SAVE US FROM THE SAVE TRUMP ACT

 The SAVE Act is really the SAVE Trump act. Trump has decided to hold hostage any homebuyer relief because, for him, suppressing the votes of those he believes would vote against his interests in November is most important.. What he did not count on was that the GOP in the Senate and now in the House believe the SAVE act would hurt them as much as it would the Democrats...Today's SCOTUS decision that would let late acceptance of mail-in ballots would probably not be affected. Here is a refresher course on the SAVE Trump Act: from my earlier blog posting:

SAVE us from SAVE: The radical piece of legislation before the Senate would have at least three particularly obnoxious provisions designed to keep certain groups of people from voting, or would require extraordinary efforts and money to prove citizenship. Particularly harmed by the requirement to provide citizenship would be married women, the poor, and seniors who do not have passports or cannot find or get certified copies of birth certificates, divorce, and name change papers so they match driver's licenses with a photo. ID.. It would expose personal data now held by separate states to partisan centralized federal officials, for suppression targeting methods and dirty tricks. The motivation for this piece of legislation is not to enhance vote integrity but to give the advantage to the GOP in the midterms. Trump has admitted that.

Their whole premise is built on a lie that illegals voted and caused Trump to lose in 2020, for which no evidence has ever been found.

Another excuse Trump likes to make for his loss in 2020 was that there was extensive fraud in mail-in ballots. Therefore, his answer: only ballots received by election day should be counted... cutting out most active military votes or leaving them subject to the whims of the postal delivery service. (A lower court also scotched that postal service role this week)Some states would have to change their already existing rules and laws to conform. In fact, a study taken exposes Trump's claim as BS, and I cannot find any evidence to the contrary. (The SCOTUS 6/29 decision left the status quo in place)

More on the SAVE attack on voters' ability to vote:

1) It would keep married women from voting if their ID does not match their birth certificate names or even passport names. (Estimated 50 percent of voters do not have passports). What does your driver's license have as your photo ID name? Divorce papers would also have to be produced, or legal documentation of name changes would have to be provided.

2) All of your personal information, driver's licenses, social security numbers, and personal data held by State officials would have to be handed over to the Department of Homeland Security as they search first for registered illegals, turn out ICE to "protect" their own voting interests at polling places,, and God knows whatelse it could be used for if say a dictator who may not be one you supports takes over now or in the future.

3) This federalization enables big brother government to manipulate elections to suit the outcome they want by giving them the tools to identify targeting groups or kinds of legal voters that may not support them by voting roll purges and other strategies. The beauty of the current state control of such information is that 50 states can control their data instead of one federal government, in the hands of a party or single strong leader, being able to affect the outcome and votes in elections.

.The premise used to rationalize this legislation is stopping illegals from voting, a line MAGA has swallowed whole without any thought or care about evidence. For over 6 years, proof of the"steal" of the 2020 vote has been investigated, rejected by courts and hearings, and never proved. It is still just a theory to excuse a loss or a suspicion. Never mind, keeping certain voters from voting is a political strategy that MAGA embraces because they see a political advantage for them in the midterms. Heads up MAGA. You may not always be in control of the Oval Office, Congress, or the judiciary. What happens if the shoe is on the other foot, and the people you consider to be political enemies are now in power?

The big tent of a two party system is not by design, but by necessity

Yesterday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries invited the newly winning NY Democratic Socialists into the Democratic Party, just as Democrats have included  Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders in their Congressional caucus, even though most in the Democrats' House caucus do not share the anti-capitalist and one-class-of-workers rhetoric and ideology of the Democratic Socialists.  https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/jeffries-welcomes-democratic-socialists-fold-194230441.html    How did that happen ? Does it mean the Democratic Party embraces socialism, hook, line, and sinker? No. It has to do with reality: strength in numbers is a necessity, and a big ten strategy that dominates both parties. What Democrats and Social Democrats do share are the issues of "affordability" and anti-oligarchy.

 As Democrats now wrestle with the growing strength of the Democratic Socialist wing's rise in New York and the GOP barely disguises its White Christian Nationlist fascist like wing, voters are more and more divided into warring two political parties with each claiming the other has been taken over by wings to be feared.  The reality is that there has already been a two-party system in the US that forces compromise, exclusion, and inclusion within the US politics.  It is reflected in both elections and the makeup of caucus structures in Congress and state legislatures.  Independents, or those who identify with Democratic Socialism on the left and libertarians on the right, pick the caucus of one of the two major parties in Congress that most closely represents their ideology or issue positions, even though only a fraction of their preferences are accepted. The result is what we see now: the term "socialist," which used to scare more establishment Democrats and most voters, is no longer freaking out most New York voters, though that might not be true in the rest of the country.  What happened in NY could stay in NY, but probably not, because of a growing revolt against the GOP being the party of oligarchs and big business who care little about the kitchen table needs of working people and even the middle class.

