Robert Reich: Donald Trump’s “State Capitalism”

"It would be communism under any other dictator

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks:

Allowed Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to license artificial intelligence chips to China on condition they pay the United States 15 percent of the money they make.

Demanded that Intel’s CEO resign (the CEO met with Trump yesterday to plead his case).

Proposed that the Defense Department take a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, which mines critical minerals.

Allowed Nippon Steel to take over U.S. Steel on condition that Nippon pay a “golden share” of the proceeds to Washington.

Reserved the right to personally direct some $1.5 trillion of promised investment from America’s trading partners into the United States.

Never before in peacetime has the United States owned so many critical businesses. Never since World War II has the American public owned as much of the private sector.

Karl Marx might have been thrilled. Is the proletariat finally becoming the bourgeoisie, owning the means of production? Not a chance.

It’s unclear what the “United States” means when the deals Trump has struck give the United States ownership rights in corporations, but it’s certainly not the people.

How do America’s ownership rights get exercised? By whom? Who holds the equity, and where is it held? It appears that all this is up to the whims of Trump.

In reality, Trump’s state capitalism is just another part of Trump’s growing fascist state, extending his personal arbitrary control into what had been the private sector of the U.S. economy.

Recall that in Trump’s first term, CEOs spoke out when they disagreed with his policies on immigration and trade. After his bigoted “you had some very fine people on both sides” response to the violence in Charlottesville, CEOs resigned from his business advisory panels. After he orchestrated an attempted coup in 2021, they shunned him.

Now, CEOs are showering him with donations and praise. They can’t kiss his derriere enough. Jeff Bezos won’t run editorials critical of Trump in his Washington Post. CBS won’t allow “60 Minutes” or Stephen Colbert to oppose him (when Colbert’s contract runs out). The bros of Silicon Valley don’t dare say a word against him (look what happened to Musk).

As with other aspects of Trump fascism, Trump has extended his power by exploiting greed and fear.

Much of the public is playing along because he has also tapped into a deep vein of distrust in the system we previously had. American free-market capitalism has done wonderfully well for a few at the top, but most working families are less secure than in living memory, and their real (inflation-adjusted) wages have barely risen for decades.

At least since the bailout of Wall Street, most Americans have concluded that the economic game is rigged against them — and they’re right. So when Trump promised he was on their side, they believed him. (He wasn’t, of course.)

In addition, China is eating our lunch in what are considered the industries of the future — solar cells, semiconductors, batteries, super-computers, and AI — creating another opening for Trump to assert power over the private sector by arguing that national security requires it.

Rubbish. Several of the deals noted above are likely to compromise national security.

Trump’s state capitalism has nothing whatever to do with public ownership, socialism, helping the working class, or improving national security.

It’s all about centralizing ever more control over America in the Oval Office. It’s simply another power grab by Trump — just like his usurpation of Congress’s authority over spending and tariffs, and his new threat to occupy Washington, D.C., with federal troops.

Make no mistake. Trump’s ever-increasing power is an ever-growing threat to the rule of law and democracy.

This is what fascism looks like."

Source:Robert Reich actually arguing against socialism. Perhaps the Atlantic Ocean has finally run out of water as well. 

From Robert Reich

From CNN's reporting today about the U.S. Government getting $10 billion from Intel to have an official stake in that company: 

"President Donald Trump said on Friday he reached an agreement with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan that would involve the struggling chipmaker giving the United States a company stake worth $10 billion, a deal model that Trump said he hopes to revisit with other companies.

“I said, I think you should pay us 10% of your company,” Trump said of his conversations with Tan. “And they said yes.”

Trump said the deal will was a win for both sides.

“I think it’s a great deal for them. And I think it’s a great deal,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday. “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

Two weeks ago, Trump called for Tan’s immediate resignation following reports about his alleged connections to China.

The agreement Trump announced is part of an effort to help boost semiconductor manufacturing in the United States, although it is not immediately clear how involved the Trump administration aims to be in strategic decision-making at the company.

