The Nunes Memo, and Other Works of Fiction

Let’s face it; the FBI is made up of people. The Justice Department is made up of people. The Congress is made up of people. All people have opinions. Within those opinions, most will have leanings that fall to the left or right of the political center. Some of those people may even be far right or far left. It is a fact that everyone has an opinion. To think that the FBI, CIA, NSA, Congress, or Justice are made up of people who have no opinions and never let their political leanings color their actions is naïve.

Our National Security Agencies

Each of these groups has jobs to do that are important. We should expect/demand that each individual in these groups sets aside their political bias (as much as that is humanly possible) and works in a professional manner to achieve their stated goals to the best of their ability. On the other hand, each of these individuals has the same right of any citizen to express their opinions when those opinions are not being used to provide direction in their work. Supervisors in the chain of command should monitor the actions of their subordinates to make sure that political bias does not distort the proper direction of their agency or group. Supervisors should be held accountable for the activities of their respective areas of control.

National Intelligence Organization

With all of the above in mind, it should not be the goal of Congress or any of its subgroups to dictate to the FBI or the Justice Department how those agencies should act when, in the proper performance of their duties, the projected outcome may not be what their party would want. The mere fact that the FBI is currently run by Republican appointees and that the special counsel, Bob Mueller, was also a republican appointee, should be enough to let them do their jobs. Just because a Republican controlled Congress doesn’t like where the FBI investigations are headed is not enough for them to try to intimidate and discredit those agencies.

Red=Business Ties             Blue=Campaign Ties
(click picture to enlarge)

President Trump with Sergey Kislyak

The recent release of the Nunes memo is a blatant attempt by certain Republicans to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department because of the investigation of Carter Page, Trump’s former foreign policy advisor. The memo would seem to intimate that the FISA warrant was wholly based on the mere fact that Mr. Page was mentioned in the infamous Steele Dossier. It couldn’t be the fact that Carter Page is a close friend and confidant of Igor Sechin (Vladimir Putin’s close friend; former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia; and leader of the Kremlin’s Siloviki faction of former security services agents). 

Vladimir Putin and Igor Sechin

Who would consider a person with such ties of interest in an investigation of Russian collusion and influence in our election process? Apparently, a federal judge thought there was sufficient information to think that Page was a foreign agent providing intelligence for Russian operatives. Why would the FBI think that was suspicious? Why would anyone grant a warrant to monitor a suspected foreign agent?

Carter Page at Speaking Engagement

The 35-page Steele Dossier, you may remember, was originally commissioned as opposition research by a conservative website and financed by Republican donor Paul Singer. When Trump became the nominee, they no longer needed the commissioned intelligence and funding stopped.

Christopher Steele former MI6 Officer and Author of the Russian Dossier

Enter the DNC and their attorney Mark Elias, so the funding spigot was reopened and the Dossier research continued. Christopher Steele, the dossier’s author, was a former British MI6 officer (22 yrs.), and is now a head of a London based private intelligence firm. He had worked for MI6 in Moscow under diplomatic cover for two years and later headed their Moscow desk. His findings of collusion in the Trump campaign so disturbed him that he turned over his research to both British and US intelligence agencies.

Key Players in Russian (Steele) Dossier
(click picture to enlarge)

The Republicans call the Steele Dossier “salacious and unverified.” They are trying to discredit, without specifics, the facts presented in the dossier. They further insinuate that an FBI counterintelligence investigation by agent Pete Strzok was fueled by his “clear bias against Trump.” This investigation was into ties between Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. While it does appear that Mr. Strzok’s actions were motivated by bias, isn’t that also what motivated the Republicans to release the Nunes memo?

Golden Showers (pee tape) reference in Excerpt from Steel Dossier
(click picture to enlarge)

While the Steele Dossier alleges that the Russians have “kompromat” on Trump, this has not been verified. It has been verified however, that the Russians want existing sanctions lifted. Congress voted overwhelmingly to impose even broader sanctions on Russia and President Trump has refused. Why would a president ignore the wishes of the people and his own party when it comes to Russian sanctions? Could “covfefe” be the English translation of “kompromat?” The Steele Dossier may not have been fully vetted but the president’s actions seem to add credence to at least some of what it contains.