 The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about their lower-class voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables.  Trump is still in power and governs by whipping self-identified members into loyal occupants of his Trumpist tent. He does it by threats of being primaried if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction leader demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am a Democrat."...but since numbers of votes count as a measure of strength and the road to power, they too invite all they can into their big tent, even if they have to hold their noses at the word socialist.  What has happened is that the traditional Democratic Party leaders now realize these socialists were onto a winning message: affordability. The result is yesterday, as the Democratic House minority leader invited Democratic Socialists into their caucus, even though most already there do not embrace the anti-capitalist rhetoric or ideology of the Democratic Socialists. 

Our founders did not plan it that way and, in fact, viewed political parties as a threat to the system they envisioned in the Constitution they were constructing. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, but arose as liberals and conservatives consolidated their power with organizations and names,  under the banner and protection of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the freedom to gather to air their grievances.  

Two parties have dominated throughout our history, but they have frequently changed names and even reversed political ideology,  even changing places, particularly in the wake of the Civil War. Their institutionalization can be found in the politics of individual states, protected by their own statutes and issues of gerrymandering, and the details of when and where and who qualifies to be on a ballot. Most voters like it simple and, if not very engaged in political news, check the box for the party's choice in general elections. Splinter parties, third parties, have a difficulty of even gathering enough votes to be a part of the power structure and how to influence the direction of the country,  or enven getting parts of their platform enacted into law, with the only route to be heard and to convince one or other party, Democrat or Republican, so they battle it out within the parties, and during the primary season, and political conventions.. 

There are no party membership cards; it is a matter of self-identification and of whether the party's leaders reach out to include them. There is a matter of reality, that in close partisan elections, every vote counts, and even the leadership has to welcome them as they hold their noses.  The result is the big tent: the bottom line in Congress and in primaries and general elections is which party gets the most votes.  In short, there is strength in numbers in a democracy.  It is a necessity. Fractions can only find their voice by joining a major party and making their case within it. From the perspective of the major party, the pressure is to be as big a tent as possible to win and gain the power to govern, even though not all in it are on the same page on every issue.

 The result is what we see now: the term socialist that used to scare the more establishment Democrats and voters themselves is now right out there in the open and winning localized elections. The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about the voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables, while whipping their members into loyal occupants of their tent by threats of being primaried and finding themselves excommunicated if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am  a Democrat." However, the reality and necessity persist: strength in numbers.

My facebook friend responded with...so what do you want to do about it? Where am I personally? I rarely am so open or ever did my own manifesto, but here it is at this moment. There is is no silver bullet. Yes, the 2008 financial crisis was because regulators were asleep at the wheel, mixing bad, risky loans with good ones in tranches, and then passing them off as purely A-rated...among some. Other banks did not have enough capital in reserve In relation to bad loans, etc. I am not sure if I can resurrect my old columns on that, but the regulators were MIA in the RE tranches, likewise in the Bernie Madoff scheme. Lots of reform legislation was passed, but if no one enforces them, they are as I said, not worth the paper they were printed on. Where am I going with democratic socialists? As I wrote... it is a necessity I am not totally comfortable with, I guess. I am more middle-of-the-road. Capitalism, well-regulated and fair to the middle class and workers, but opposed to lopsided tax laws that only benefit the already very rich, which do not trickle down. The rich should pay their fair share. Trick down work? Never has; never will. 

I did not mention foreign policy and Trump's blunder on the Iran war, but I am still a bit of a cold warrior, and I vehemently support Ukraine's brave attempt to join the West in the face of Russian invasion. To update, with half of my family in Europe, stability and freedom from Putin's control are as important now as they were in the last century.  Trump's isolationism is a danger to US security, and now, instead of America First, we are America Alone as Trump steers us to alliances with those who would do us harm, in his admiration of countries run by dictatorships of a person or a party who are pariahs of the rest of the world.  