Trump also said he would do more of these types of deals. His administration has been weighing opportunities to take similar stakes in various US companies in critical industries, two people familiar with the White House discussions on the matter told CNN last week.

Intel declined to comment following the Trump announcement. The chipmaker’s stock (INTC) rose 7% on Friday." 

From CNN

From what my colleague Rik Schneider wrote about President Trump back in May, responding to Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson's argument that Donald Trump is a Socialist: 

"I could give you old cliche to talk about whether or not Donald Trump is a Socialist or not, by saying: "If it quacks, like a duck, walks like a duck.. but hopefully you want to hear something more interesting than that. I sure as hell want to say something even more original and interesting (ha, ha) than that. 

I think what's going on here, is the President and The White House know they're in trouble: 

House Republicans are freaking out about not just losing the House in 2026, but getting blown out and not having much of an opportunity about winning it back in 28. 

Senate Republicans are even worried that maybe even their majority will be at risk in 26, because of what House Republicans are worried about as well, which is who unpopular the President is, especially as it relates to his economic policy. 

And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they're desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can't spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now. 

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the "king of reality TV", sounding like a Socialist, because he's talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn't doing as well... I don't think there's anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist... but he's a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that's exactly what he will do." 

From The New Democrat

And from what Rik Schneider wrote about The Socialist Don yesterday: 

"My real point here is it's not Democrats (at least not left-wing Democrats) who are freaking out about the Trump Administration's using the U.S. Government to purchase a stake in Intel. Most of the opposition is coming from the Right, in some cases, even the far-right, especially if you look at where Erick Erickson has been on cultural issues the last 20 years or so. 

So if you are a die hard MAGA follower, who has been living in this political cult the last 10 years or so... you are so lost in space, that you might be able to make 1 of Charlie Manson's followers seem very sane and sober. But if I were try to talk to you anyway, (perhaps like some dedicated shrink who simply wants to try to help as many of my patients as possible) and even use reason (which is very out-of-style right now) to try to get you to see the light here, I would tell you too look at the Kudlow's, the Erickson's, the Steve Moore's, because they would tell you why this is such a horrible idea. 

As Erick Erickson's said on his blog post: 

"When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk... 

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there's no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy... 

From The New Democrat

As Robert Reich said so himself: 

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks... 

Take out the word "Progressives" and replace it with "Socialists", Mr. Reich is 100%, damn right about this. If this were Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, (or God forbid) Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, or Alex Cortez proposing this in the future, as President, the Republican Party (or what's left of the Republican Party) would immediately be calling for the impeachment and removal by Congress, of that President, because they would say that person is a Socialist or Communist. 

But since its Manhattan, New York, real estate/reality TV mogul, Donald John Trump, they call this "state capitalism", or economic nationalism. I guess in their far-out in outer space, warped view, "state capitalism" and "economic nationalism", sounds more patriotic to them. 

As we've said before, when even Conservatives are arguing that what you are doing is socialist, or you are acting like a Socialist, and you are a registered Republican, (whether you are actually a Republican in reality, is a different question) wouldn't you at least listen to those folks?

Does anyone whose currently not institutionalized, or off their medication, who isn't high or drunk... who wan't born last night, seriously want to argue that Kevin Williamson, Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, and Erick Erickson, (just to name a few economic Conservatives opposed to President Trump's "state capitalism") are (as Rik Schneider said yesterday) radical Hippies or flaming Socialists? 

Seriously, I challenge anyone who currently meets the mental condition that I just laid out, to try to argue that these men are radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. And no, your word alone won't be good enough on that. If you think you can, feel free to comment on this post on The New Democrat's Blogger or WordPress pages, or reply to us on our Threads and Twitter pages.

Again, The New Democrat is a center-right, classical liberal (if you don't like liberal) JFK Democrat blog, in philosophy. That's what my personal politics are as well. So of course we're not fans of socialism, or what the Nazi-Right would call "state capitalism". But if our word is not good enough, you should listen to real-life Conservatives who oppose this as well. Unless you are currently drunk, high, institutionalized, or off your medication. For competent, sober people, who are open to President Trump's "state capitalism", but are open to another viewpoint on this, listen to the Conservatives on this. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: So Much for Socialism

"The Trump regime is using the specter of socialism to make America even more authoritarian. The regime will lose.

When Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem unleashed her ICE shock troops on Los Angeles last month, she said: “We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist” leaders.

Minutes later, California Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from the press conference and put in handcuffs.

The specter of socialism is being used by Trump and his goons to make America even more authoritarian.

Trump even threatens to “run” New York City if its voters choose Zohran Mamdani — a Muslim of Indian descent and avowed democratic socialist — as their next mayor. “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” says Trump, warning that he might step in and take control if New Yorkers elect Mamdani.

Trump is using the word “socialism” to slam everything the public needs and to justify cruel cuts in the nation’s safety net.

Trump’s just-enacted Big Ugly Bill will push more than 11 million Americans off Medicaid. Another 2 million Americans will lose food stamps. The savings will help finance a big tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

But the next time they’re up for election, Republican lawmakers may be shocked to discover how many Americans prefer the “socialism” of Medicaid and food stamps to the socialism-for-the-rich tax cuts in the Big Ugly.

Medicaid alone has 83 percent favorability. Among Republicans, it’s a remarkable 74 percent.

Trump and his lackeys are living in another century if they think they can use “socialism” as a cudgel.

As early as 2011, the Pew Research Center found that almost as many voters under the age of 30 held a positive view of socialism as of capitalism.

During the 2016 Democratic primaries and then again in 2020, young people all over America wore buttons reading “feel the Bern” in honor of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good... 

Source:Robert Reich talking about something he knows very well, but has never officially embraced as his own philosophy.

From Robert Reich

Since I originally started blogging back in 2009, during the early days of the Great Recession, first on Free State MD (both on Blogger and WordPress) I've been interested in socialism (both democratic and otherwise) and have been writing about it (off and on) for the last 16 years. 

The classical definition of a Socialist, is someone who believes in: 

"The common ownership of the means of production and the idea of a post-capitalist society. It involves a move away from private ownership of factories, land, and other resources, towards social or collective ownership, often with the goal of achieving greater equality and social justice." 

And to a certain extent (CNN anchor Abby Phillip is the perfect example of that) that's still the mainstream media's definition of who is a Socialist. Which is why closeted Socialists like the Robert Reich's and others, are able to hide behind "Progressive" and in some cases, but fewer cases today, "Liberal". 

But outside of the Communist Republic of Korea, almost no one in the world anymore, believes in eliminating property rights and private enterprise, all together. Regulating those things, even taxing them heavily, sure. If you are what the rest of the developed world calls a Social Democrat, or even a Socialist. 

And this blog talks about classical liberalism and versus what some people call "modern liberalism"... The problem there, is what's called "modern liberalism", is essentially the opposite of liberalism. I mean "modern liberalism" has as much in common with liberalism (or what some people call "classical liberalism", as what socialism has in common with conservatism. 1 philosophy is about protecting the collective and using government to do that. The other philosophy is about the individual and conserving the individual's, individual rights. 

I mean if you want to call today's Socialists "Modern Socialists", thats fine. But what the Robert Reich's of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they're talking about their own political philosophy, it's what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said: 

"Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good... 

Before Alexandria O. Cortez and her Socialist Squad and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, leading the fight with their political fists in the air, there was Ted Kennedy, at least to a certain extent in the 1980s and 90s, as well as Jesse Jackson from those 2 decades, George McGovern in the 1970s, there was Norman Thomas, who from 1928-48, was the Socialist Party's nominee for President an amazing 6 times. His approach to socialism was: 

"Norman Thomas advocated for a democratic socialist approach, distinct from Marxist or Leninist models. He emphasized achieving socialism through gradual, democratic reforms within the existing political system, rather than revolution. He believed in public ownership of key industries and economic planning, but also championed individual liberty and civil rights, making his vision a democratic and evolutionary one." 