Excerpt From Steele Dossier Regarding Lifting of Sanctions
(click picture to enlarge)

It is not improper to investigate why Trump fired Comey.  While the firing itself is legal, if the intent was to shut down or impede the ongoing investigation into Russian collusion and interference in our election, that is illegal.  An official's conduct is legal only if the motives that initiated that conduct is legal.  Motive matters.  Corrupt abuse of power has no inherent constitutional immunity.

Mueller cannot base his prosecution solely on Comey's testimony.  He needs other evidence.  Testimony and evidence from and about Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and others is crucial.  I think it is obvious from a review of the requirements for a FISA warrant that the Steele Dossier was not the sole justification for the warrant to investigate Page.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.  The FBI also has to conduct a threat assessment to determine grounds for an investigation.  To read more about these requirements use this link.

If you read the Nunes memo, there is nothing really there.  To paraphrase Monty Python, "and now for something completely stupid."  To hear the president tweet that he is now vindicated is absurd and shows that he still hasn't read the memo.  It would seem that the president's attention span is limited to 280 characters.  Carter Page was investigated and nothing in the Nunes memo refutes the legality or the legitimacy of that investigation.

"Their was no Collusion..."
@realDonaldTrump 9:40 AM Feb 3, 2018

"This is an American disgrace," I couldn't agree more.

So, what did the investigation into Carter Page, and his relationship with Paul Manafort, dig up that has this Republican group so fearful?  What has Roger Stone divulged about his role as "dirty trickster" and self-proclaimed "master of political dark arts?"  When did our democracy and the ideals upon which this country was founded, become secondary to the acquisition of power and money? When did political agendas take precedence over the good of the nation?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Abraham Lincoln June 16, 1858, Speech

President Trump’s First Year

This is being written at the end of President Trump’s first year in office.  I didn’t vote for the man, but after he won the election, I said that I wanted to let him have his chance.  It’s the American way.  Win or lose, accept the outcome and move ahead.  By way of full disclosure, I wasn’t a big fan of Hillary Clinton’s either, but eventually voted for her as the lesser of the two available evils.  In the primaries, I voted for Bernie Sanders.  I didn’t think he stood a chance and he certainly didn’t look presidential but his ideals were more closely aligned with mine.  I thought Hillary was a qualified politician but not the right candidate for the times.  She had too much history and political baggage to be the first one to cross the American presidential gender barrier. 

Trump at Disneyworld's Hall of Presidents

For the 2020 presidential elections, I can only hope we don’t lose the meaning of the year and that we use our 20/20 hindsight to present the people with a better selection of candidates on both sides of the aisle.  Please know that I don’t mean Oprah Winfrey either.  She is a seemingly wonderful person but we don’t need another television personality to run the business of governing this country.  It is a sad realization that the job of president is one for a professional politician or at least someone with a clear understanding of how this country operates.

Now we come to the recap of President Trump’s first year.  No, this isn’t going to be another liberal bashing of the president.  What would be the point?  Everybody has their own opinion by now and words from me aren’t going to change anybody’s mind.  The president’s base of support will remain somewhere in the mid 30’s unless he commits a “red-state mortal sin” like bad-mouthing Richard Petty, Waylon Jennings, or Dale Earnhardt.  Actually, I would doubt he even knows who these people are.  No, Richard Petty was not Tom Petty’s dad.

Richard Petty

Tom Petty

Most recently, the news media is “all-a-Twitter” (pun intended) questioning the president’s racism.  I found Martin Luther King’s nephew, Isaac Newton Farris’ statement that Trump is not a racist “in the traditional sense,” enlightening.  The qualifier was insightful.  It’s easy to see that both beauty and racism are in the eye of the beholder.  Just as it is easy to point to Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry and call them beautiful, you can’t deny the racism of the KKK or the Arian Nation.  It’s when you get beyond the Klansmen and skinheads where racism starts to be a matter of degree.  It would seem that President Trump is just your garden variety racist and xenophobe.  He doesn’t like what he doesn’t understand and he doesn’t understand much.  His lifetime experiences have been in the rarefied atmosphere inhabited by extremely wealthy white people or extremely white wealthy people.  He is familiar with each of these groups.  To paraphrase the president, “There are some very good people on both sides.”

