Have patience . . .

November 7, 2023

          Republicans can’t help themselves. On a day that should have been non-stop coverage about the NYTimes poll, Speaker Mike Johnson suggested that Republicans should cut Medicare and Social Security. See The Hill, Johnson embraces deficit fight, setting up battle over Medicare, Social Security. Johnson faces a November 17 shutdown and has nothing to show for his brief tenure as Speaker. Instead of passing the twelve funding bills necessary to enact a budget, Johnson resurrected Kevin McCarthy’s proposal of a “bipartisan commission” to reduce the deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicare.

          Before his accidental elevation to Speaker, Mike Johnson chaired the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which has long advocated cutting Medicare and Social Security—even though both are fully self-funding programs with sufficient reserves to pay 100% of their benefits through 2031 and 2034 respectively. But Republicans view Social Security and Medicare as “socialist” programs that deprive Americans of the “freedom” to experience financial and medical insecurity in retirement.

          Per The Hill (linked above),

As RSC chair in 2020, Johnson authored a budget that called for raising the Medicare and Social Security eligibility ages. It called for $2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and $750 billion in cuts to Social Security. 

It also called for turning Medicare into a premium support program, where private plans compete alongside traditional Medicare. Instead of a guaranteed benefit, beneficiaries would use a voucher to buy coverage on either a private or Medicare plan.  

Johnson’s past support for cutting spending on Medicare and Social Security is in line with longtime Republican dogma. GOP leaders in the past have hammered Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as socialist initiatives—"inefficient and anti-American” —that threaten individual freedoms. 

          To be clear, Congress should take action to reduce deficits and the national debt. But the obvious place to start is by restoring the tax cuts gifted by Trump to corporations and wealthy individuals/families in 2017. (Certain cuts to individual income taxes are set to expire in 2025, but corporate, capital gains, and estate tax cuts remain in effect.) Trump's tax cuts (layered on top of Bush’s tax cuts) eliminated tens of trillions in tax revenue and are largely responsible for the increase in the US deficit and debt. See Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio - Center for American Progress.

          Per the Center for American Progress (CAP),

Taken together, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, have cost $10 trillion since their creation and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since then. They are responsible for more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if you exclude the one-time costs for responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession. 

          In short, the US has a tax revenue shortage problem created by Trump and Bush. As noted in the CAP report above, the US is a “low tax rate / revenue” country compared to equivalent economies—e.g., $36 trillion in less tax revenue than the EU over the last decade.

          But rather than looking to GOP tax cuts as the source of the US’s current deficit spending, Republicans want to place the consequences of their reckless fiscal policy on the backs of hardworking Americans who earned the right to Medicare and Social Security.

          Americans should be outraged. Republicans are threatening the financial and medical security of retirees—many of whom say they will vote for Trump in 2024!

          I raise this story first on a day of many important stories to help ground us in the facts that matter regarding 2024. The truth about the GOP’s policies and Biden’s accomplishments has not broken through the noise of negative media narrative, but it will—so long as Democrats do their part as messengers for Biden, messengers for democracy, and messengers for the American people.

          The Republican Party relies on deceit, deception, and misdirection in concealing its true agenda. Think of Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia—who presents himself as a “moderate” on reproductive liberty but will impose a total abortion ban if Republicans win control of both chambers of the legislature. In Ohio, the Republican Secretary of State wrote a deceptive and misleading description of Issue 1, the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the right to make reproductive decisions. Across the nation, Republicans have enacted “voter protection legislation” that suppresses the vote of Black Americans.

          If Republicans were confident in their policies, they would not go to great lengths to conceal the true substance and purpose of those policies. Whenever Democrats have broken through the GOP smokescreen of lies, Democrats win most of the time. That knowledge should fill us with confidence after yesterday’s NYTimes poll: The truth is on our side; we need to work harder to break through the veil of disinformation and negative media narrative. If we can do that—and we can—we can win.

          While we cannot rely on Republicans to defeat themselves, they are helping us at every turn. The fact that Speaker Mike Johnson has targeted Social Security and Medicare in his first month on the job is another misstep by Johnson and House Republicans. There will be plenty of additional opportunity in the next ten days as House Republicans use the threat of a government shutdown to slash budgets to make up for GOP tax cuts for corporations and ultra-wealthy taxpayers.   