However, his vision for a socialist society did not necessarily exclude all forms of private enterprise. In 1944, a report on his book, "What Is Our Destiny?", mentioned that he advocated for a mix of "private enterprise and consumers' cooperatives side by side with public ownership of land and natural resources, money and credit and the great monopolies, including public utilities,". 

From The New York Times in 1944. 

When I think of a Liberal, I think of someone who believes in liberal democracy and all the individual rights, responsibilities, and checks and balances that comes with liberal democracy. That's literally where "liberal democrat" comes from: someone who believes in liberal democracy.

When I think of a Progressive, I think of someone who believes in progress through limited government action. Not someone who thinks government should dominate society and try to manage people's lives for them... like let's say a Communist. (Just to use as an example) 

And when I think of Socialist, (in the democratic sense) I think of someone who believes in social democracy, including the checks and balances that come with democracy, including the rule of law and separation of powers. But someone who wants a national government big enough to make sure that no one ever has to go without the basic necessities of life. And using government to make sure that no individual becomes so powerful, that others have to suffer as a result. 

But even with the modern definition of "socialist" and "socialism", we still have have closeted Socialists in America, including Robert Reich, even when their ideological leaders and heroes, have already embraced the socialist label, NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, to go along with Bernie Sanders and the so-called Squad in the House, led by Alex Cortez and others. Even though "socialist" and "socialism", perhaps have never been more popular in America today, especially with young people. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: The Reemergence of Social Darwinism

"Cut Medicaid to give billionaires a huge tax cut. But why?

They say they want a smaller government, but that can’t be it.

Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States — expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private, intimate life.

Many call themselves conservatives, but that’s not it, either.

They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backward — before the Environmental Protection Act, before Medicare and Medicaid, before the New Deal and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the 40-hour workweek, before official recognition of trade unions, even before the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.

Some say they want the American working class to do better. But that can’t be it, either, because they’re cutting Medicaid and other safety nets the working class depends on in order to finance a huge tax cut for the super-rich. And they support tariffs that will drive up the costs of just about everything the working class buys.

The America they actually seek is the one we last had in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country. And then they went to an income tax concept,” Trump said in January.

Yes, we had tariffs during that Gilded Age. It was also an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, although few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom.

Robber barons such as financier Jay Gould, railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller controlled much of American industry.

They corrupted American politics. Their lackeys literally deposited sacks of money on the desks of pliant legislators.

The gap between rich and poor turned into a chasm. Urban slums festered. Women couldn’t vote. Black Americans were subject to Jim Crow.

Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought.

Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.

Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner’s writings, but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.

To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive — and through this struggle, societies became stronger over time.

A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need, because that would interfere with natural selection.

Listen to today’s Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. As Sumner wrote in the 1880s:

“Civilization has a simple choice [of either] liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest [or] not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Sound familiar?

Trump and his Republicans on Capitol Hill not only echo Sumner’s thoughts but mimic Sumner’s reputed arrogance. They say we must reward “entrepreneurs” (by which they mean anyone who has made a pile of money) and warn us not to “coddle” people in need (for example, they want to put work requirements on Medicaid).

They oppose extending unemployment insurance because, they say, we shouldn’t “give people money for doing nothing.”

Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”

Trump and other Republican lawmakers are dead set against raising taxes on billionaires, relying on the standard Republican trickle-down rationale that billionaires create jobs.

Here’s Sumner, more than a century ago:

“Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done. … It is because they are thus selected that wealth aggregates under their hands – both their own and that intrusted to them … They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society.” Although they live in luxury, “the bargain is a good one for society.”

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late 19th century — the era when, according to Trump, “we were richest.”

Social Darwinism allowed John D. Rockefeller to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted, “the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the 20th century did America reject Social Darwinism. Instead of Social Darwinism, we created an inclusive society. We created the largest middle class in the history of the world — which became the core of our economy and democracy.

We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed.

We taxed the rich and invested in public goods — public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health — that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival. We depended on one another.

But now America is in its Second Gilded Age, and its new robber barons have found the same rationale as they did in the First.