Racism, A Matter of Degree Beyond the Obvious 

Another question being bandied about involves President Trump’s mental stability.  This is only based on observations of his behavior.  I know this will offend some but the man lies.  Like a lot.  He could listen to an audio tape or watch video of himself saying one thing and he will be completely comfortable claiming that he never said or did whatever had been recorded.  The man could argue against gravity.  Who says it’s a law?  I didn’t vote for it.  He would feel perfectly justified to rescind the law of gravity with an executive order.  He reminds me of a great reggae pop song by Shaggy titled “It Wasn’t Me.”  In the song, the narrator is caught by his girlfriend with the next-door neighbor “in flagrante delicto.”  This happens several times in various rooms and positions but the culprit constantly claims, “It wasn’t me.”

Song:  Shaggy, It Wasn't Me

President Obama promised CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.  Everyone was dissatisfied with the status quo so change seemed like a worthy ideal.  The American public saw that the existing corrupt system of ours wasn’t accomplishing much.  They wanted CHANGE.  President Obama spent eight years in office and, truth be told, not much changed.  While many things were accomplished, it was done the old-fashioned way with politics as usual.  By 2016, the nation still wanted change.  With a democratic president and a republican controlled House and Senate, meaningful legislation was bogged down in the quagmire of party politics.

Trump Cabinet Firings

Along came Trump who promised to “Drain the Swamp,” meaning he would shake the status quo to its core.  Well, say what you will about the man, after his first year, things are certainly different.  We got CHANGE with a capital “T.”  President Trump pointed out the flaws in our system by exploiting them to his advantage.  He proved to be a master showman, the great manipulator of the facts, the king of misdirection, and a self-promoter of epic proportions.  He took his experience as a reality TV show host on The Apprentice, where his tagline was, “You’re Fired,” and moved it to the White House where he has uttered those words at least 15 times to fire his own cabinet appointees.  Trump’s promise to “Drain the Swamp” seems to have been put on hold when he started hearing banjo music.

Cue the banjo music

It would appear that he isn’t really draining the swamp so much as he is stocking the pond with questionable appointees.  As on The Apprentice, the only way to get ahead in this White House is to “impress the boss.”  Those closest to him know that’s Trump-speak for “Praise and Revere Me.”  Mike Pence has made “getting to first base” with the boss’ derrière a new art form.

Watch/listen to VP Pence pay tribute to his master

So, what has the president accomplished?  When I say accomplished, I mean what has the president actually motivated, planned, and directed in terms of legislation for the greater good of the country.  President Trump takes credit for the burgeoning economy, which is continuing a path started long before he took office.  I give him little, if any credit here.  I don’t give Obama credit for capturing Osama bin Laden either.  Sure, it happened on his watch and he certainly played some role in the outcome but credit lies with the people on the ground that provided the intelligence that made it possible.  When something happens through the hard work of others, and you happen to be standing close by, you don’t get credit for the outcome.

So far, the biggest impact President Trump has made has been the appointment of around 23 conservative federal judges, one of which is now on the Supreme Court.  This will be Trump’s legacy for better or worse, long after he is gone.

The only legislation of note has been tax reform.  It comes in the form of personal income tax changes and corporate tax relief.  President Trump didn’t get involved, beyond not getting in the way, and he spent less than a minute signing it.  He let the un-drained swamp pull together a tax reform bill that provides him with a mountain of cash.  Wealthy Americans, including all members of Congress, will get a tremendous tax break too.  Regular “average income” Americans will initially benefit, but to a much lesser degree.  Corporate tax cuts coupled with a rollback of government regulations should prolong the upward trend in the stock market.  Those invested in the stock market will benefit but 60% of the American population does not participate in that market.

Up To Your Ass in Alligators

 

The American public as a whole will however inherit and eventually pay for the resultant trillions of dollars of debt burden.  You can kick the debt can down the road a bit but each time the can gets bigger.  Eventually you will no longer be able to ignore the giant can in the road impeding your progress.

The deficit-financed tax cut has already had the negative effect of weakening the dollar.  Apparently, foreign financial markets take a dim view of the bill’s $1.5 trillion price tag.  This is in addition to the existing $14.6 trillion debt so the tax cut is a very questionable accomplishment.  With a rise in deficits, we are forced to finance the added debt by borrowing from other countries.  This drives up Treasury yields and lowers the value of the dollar.