Judicial developments.

          Trump took the stand in the NY civil fraud trial. Although he attempted to filibuster and bully his way through the proceeding, he made key concessions about his involvement in the financial statements that will allow Judge Engoron to assess hundreds of millions in fines against the Trump Organization. As noted by Andrew Weismann on Twitter,

          [Attorney General] gets Trump to agree that the financial statements and Trump's personal guaranty were to induce banks to lend money. Key fact for this fraud case.

          Aside from undermining his defense, Trump was offensive, abusive, and incoherent in his rambling answers on the stand. Why does this matter? Two reasons.

          First, the NYTimes poll shows that many Trump followers believe he will not be convicted—but say that a conviction may change their minds about supporting Trump! Although the AG’s civil fraud trial will not result in a conviction, an award of $250 million in damages against the Trump Organization may persuade some voters at the margins that Trump is not their preferred candidate.

          Second, Trump is not going to testify in his criminal trial before Judge Chutkan. If he does testify, he is an idiot because his testimony will ensure his conviction. But I digress. If he does testify, Judge Chutkan will not put up with the non-responsive answers and “speaking objections” from Trump's counsel, Christopher Kise. Trump and his lawyer will not be able to get away with their abusive tactics in federal court. In making that statement, I do not mean to criticize Judge Engoron. State trial courts in New York are simply less formal than federal courts in the District of Columbia.

          Speaking of Trump's trial before Judge Chutkan, special counsel Jack Smith is responding to Trump's flurry of motions to dismiss. Joyce Vance has prepared a comprehensive analysis, which I highly recommend. See Joyce Vance, Civil Discourse, Deep Dive: Trump's Motions to Dismiss the D.C. Prosecution. It would be impossible to summarize Vance’s discussion, but on the most consequential motion—to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity—Vance writes as follows:

No matter how Trump’s lawyers try to dress up their argument, at bottom, it is that a president is above the law. And that’s not how our criminal justice system is meant to work. Trump’s lawyers make arguments about what the Founding Fathers intended, about history, tradition, and the text of the Constitution. But they ignore the inexorable fact that the Founding Fathers, while contemplating the need for a system that could deal with a corrupt leader, clearly stated that no man was above the law.

          Jack Smith filed his oppositions to Trump's motions. Smith came out swinging. In Smith’s opposition to the motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds:

The indictment in this case charges the defendant, then the president, with perpetrating an unprecedented campaign of deceit to attack the very functioning of the federal government to collect, count, and certify votes; to obstruct the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the election results are certified; and to disenfranchise millions of voters—all in a concerted criminal effort to overturn the presidential election results and prevent the lawful transfer of power to his successor.

The defendant attempts to rewrite the indictment, claiming that it charges him with wholly innocuous, perhaps even admirable conduct—sharing his opinions about election fraud and seeking election integrity—when in fact it clearly describes the defendant’s fraudulent use of knowingly false statements as weapons in furtherance of his criminal plans.

          Judge Chutkan will likely deny Trump's motions to dismiss and he will seek an immediate appeal. It is possible that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court could issue a stay of trial while it determines the merits of Trump's presidential immunity defense.

          Given the unique circumstances of this case, the court of appeal or the Supreme Court should grant expedited consideration of Trump’s appeal from the expected order denying his motion so the trial can be completed before November 2024.

Democrats are disagreeing with Biden’s position regarding ceasefire.

          As Palestinian deaths mount in Israel’s war on Hamas, President Biden’s position is receiving public criticism from political allies inside and outside the US government, including:

• A leaked memo by State Department mid-level staffers who disagree with Biden’s decision not to call for a ceasefire. Politico, U.S. diplomats slam Israel policy in leaked memo.

• A video released by Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib accusing President Biden of supporting “genocide” of Palestinian people. The video also includes the statement, “We will remember in 2024.” NBC News, Rashida Tlaib accuses Biden of supporting Palestinian 'genocide'.