Under Trump and his lapdogs in the House and Senate, Social Darwinism is back."

Source:Robert Reich with a look at Social Darwinism.

From Robert Reich

I think this point from Robert Reich is key here: 

"Cut Medicaid to give billionaires a huge tax cut. But why?

They say they want a smaller government, but that can’t be it.

Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government’s powers of search and surveillance inside the United States — expunging undocumented immigrants, “securing” the nation’s borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private, intimate life.

Many call themselves conservatives, but that’s not it, either.

They don’t want to conserve what we now have. They’d rather take the country backward — before the Environmental Protection Act, before Medicare and Medicaid, before the New Deal and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the 40-hour workweek, before official recognition of trade unions, even before the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve...

So if you take Professor Reich's full point here, the modern "Republican Party" is not conservative, not libertarian, perhaps not even nationalist in the sense that they believe in always conserving and preserving the entire nation. So what are they? Well, again if you take Reich's point: 

"Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late 19th century — the era when, according to Trump, “we were richest.”

Social Darwinism allowed John D. Rockefeller to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest.” It was, he insisted, “the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the 20th century did America reject Social Darwinism. Instead of Social Darwinism, we created an inclusive society. We created the largest middle class in the history of the world — which became the core of our economy and democracy... 

So what is a Social Darwinist? 

"Social Darwinism is a theory, not widely accepted today, that applies Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection to human societies. It suggests that certain groups or individuals are naturally more "fit" to survive and succeed, and that societal inequalities are a natural consequence of this "survival of the fittest" process. This theory was particularly popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was often used to justify racism, imperialism, and other forms of social inequality.. 

From Sociology Group

Look, we're not Socialists and class warriors here at The New Democrat. The profile picture of this blog with a quote from John F. Kennedy, should be the smoking gun for you. We're just interested in facts and evidence, regardless of who they help and hurt and we give you our observations based on those facts and evidence. 

But when your economic plan seeks to gut Medicaid and Food Assistance, FEMA, when you are going after private universities (which are the real tickets to the middle class and upper class for most Americans, especially if they had to struggle to get through their childhoods) and you are doing this to try to pay for tax cuts that mostly only benefit people who already have a lot of money... what else can you call an economic policy and view of government like that, other then Social Darwinism? Because conservative or nationalist just doesn't fit in that political box, even by themselves.

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: What You Need To Share About The "One Big Beautiful" Ugly Horrible Bill

"The old professor in me thinks the best way to convey to you how utterly awful the so-called “one big beautiful bill” passed by the House last night actually is would be to give you this short ten-question exam. (Answers are in parenthesis, but first try to answer without looking at them.)

1. Does the House’s “one big beautiful bill” cut Medicare? (Answer: Yes, by an estimated $500 billion.)

2. Because the bill cuts Medicaid, how many Americans are expected to lose Medicaid coverage? (At least 8.6 million.)

3. Will the tax cut in the bill benefit the rich or the poor or everyone?(Overwhelmingly, the rich.)

4. How much will the top 0.1 percent of earners stand to gain from it? (Nearly $390,000 per year).

5. If you figure in the benefit cuts and the tax cuts, will Americans making between about $17,000 and $51,000 gain or lose? (They’ll lose about $700 a year).

6. How about Americans with incomes less than $17,000? (They’ll lose more than $1,000 per year on average).

7. How much will the bill add to the federal debt? ($3.8 trillion over 10 years.)

8. Who will pay the interest on this extra debt? (All of us, in both our tax payments and higher interest rates for mortgages, car loans, and all other longer-term borrowing.)

9. Who collects this interest? (People who lend to the U.S. government, 70 percent of whom are American and most of whom are wealthy.)

10. Bonus question: Is the $400 million airplane from Qatar a gift to the United States for every future president to use, or a gift to Trump for his own personal use? (It’s a personal gift because he’ll get to use it after he leaves the presidency.)