Therefore, getting back to President Trump’s accomplishments, what else has he done?  I can’t, in good conscience, include the shrinking of two national monuments to allow more oil exploration.  While North American oil independence is a worthwhile goal, most experts agree this (independence) is not wholly possible.  Our energy needs for the foreseeable future will be a mix of coal, oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, biofuels, wind, and solar.  Each of these has its drawbacks and limitations.  The fact that Mexico and Canada are both friendly partners in oil production for all of North America means it would be wise to “not piss them off.”  We need to improve our adaptability in providing for our nation’s energy needs while not destroying the planet in the process.  It’s a delicate balance.

Delicate Balance

Job growth was a campaign promise.  So far, only minor anecdotal changes can be found.  Walmart gave out raises and $1,000 bonuses as a result of the tax cut, but then promptly shut down 63 of its Sam’s Club stores (7,500 layoffs) and laid off an additional 499 people in marketing. The coal mining industry added 500 new jobs in 2017.  Comcast gave out $1,000 bonuses to 100k employees but then laid off over 500 managers.  ATT also gave $1,000 bonuses to 200k employees but also laid off over 4,000 union employees. 

Corporate Tax Cuts to Employees or Shareholders

A recent 30% tariff on solar panels from foreign manufacturers sounds good until you realize that raising costs will reduce the number of installations.  This means cutbacks in thousands of blue-collar installer jobs (estimated losses as high as 23,000 jobs) that will cost the US more than the tariff revenue it produces.  It will also, in all probability, not significantly increase domestic production of solar panels.  Corporations have benefitted from the tax cuts and immediately gave out bonuses to top executives.  Job expansion, if it comes, will have to be in the coming months and years.  Even if we see job expansion and salary increases in the next few years, these will need to be viewed through the lens of the debt burden.

Imported Solar Panels being taxed at 30%

Another Trump “accomplishment” of questionable value, is the decimation of the State Department.  The president is at odds with his appointee, Rex Tillerson and there are currently 45 top-level vacancies in the State Department.  Mr. Tillerson, you will remember, was the former CEO of Exxon Mobile who was the first appointee in modern history to head the State Department who lacked any experience in public office.  The attitude that diplomacy is unimportant has resulted in low morale, recruitment and retention problems, and a decline in experienced leadership.  When asked about the gutting of the State Department in a November 2, 2017, Fox News interview (The Ingraham Angle), Trump stated, “Let me tell you, the one that matters is me.”  “I’m the only one that matters.”  I replayed the clip several times to make sure I got an exact quote.

Watch/listen to President Trump tell you why the State Department is unimportant

Immigration reform is now (January of 2018) the “Breaking News.”  Items included in the immigration basket are DACA (aka “dreamers,” Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals); CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program); The Wall (aka “big beautiful wall,”); border security; chain migration; and sanctuary cities.  That’s a big basket.  This one complex issue has already managed to shut down the government for several days with possibly more shutdowns in our future.  President Trump’s position on immigration, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “… is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”  No one knows where Trump stands on the issue, not even the president.  At a recent meeting with both Democrats and Republicans, he changed his mind from accepting a clean DACA bill to wanting one with strings, in a matter of seconds.

Tuesday night (1/30/2018) President Trump will deliver his State of the Union address, or as I call it, the State of the Onion.  You peel away the layers and it just makes you want to cry.  I don’t know which of the two Trumps will show up, tele-prompter Trump or reality-show Trump.  I expect him to boast about the economy, the tax cut, and the nation’s low unemployment rate.  I expect him to parrot (tele-prompter read) some outline position for immigration reform.  I would hope he lays out a comprehensive infrastructure plan but I don’t expect him to have a clue as to how to finance the plan after the $1.5 trillion deficit financed tax cut.

Makes You Want to Cry

I'll wait and see and add more below if my paragraph above is not accurate.  It will hopefully end up more accurate than the printed tickets to the gala event:

My State of the Onion is being upstaged by the State of the UNIOM

The Republican Tax Bill Explained, Maybe

I don’t think I fully understand the upcoming Republican Tax Reform Bill and resulting Republican budget strategy.  I know members of the Republican House and Senate don’t fully understand it either because they all say that they haven’t read the thing.  I can’t even think in terms of the trillions of dollars involved.  I thought I would try to understand the basics by way of an analogy, a parable if you will.

Consider the Joneses, a family of eleven with a husband, wife, and nine children.  This family represents all of America.  They own their own home but have a first and second mortgage which, when combined, exceed the appraised value of the home.  Their credit cards are all maxed out.  The husband, the sole wage earner, has an income of $100,000.  After making the two mortgage payments, minimum credit card payments, buying food, and paying utility and medical bills, there is nothing left at the end of the month.

