations have enough monopoly power to keep prices high.

I explain in this new video I did with my talented colleagues at Inequality Media. Please share!

Corporate profits reached a record high in the fourth quarter of last year.

(Note that many corporations are also shrinking the size of the products you’re buying without lowering their prices — a variant of the same thing.)

This is one of the biggest reasons the American public is not yet crediting Biden with a great economy. Most people still aren’t feeling it.

In 2023, PepsiCo’s chief financial officer said that even though inflation was dropping, its prices would not be. Pepsi hiked its prices by double digits and announced plans to keep them high in 2024.

If Pepsi were challenged by tougher competition, consumers would just buy something cheaper. But PepsiCo’s only major soda competitor is Coca-Cola, which — surprise, surprise — announced similar price hikes at about the same time as Pepsi and has also kept its prices high.

The CEO of Coca-Cola claimed that the company had “earned the right” to push price hikes because its sodas are popular.

Popular? The only thing that’s popular these days seems to be corporate price gouging.

We’re seeing this pattern across much of the economy — especially with groceries. At the end of 2023, Americans were paying at least 30 percent more for beef, pork, and poultry products than they were in 2020.

Why? Near-monopoly power. Just four companies now control processing of 80 percent of beef, nearly 70 percent of pork, and almost 60 percent of poultry. So of course it’s easy for them to coordinate price increases.

The problem goes well beyond the grocery store. In 75 percent of U.S. industries, fewer companies now control more of their markets than they did 20 years ago.

What should be done?

First, antitrust laws must be enforced.

Kudos to the Biden administration for enforcing antitrust more aggressively than any administration in the last 40 years. It’s taken action against alleged price fixing in the meat industry — which has been a problem for decades.

It has sued to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons — two giant grocery chains. Kroger operates 2,750 stores in 35 states and the District of Columbia.

The company’s 19 brands include Ralphs, Smith’s, King Soopers, Fred Meyer, Food 4 Less, Mariano’s, Pick ’n Save, and Harris Teeter. Albertsons operates 2,273 stores in 34 states. Its 15 brands include Safeway, Jewel-Osco, Vons, Acme, and Shaw’s. Together, Kroger and Albertsons employ around 700,000 people.

It’s suing Amazon for using its dominance to artificially jack up prices, in one of the biggest anti-monopoly lawsuits in a generation.

It’s suing Apple for using its market power to control its apps and prevent other businesses from offering them.

It successfully sued to block the merger of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines, which would have made consolidation in the airline industry even worse.

But given how concentrated American industry has become, there’s still a long way to go.

Biden should make his antitrust enforcement against corporate power a centerpiece of his campaign.

Second, big corporations must not be allowed to use their power to gouge consumers.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and others recently unveiled the latest version of their Price Gouging Prevention Act.

“Giant corporations are using supply chain shocks as a cover to excessively raise prices and sometimes charging the same price but shrinking how much consumers actually get,” Warren charges.

The bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission (which would also get $1 billion in additional funding) and state attorneys general to stop companies from charging “grossly excessive” prices, regardless of where alleged price gouging took place in a supply chain.

The legislation would also protect small businesses — those earning less than $100 million — from litigation if they had to raise prices in good faith during crises.

The bill would also require public companies to disclose more about their costs and pricing strategies.

I don’t have any illusions that this bill will find its way into law soon. Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate, and not all Democrats support it.

Meanwhile, Republicans and their business backers are dead set against it — and are eager to blame continued high prices on Biden, not on corporations.

But this bill is just as necessary as aggressive antitrust enforcement — and an example of what could and will be done if Democrats sweep the 2024 elections.

The record profits of large corporations are coming out of the paychecks of average Americans, who are still struggling to get by.

Biden and the Democrats must say this loudly and clearly and tell the public what they are doing — and will do — to stop corporate monopolies and price gouging.