Most Americans are strongly opposed to all of these things, according to polls. But if you knew the answers to these ten questions, you’re likely to be in a very tiny minority. That’s because of (1) distortions and cover-ups emanating from Trump and magnified by Fox News and other rightwing outlets. (2) A public that’s overwhelmed with the blitzkrieg of everything Trump is doing, and can’t focus on this. (3) Outright silencing of many in the media who fear retaliation from the Trump regime if they reveal things that Trump doesn’t want revealed.

Please do your part: Share this as widely as possible."

Source:Robert Reich on Facebook.

From Robert Reich

From CBS News: 

"The House passed the GOP budget bill early Thursday morning by a narrow margin after last-minute changes were made to satisfy Republican holdouts. CBS News' Caitlin Huey-Burns joins with more." 

Source:CBS News with a look at Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (MAGA, Shreveport, Louisiana)

From CBS News

I know I'm not making any news by saying this, but it's important and it leads to my overall point about this bill: at the end of the day, if House Republicans just had a 1 seat majority and every singe House Democrat voted no on this legislation, but every Republican voted yes, the bill would still pass. And the bill is an accomplishment for the House Republican Leadership (led by Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise) in this sense because they can say that they showed that they can govern and get their agenda passed. 

But in the broader world, the BBB is a pretty minor accomplishment because of the fallout that now awaits House Republicans going into 2026, with the increases of the national debt, deficit, and interest rates, that will affect at least 90% of the country in a negative way. And that's just the start of the fallout. 

So why is the BBB a problem for House Republicans and perhaps Senate Republicans as well? 

1. The national Republican Party, (I believe, at least) is in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation: they pass this very unpopular bill, that literally raises taxes on the middle class by limiting the Child Tax Credit, and cuts Medicaid funding as well, which affects MAGA's own voters in rural communities, which goes on top of the FEMA cuts that these voters are already having to live with... the House is now probably gone for the Republicans next year. And now we're just talking about how many seats Democrats will pick up: will it be 10, (which might be a small victory for House Republicans) or could be 15, 20, 25, and perhaps the Senate is in play as well, if Democrats put a wave together next year. 

2. But if Congressional Republicans (House & Senate) weren't able  to pass anything here, (for whatever the reasons) it just backs up 1 of the Democratic arguments that Republicans don't know how to govern... at least by themselves. And Independents would turn on them because of the gridlock and the fact that the Republican Party was completely in charge of the Federal Government the last 2 years. And MAGA would stay home on Election Day because the Republicans didn't do anything for them. 

It's obvious why Robert Reich doesn't like this bill. Show me a Socialist who's ever supported any tax relief for anybody and I'll show my ocean beachfront property in Wyoming, with a clear view of Russia from there. Show me government budget cuts that aren't related to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement that any Socialist has ever supported, I'll sell you my winter ski resort in Miami Beach. But if Democrats play this right, (big if) they now have 3 key issues, just on the economy that they can use to create their Blue Wave next year, that are now in the BBB: 

Middle class tax hikes

Health care cuts to small towns and rural communities

And cuts to disaster relief that primarily affects small towns and rural communities. 

And this is how Democrats go not from winning a bare majority in the House next year, but instead 20 seats, perhaps more than that in the House and have a real shot of winning back the Senate as well, because they'll be able to not just win everywhere in the Northeast, but now will be able to win back the Midwest as well, because of the middle class cuts in the BBB. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: Where They’re Raging Against The Establishment

Source:Robert Reich showing his readers the iconic political mascot of his American socialist movement.

"A groundswell of rage against the establishment has been growing in America for decades.

It became a gale-force wind after the Wall Street financial crisis of 2008, when banks that gambled with other people’s money had to be bailed out by taxpayers but millions of average Americans lost their savings, jobs, and homes.

It has been fomented by record levels of inequality. CEO pay has soared to 320 times that of average workers, and the stock market has reached staggering heights. At the same time, young men with no more than a high school degree are now earning 22 percent less, adjusted for inflation, than non-college young men earned 50 years ago.

And it’s become a deepening source of public distrust, as big money has taken over our politics. In the 2024 election, candidates raised $16 billion, much of it from a relative handful of billionaires.