The Joneses

This family takes its security seriously so they have a sophisticated alarm system, video surveillance, a perimeter fence, and they own over 200 semi-automatic rifles and 100 cases of ammunition.  This arsenal represents more firepower than all of their neighbors combined.  This year they plan to spend an additional $16,000 to purchase more weapons.  Since his credit cards are maxed, Mr. Jones plans to borrow this amount from the Bank of Xi Jinping.

The Joneses Take Security Seriously

The Jones’ house is in need of repairs and the electrical supply lines to the property need to be upgraded as there are regular power outages.  The road into the Jones property is full of potholes.  There is a small bridge across a ditch that is part of this main driveway entrance and that bridge is in danger of collapse after years of neglect.  The water supply to the house leaks and the sewer system constantly overflows into the yard.  These repairs will be postponed while Mr. Jones plans to put $10,000 into fixing the holes in their fence so his neighbors can’t sneak in.  It is not immediately obvious why the fence needs to be fixed since most of his neighbors currently just come in through the main driveway and front walkway.  Mr. Jones will again borrow this money from the Bank of Xi Jinping.

Mr. Jones gives his wife and nine children an allowance.  This year he plans to give his wife and eight of his kids a $1.00 a week raise in this allowance.  The last child, Donald, his favorite, will get a $500 a week raise.  Donald is the rich family member and spends his allowance on the finer things.  Mr. Jones had hoped that Donald would spend some of his allowance helping out other family members but, since Donald was born, this money has never trickled down to the others.  Mr. Jones hopes that, by giving Donald this extra $500 a week, his attitude will change.  It never has before but Mr. Jones is, above all things, an optimist (and a Republican).  These allowance raises will cost Mr. Jones $26,468 that he will borrow from the Bank of Xi Jinping.

Trickle Down Economics

Mr. Jones isn’t really worried about all of this.   He knows he can stop paying his health insurance to save some money.  If someone in the family gets sick they can always go to the local emergency room.   He also knows that he is getting along in years and has been regularly drinking from a polluted water supply and breathing the air from the nearby coal fired electrical plant.  He certainly hopes he doesn't have to rely on Medicare and Social Security since those programs will certainly have to be curtailed.  His wife and kids will inherit all of this debt when he dies.  Even Donald will suffer because he hasn’t saved a dime. 

If the Jones family sounds like it is living on borrowed time, just consider what the new tax bill and our current spending priorities sound like.  We owe about 2.4 trillion dollars to China and Japan.  We owe another 2.6 trillion dollars to other countries.  We also owe 5 trillion dollars to ourselves.  I guess this last figure is what happens when you own the printing press and can just make more dollars.

We currently owe more than the annual total Gross Domestic Product;
and we just gave everybody a raise (lowered taxes)

The Republican Party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility but has just managed to plunge us deeper in debt.  Yes, I will personally pay less in taxes next year because of this tax cut.  Most salaried Americans will see lower withholding taxes and, as a consequence, receive a bigger paycheck.  Wealthy Americans, the .01% ers, by most accounts, will be able to afford an even bigger yacht.

While most Americans are today listening to the news and don't like the new tax bill, when they see a small boost in their paychecks in 2018, they will probably forget the disparity.  If we in the lower 99 percentile forget the beating we were handed in 2017, the 2018 mid-term elections will probably favor the Republicans.  To quote Sonny and Cher, "The beat goes on."

Sonny & Cher, The Beat Goes On

Food for thought.  According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center:

The average break (from the new tax bill) would be about $1,600 in 2018, but the biggest break, calculated as a share of after-income tax, would go to those families making between $308,000 and $733,000. For middle-income people, their tax savings, an extra $900, would pay for about seven months of gas. By contrast, those in the top one percent could pick up a nice Mercedes C Class Coupe with their $50,000+ average tax cut.

You get $900 worth of gas

"THEY" get $50,000 Mercedes C Class

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”  Franklin D. Roosevelt

The Repeal of Net Neutrality is Good For Consumers, and Other Tall Tales

Let’s face it,  the regional monopolies represented by AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, need to make more money.  You were probably just looking at your most recent Internet provider bill and said to yourself, these poor people need to make even more money.  These ISP's would normally have but one option; to raise their rates and add new fees, which they have regularly done. There was always some risk here however, because some (not all) customers have alternatives with their competition.  Another way they can each make more money would be to “invest” in legislation that would allow them to charge content providers for access to you, their customers.