Capitalism cannot be healthy with TACO chaos, and we need population growth; only immigration can supply as our birth rates dip. I do support strong border control and migrant rights, however. The rule of law must rule: it is what foreign investors cherished at one time, and I fear Trump has upended it. I am a supporter of civil rights and in that regard, am closer to libertarians on that issue,, but I believe strongly that government has a role in making our lives fairer and better. 

One thing I did not mention that democratic socialists and I agree on: using the tools of democracy to achieve goals. This is in sharp contrast to Trump and loyalists who condone, forgive, and reward violent overthrow and paramilitary thugs to do the dirty work, whether Jan 6 or ICE. I firmly support an executive branch subject to the separation and balance of powers. Right now, I am a big supporter of the No Kings movement and peaceful mass demonstrations as the best political tool to deal with Trump, a wannabe autocrat. Trump may be a lame duck, but he is a duck with fangs and can do a lot of damage to our democracy in the two and a half years he has left.

Y

GOP: Be careful what you wish as Trumpism trashes affordaiblity and regulatory enforcement

 GOP: Be careful what you wish as Trumpism trashes affordability and regulatory enforcement. Last week, I caught a panel of experts on Stephanie Ruhle's new AM show on MSNow, who concluded it was the wild, wild west on Wall Street. That is a scary potential for our future becoming a crash and trash. In the present era, that is a threatening cloud on the horizon, but now the new threat du jour the GOP sees is democratic socialism.  In the wake of Democratic socialist candidates winning so much in the Democratic primaries last week in New York,, the right wing has found a new cause and has launched a political attack with howls of glee to paint all Democrats as the equivalent of communists (an echo of red scare tactic of the 1950's termonloty not heard by most voters who were not even born in the McCarthy era; it could work with some, though.. The GOP is not without its own wings, like de facto fascists and white nationalists.  The political discourse is now as wild as Wall Street.  New York is New York, and New York has never swung like the rest of the US,  and all politics is very local there, so let's get a grip on reality.

 If capitalism fears democratic socialism, it has only its own excesses to blame, but the GOP is hoping most voters, their own especially, remain ignorant of what is and what is not democratic socialism. or communism, for that matter.  I'll leave that defining and name-calling to others and instead focus on what is happening, however, is reality, and who is feeling it. Unlike what Trumpists tout,  Dow is not the measure that counts if resentment grows, because 80% of the economy is driven by what consumers do and feel. Consumer confidence is now in the dumps per polls. That gets reflected in political action and votes., Politically, there is a growing resentment that the "affordability" that middle-class consumers treasure is slipping from their grasp, and they are pointing the blame at those in power. and who are becoming trillionaires. The voters' buck stops there.  Even some MAGA supporters are realizing that Trump betrayed them with his promises to lower their cost of living (AKA affordability).

 There is an old truism: action creates reaction; To put it another way, extreme action begets extreme reaction.  Capitalism is now facing a backlash of its own successes of the few,, causing the rise in political power of democratic socialism of many...  For that, capitalism has only itself to blame. Capitalism also has the ability to address the anger it has caused... to observe the reforms resulting from the 2008 crash or. Due to Trump's public policies that favor the rich and his disdain for their pain, however, the concept that business can regulate itself flies in the face of humanity's great weakness: greed. Get it while the getting is good; never mind tomorrow. The will to self-regulate, or for the government to impose constraints on their excesses, does not exist, and consumers resent the results. As investors and Wall Street love their gains, ordinary people are just feeling their own loss in living standards.

.The near-death of regulation is a ticking time bomb that has not yet been felt. Are we about to repeat the financial crash of 2008 or the scams of Bernie Madoff? Both are epic examples of a government's failure to enforce regulations. earlier in this century.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it is never more true than in the world of economics. The Trump regime is simply repeating what caused the 2008 crash and victims like those of Mdoff. The lack of regulatory enforcement. The result then was a strong backlash, evidenced by legislative reforms aimed at preventing a recurrence of the 2008 debacle.  Laws without enforcement are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I got this response to above from a FB friend...claiming i was against capitalism. After all, he opined, socialism has failed every place it has tried. It does not work.Ye, gads...the blanket indictment of democratic socialism that it does not work...is really divorced from reality in Europe and they hate communism. ,too. They know the difference. Get a grip on yourself: My family has been in the transatlantic business for years and intensely so now. This right-wing trope has no resemblance to reality. This is not to say that the US should ditto Europe, but half my family lives in Europe, and I even have a granddaughter who left the US to escape student debt, and frankly, really likes health care and the quality of life, and the economy of Austria. She works in tech, a data analysis program to provide marketing information to the thriving private businesses in Europe. She got her undergrad and grad degrees with no student debt hangover. There is no place like Vienna for a quality of life.  Also, within recent years, I visited Norway. Trump's invitation for immigrants from there has no takers. But it gave them a belly laugh. Why? Every poll I have seen calls countries like these (democratic and socialist) are the happiest in the world. It is all relative, of course, ... But I also know the reasons Europeans hate communism is what they have seen and experienced firsthand, that the economic system of a centrally controlled one-party failed. Instead of communism, the governments of Eastern Europe first replaced communism with something resembling fascism. until they, like Ukraine, revolted to join the EU, and western capitalism, warts and all, partially socialistic and regulated, but basically capitalistic. Taken as a whole, its economy is a rival to the US. 