• A statement by former President Obama said, “If you want to solve the problem, then you have to take in the whole truth. And you then have to admit nobody's hands are clean. That all of us are complicit to some degree.” He also said, “the Israeli "occupation" and "what's happening to Palestinians is unbearable." ABC News, 'Nobody's hands are clean': Obama, some Democrats break with Biden on support for Israel - ABC News.

• Senator Bernie Sanders said on State of the Union, “Israel has a right to defend itself. But what Israel does not in my view have a right to do is to kill thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children who had nothing to do with that attack ... we have got to stop the bombing now.”

          Jennifer Rubin acknowledged the difficult dilemma that President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken face. See Rubin’s op-ed in WaPo, Blinken tries diplomacy built on empathy. (This article is accessible to all.) Rubin writes,

[Blinken] does not shy from the central dilemma: How does the United States support Israel’s right to exist and prevent future atrocities and also protect the lives of Palestinians? His approach begins with principled empathy, which precludes snap conclusions and all-or-nothing answers. . . .

There is no shortage of [] politicians who insist Israel must stop the war before Hamas is eliminated. But that equation would put Jewish lives at extreme risk because Hamas chooses to embed itself among innocent Palestinians. (Imagine insisting during World War II that the United States cease fighting after the Normandy invasion because innocents across Europe would die.)

Likewise, extreme voices on the right place zero value on Palestinians’ lives, attempting to absolve Israel of any responsibility to minimize casualties. That would violate a cardinal rule in the law of war requiring combatants to differentiate between military targets and civilians. . . .

Biden and Blinken have the unenviable task of avoiding those two extremes, each of which denies the humanity of the other side.

Following up on the NYTimes poll.

          Readers suggested several articles in response to (or as context for) the New York Times poll showing Trump ahead of Biden in several swing states. See Jay Kuo on Substack, The Status Kuo, One Year Out from Election 2024. Readers who like the positive messaging of this newsletter should like Jay Kuo’s newsletter as well. Jay wrote yesterday,

The thought of a repeat of Donald Trump is enough to raise the blood pressure of any voter who values the rule of law, pluralism and our democratic institutions.

So am I losing sleep over it?

In a word, no.

          I won’t repeat Jay’s analysis, but you get the point from the above snippet! Check it out!

          For a more technical and detailed analysis of the Times’ polls, see the always excellent Michael Podhorzer, Weekend Reading, Mad Poll Disease Redux. Michael makes many points about the NYTimes poll I wish I had made. His central thesis is this: “All horse race polling is worse than useless. For one thing, polls simply aren’t accurate enough to predict close races.” Michael explains his thesis in detail. I highly recommend his article.

          I was glad to see Michael take the media to task for normalizing Trump. He writes:

I’d like to ask members of the media this question directly: If Trump wins—and if he fulfills any of his long list of deranged promises, some of which involve breaking America beyond repair—how do you think history will judge how you covered this election? [¶¶]

The media needs to decide whether they are covering this election as if it’s an election like any other, or the election that will decide whether the MAGA movement succeeds in ending American democracy.

          Well said! Indeed, I wish I had said that!

Concluding Thoughts.

          As we anxiously await the results of elections on November 7, I vividly recall the election night of November 6, 2018. Democrats went into that election with high expectations of a “blue wave”—winning every election possible. We didn’t. But we did flip the House—which made a huge difference in Democrats’ ability to rein in Trump. It took a few days to realize what happened, so on election night, I received dozens of emails from distraught readers who believed the negative narrative the media was promoting, i.e., that the “blue wave” failed to materialize. In fact, it did materialize in the House; but that realization took a few days to become apparent.

          On November 7, the media will be primed to highlight any loss by Democrats and excuse any loss by Republicans. Why? Because that is the “counter-narrative” that will create the most negative headlines—which is the lifeblood of headline writers.

          My advice is to avoid jumping to conclusions until we have time to understand what happened. The elections of November 7, 2023, are important, but they are not the end. Far from it. We are engaged in a generational struggle to defend democracy and the Constitution. Tuesday is an important battle—no more, no less. Come Wednesday morning, we will all be expected to report for duty, as usual. Just as it should be.

          Talk to you tomorrow!