Whichever side of the political gridiron you regularly root for, you have to admit that both teams favor expediency of their specific agenda over anything else.  The good of the nation and the protection of consumers rarely enter their realm of conscious behavior.

A case in point is the recent repeal of net neutrality regulations.  I would speculate that most consumers don’t realize what just happened at the FCC with the elimination of the protections they have had since they were implemented in 2015, under Title II of the Communications Act.  In simple terms, net neutrality meant that all Internet service providers (ISP’s) had to allow equal and fair access to all content providers.  This would mean that Comcast, that owns NBC, Universal Studios, USA Network, Hulu, CNBC, etc., couldn’t give Internet priority to its network streams over the competition.  You should know that all three of the top ISP’s own content companies.

Note that AT&T also now owns DirecTv

It also meant that ISP’s couldn’t start blocking or slowing down media streams in order to demand payments from the content providers.  With net neutrality, all traffic flowed at the same speed over the network, regardless of ownership or content.  What will probably happen now, not immediately but soon, is that you will see that ISP’s will demand fees from major players like Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu.  These big players will have to “pay up” or face blocking or slow-downs of their customers’ feeds.  Smaller start-ups won't stand a chance.  Do you want to guess who will be paying these fees in the end?  I think you know the answer to this one.

When ISP’s can control the throttle and brake, they can control the content.  AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can now make more money at your expense.  Who financially supported the repeal of net neutrality?  If you guessed AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, you would be correct.  Since 2008, these three companies and their trade association, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) aka The Internet & Television Association, have spent over half a billion dollars lobbying the FCC and federal government.  That's half a billion dollars that didn't go into building infrastructure so they could complain to congress and the FCC that they don't have enough money for infrastructure.

Deregulation of business seems to be an important plank in the platform of one of our parties, (insert your guess here).  While both parties have been complicit in the deregulation game to some extent, (spoiler alert) Republicans seem to have raised it to a new art form.  They do this, with a straight face, and proclaim it is good for consumers.  When consumer protections are removed and big business is free to act in any manner they chose, how is this good for consumers?

Does anyone remember the deregulation of the banking industry?  The repeal of the protections imposed after the stock market crash of 1929, did wonders for the financial well being of millions of Americans.  Do you remember: October 19, 1987 (aka Black Monday); October 13, 1989 (aka Friday 13th mini-crash); March 10, 2000 (aka dot com bubble); September 16, 2008 (aka sub-prime mortgage Financial Crisis)?  The banking and financial industries said, "Trust us," and we did by taking away protections.  Note that both Democrats and Republicans were complicit here, but the Republicans have the deregulation gene as part of their DNA.

The head of the FCC is Trump appointed Ajit Pai.  You know Mr. Pai has the best interests of consumers in mind.  He was, after all, the former Associate General Counsel for Verizon, and wouldn't let that influence his decision to remove these consumer protections.

FCC Voting on Net Neutrality Removal
3 Republicans For; 2 Democrats Against

We all know how deregulation of the airline industry has benefited consumers.  Are you enjoying your wide people-sized seats and extra legroom yet?  I’m sure none of you has heard pre-flight announcements asking for volunteers to take another flight because this one has been over-booked.  You certainly haven’t heard the airlines ask for people to check their carry-on luggage because there just isn’t enough overhead space.

You know you can trust the airlines baggage handlers with your cameras, jewelry, and expensive clothing because if they are ever lost or damaged, the airlines will pay you back without question.  This assumes that you have receipts for each item, can prove that these items were in your bag, and file your claim in a timely (time-frame set by the airline) fashion.  Everybody trusts big business will place its customers’ needs above their respective bottom lines.  I know it’s hard to read this paragraph while your eyes are rolling.  Ah, the joys of de-regulation, when will they end?

Baggage Handler aka, the Catcher

The repeal of net neutrality captures the zeitgeist of the "new and improved" Republican party.  Take corporate money, pass or repeal legislation that benefits the corporation, and lie to the public that it is all to make America great again.  I ask the question, when did America stop being great?  Perfect, no, but we can hopefully fix what is wrong.  Much of what is wrong with America can be traced to regular visitors of the 202 area code.  Clue, I'm not talking about DC tourists here.