.Russia and its kin run on the support of oligarchs and corruption and fear.. Trump worships Putin. He is a fascist in his heart, as one former military aide said. But as a small business person myself, and a family that includes Harvard MBAs and entrepreneurs, the current regime of Trump cares not a whit for us little guys. and entrepreneurs..and favors the millionaires,and those who contributed to them with loyalty and money... and I am surprised you do not know it. I love capitalism, but only if it is well-regulated to keep it stable, predictable, and and competitive based on performance, not fealty to some great leader.,.There must also be some force to fill the cracks that capitalism, based on profit, cannot and will not provide, such as health care, social security, and basic affordability, while balancing the ability of the spirit of innovation, risk-taking, and freedom that capitalism provides. It is a balancing act. Without that, expect democratic socialists to pick up steam because that balance has been jeopardized by Trump and his band of billionaires, his personal greed, his third finger raised against the rule of law, his amassing of federal power, and an attempted rule by fear and retribution. 

 Going back to the last century, the financial crash and poverty caused by the Great Depression led to FDR.His New Deal reforms and new government services were, in modern terms, an exercise in and implementation of what we now call democratic socialism, which is now inadequate to meet all the needs citizens demand as they struggle to keep up with even the basic economic needs of food and housing.

/what really is at stake in the Colorado AG';s race and why Griswold's opponents have been engaged mostly in character attacks

 I have seen some interesting local media articles, one from the Denver Post carrying a story that the GOP sees a real chance to win the  Colorado AG seat this November (of course, they have a plan, and this helps), and another hit job article today is focusing on Jena Griswold's alleged lie about an outhouse as a symbol of her alleged bad character. Heads up. Griswold's race is about democracy, not about ouhouses.In Colorado, in November, the issue is whether the GOP can get their election-denying candidate into the AG seat so they can control the outcome in 2028. This kind of character assassination campaign against Griswold is just the warm-up for the GOP's main event.  The three GOP candidates ...AG. SOS and gov...are all election deniers. Democracy is at stake, and Colorado is ground zero.

Griswold's opponents in the Democratic primary are serving the GOP's purposes, whether they intend it or not, by also relying on character assassination, with nary a word from them about experience, platform, or priorities related to election integrity in Colorado. This race has already had national attention because of Griswold's successful protection of the integrity of the ballot and its counting in the face of at least 3 elections denying Trump loyal county clerks playing illegal keepaway of ballots and/or calculators,from bipartisan hands as proscribed by law. Tina Peters, Trump's poster child for loyalty to him above sworn duty, is one of those clerks...FYI, Peters also committed crimes in her cover-up, and Griwold and the Colorado AG caught her at it and put her in jail. Her conviction was by jury trial and upheld on appeal, though Polis released her after she had served half her term.

. Jena Griswold's Democratic primary opponents for attorney general (AG) have no experience with what the job of AG mostly entails. .. Claiming Griswold is a bad administrator is political BS. Business records and elections ran smoothly during her terms as Secretary of State. That's the bottom line. She successfully ran a large state 300-person enforcement office, while at the same time fighting election deniers and the Trump attempt at a federal takeover of our elections. (.Griswold is a national leader in this effort as Secretary of State... SOS). and the GOP is running an election denier in the general. The race has national attention because of this issue, and her primary opponents have neither experience nor have acknowledged anything about the real issue of election denial. So what if her trial experience is lacking?AG's are rarely the ones doing the trials. There is a whole section of trial attorneys among the 300 attorneys in a 700-attorney staff office, which an AG must also manage. Griwsold's primary opponents are inexperienced in managing a large enforcement office and unaware of what issues are really at stake.