Opponents of net neutrality will argue that these onerous regulations are preventing them (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) from providing better service at a lower cost to consumers.  If you believe this, please write me and tell me when your ISP lowers your broadband Internet bill.  These same people say, trust me, repeal of net neutrality will open the market to other ISP's who will provide the competition that holds down costs.  Again, please write me and tell me when you see other companies running  new coaxial cable, twisted pair, or fiber optic cable in your neighborhood to provide you with a better selection at a lower cost.  I won't hold my breath.

Airline deregulation was a good thing.  Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.  Banking deregulation never cost Americans a penny ($19 trillion is not a penny).  Repealing net neutrality will benefit consumers.  The Trojan Horse was a great gift to the Trojans.  Bernie Madoff had a sound investment strategy. Trickle-down economics really works.  Richard Nixon was not a crook.  My dog doesn't bite (that's not my dog).  It's only a cold sore.  You get this one and I'll pay next time.  It's supposed to make that noise.  I never inhaled.  I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.  The check is in the mail, and I won't ......

All Men (Voters) Are Created Equal, NOT

The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution, define our system of government and are among the pillars upon which our government was founded.  The goals and ambitions outlined within these documents over 240 years ago were laudable.  The Declaration of Independence states, “…all men are created equal…” and this idea is embodied within our case law by a legal philosophy known as declarationism.

Declaration of Independence

It is a common misconception that the United States is a democracy.  We are, in fact, a constitution based Federal republic with certain democratic policies and traditions.  “We The People” don’t vote and create laws directly but have electors who are responsible for making decisions and creating laws.  All that being said, it was the intent of the founding fathers that all men, and later women, would have the ability to select their representatives.  It was also their intent to allow “The People” to select individuals to represent them who would make decisions in their best interests and/or the interests of the country as a whole.  The authors of our founding documents had just recently declared their freedom from a Monarchial system and wanted to insure that the will of the people would prevail.

What our founding fathers failed to anticipate was a financial take-over of our Republic.  While the handwriting has been on the wall for many administrations, Democratic and Republican, our most recent presidential incarnation has managed to throw caution to the wind and to test the legality of what we thought we knew to be fact.  We now realize that some things were just tradition, common sense, or morally sensible guidelines, but not explicitly written into law.  President Trump has now tested the waters and has decided to make waves.  Moreover, these are not to be little waves, these will be Big League waves (or Bigly if you prefer).

President Trump didn’t create this mess; he merely took advantage of our corrupt system.  Our congressional leaders have been complicit for decades in creating an environment where a man of Donald Trump’s demeanor could use his spinning moral compass to steer our country into turmoil.  Perhaps we owe President Trump a vote of thanks for pointing out the frailties of our system of government, perhaps not.  In any case, the devil is in the details, as well as the White House.

For decades, our elected officials had followed one “Prime Directive” to use a Star Trek reference, and that is that their main goal in office is to get re-elected.  In order to get re-elected they need to raise money, lots of money.  When “lots of money” flows to a politician, that money buys influence, access, and allows the donors to get laws written that favor them as individuals or corporations.  Prior to the Citizens United, v. Federal Election Commission ruling of 2010, the amount of money and hence influence, was restricted.  There were limits set that, even allowing for a few loopholes, kept gross corruption in check.  Now, money rules the day.  Money doesn’t just talk; money yells and screams with a bullhorn that is not to be ignored.

You would think that our system of elections would allow us to just vote out of office any individual who, through their legislative actions or misdeeds, didn’t mirror the will of the people.  In theory, this would be true.  However, when large quantities of cash and other items of value are involved, elections and politicians can be easily corrupted.

Money buys gerrymandered voting districts where the voting influence of large groups of voters is minimized or muted.  Money buys election laws that keep specific people or groups of people from voting.  Money buys media access to influence those who do vote.  In essence, money is used to buy legislation that favors individuals/corporations with the money.  The legislation enacted in exchange for money makes these donor individuals and corporations even wealthier.  It is a self-perpetuating process.

We can follow your moral compass as long as
it doesn't interfere with my financial GPS

As part of our concept of state’s rights, election laws vary rather widely.  This may be somewhat acceptable when selecting a state Senator, state Representative, or when voting on a statewide initiative or referendum.  On the other hand, national elections, i.e., presidential elections, should have a singular national standard.

Our presidential election process should be uniform in concept and execution across the nation.  It should not be a “state’s right” to decide who, how, when, and under what circumstances an individual can vote at the presidential level and how those votes are calculated and used in the process.  The Electoral College should be abolished as its original purpose and intent has long been negated.  As a practical matter the abolition of the Electoral College would be extremely difficult.

The first reason given for the existence of the Electoral College is that the voting public can't be trusted to always make informed critical decisions.  While it is conceivable that voters in the 18^th century might not have had access to the information that would let them avoid the election of a manipulative tyrant, one might argue that this very process is today, partly responsible for accomplishing that same feared outcome.

The second reason for the Electoral College’s existence was to provide smaller states with more influence in the election outcome than they would have if one person equaled one vote.  By way of example, [note, numbers are not current], Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for only 210,000 voters (1 electoral vote per 70,000) and California has 54 electoral votes for 9,700,000 voters (1 electoral vote per 180,000).  This means that each Wyoming voter is worth over two times as much, in the election of our president, than a voter in California is.  The principal of one-person one vote is thus negated.  To further complicate matters, the “winner takes all” concept of the Electoral College, which is a 19^th century invention, makes it easy for an individual to win the presidency without receiving the majority of votes.  Currently Maine and Nebraska are the only two states who do not use a “winner takes all” process.

Democrats won the popular vote six of last seven elections
but the presidency only four of those times

Currently ten states and the District of Columbia have signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where they would abolish the “winner takes all” concept.  Their respective electoral representatives would be required to vote for whomever wins the popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This group currently (2017) represents 165 electoral votes.  They need to reach 270 electoral votes before the Pact would change the system.

Inequality in America is further exacerbated by education, or a lack thereof.  While a good quality education should be a right of all people (along with healthcare), the rich get better educations than do poor people.  As we have seen more recently, the wealthy class in America has also managed to rob the monies we currently spend for education in the public sector and have diverted it to private schools.

The old adage that was designed to keep women under the control of men referenced “keeping them barefoot and pregnant.”  The new desire of the wealthy to wield financial power over their perceived lessors seems to be, “keep them poor and ignorant.”

The need for keeping a large sector ignorant or under-educated helps the rich get richer.  How else could you sell a tax plan where you give poor (and many not so poor) people a small temporary break in their taxes while giving yourselves a massive tax break through both personal income and corporate revisions which are mostly permanent.  You are doing all of this while raising the national debt and putting the financial burden for these breaks on future generations.  The uninformed poor myopically see a current small reduction in their taxes.  They fail to see the possible offsetting losses in the form of other taxes, fees and expenses (like healthcare), not to mention the future burden of the national debt.  They also fail to see that the very wealthy will get the biggest break of all, at their expense.

Without a certain constituent base that is poorly educated how can you, with a straight face, promise the return of jobs that are never to return?  (Trump speech Nevada, Feb 24, 2016, “...I love the poorly educated.”)  Coal is dead.  Small retail is dead.  Large retail is dying.  Mundane manufacturing jobs are being automated.  This is not Fake News.  Educated people know this.

Our mutual goals as a “want-to-be Democracy” should be to:

• ·        Eliminate the Electoral College or at least the “winner takes all” process.
• ·        Institute term limits for all members of congress
• ·        Establish official sites and sources for validated election information
• ·        Eliminate gerrymandering of voting districts
• ·        Vote independently for both the President and Vice-presidential positions
• ·        Establish uniform election laws for presidential elections
• ·        Demand annual full financial disclosure for all political positions on the national stage

The fact that Russia interfered with our last election and managed to have at least some perhaps never to be determined impact, is not disputed by reasonable observers.  It will be difficult to lessen this impact in future elections but we should at least strive to keep the process as clean and fair as possible.

Russian "Wedgie"

If you are among those who support the Republican Party, I would think that nothing proposed in the bullets above would be contrary to anything in your party’s declared platform.  If you are a Democrat, I would think these changes would be welcome.  If you are dissatisfied with the current administration, nothing here will change the situation.  You may however take some solace in the knowledge that, with his penchant for Big Macs, fries, strawberry shakes, diet Cokes, and buckets of KFC fried chicken, President Trump may not be long for this world.  

Be careful what you wish for however, Vice President Pence is a “whole other bucket of worms.”