Indicators of that rage are all around us.

Where can you find it... 

From Robert Reich

Populist uprisings (whether you are talking about left-wing socialist movements or right-wing nationalistic movements) are nothing new to America. I think Robert Reich and I completely agree on that. Shouldn't be surprising, especially in a liberal democracy, where we have constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and even personal autonomy, that has the capitalist, private enterprise system that we have, that just doesn't allow, but encourages individuals to be as economically successful as they can. So my second point here might be where Mr. Reich and I differ. 

I think my second disagreement with Mr. Reich would be why these uprisings emerge in the first place. And I'll give you some examples of some populist movements from both the Left and the Right from the past and tell you what I think and know about them. 

The New Left from the 1960s and 70s: 

"The New Left was a broad political movement that emerged from the counterculture of the 1960s and continued through the 1970s. It consisted of activists in the Western world who, in reaction to the era's liberal establishment, campaigned for freer lifestyles on a broad range of social issues such as feminism, gay rights, drug policy reforms, and gender relations.[1] The New Left differs from the traditional left in that it tended to acknowledge the struggle for various forms of social justice, whereas previous movements prioritized explicitly economic goals. However, many have used the term "New Left" to describe an evolution, continuation, and revitalization of traditional leftist goals.[2][3][4]

Some who self-identified as "New Left"[5] rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism's historical theory of class struggle,[6] although others gravitated to their own takes on established forms of Marxism, such as the New Communist movement (which drew from Maoism) in the United States or the K-Gruppen[a] in the German-speaking world. In the United States, the movement was associated with the anti-war college-campus protest movements, including the Free Speech Movement." 

From Wikipedia

I think what separates the New Left and even Occupy Wall Street from the Tea Party/MAGA movements, is that the New Left was primarily made up of teenagers and young adults, from the Silent Generation (1920s and 30s babies) and the Baby Boom (1940s and 50s babies) who at the very least came from well-educated, white-collar, suburban, middle class, as well as upper class families. 

And lot of these folks were in college at the time of their movement and lot of them were coming of age in a time when the country was changing dramatically culturally and politically and they simply had a lot more information than even their parents did when they were young, as well as grandparents and they were seeing an America that they didn't like. All the racism, the sexism, the ethnicism, the homophobia, all the poverty, especially in African-America communities. 

And these folks perhaps feeling guilty about how they had it at that point and how they grew up, wanted to do something about the injustices that they saw in America. 

Some members of the New Left wanted change through peaceful, democratic means. But the militant members of this movement, saw the American system, our form of government economic system, as the obstruction to what they would call real progress in America. And they simply wanted to take out system down. You could literally argue (and I do) that the militant wing of the Socialist New Left, was what we seem from the WOKE Left today.

The Tea Party from 2008-14: 

"The Tea Party movement was an American fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party that began in 2009. The movement formed in opposition to the policies of Democratic President Barack Obama[1][2] and was a major factor in the 2010 wave election[3][4] in which Republicans gained 63 House seats[5] and took control of the U.S. House of Representatives.[6]

Participants in the movement called for lower taxes and for a reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit through decreased government spending.[7][8] The movement supported small-government principles[9][10] and opposed the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), President Obama's signature health care legislation.[11][12][13] The Tea Party movement has been described as both a popular constitutional movement[14] and as an "astroturf movement" purporting to be spontaneous and grassroots, but created by hidden elite interests.[15][16] The movement was composed of a mixture of libertarian,[17] right-wing populist,[18] and conservative activism.[19] It sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009.[20][21][22] According to the American Enterprise Institute, various polls in 2013 estimated that slightly over 10% of Americans identified as part of the movement.[23] The movement took its name from the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, a watershed event in the American Revolution, with some movement adherents using Revolutionary era costumes.[24]

The Tea Party movement was popularly launched following a February 19, 2009, call by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for a "tea party".[25][26] On February 20, 2009, The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition also helped launch the Tea Party movement via a conference call attended by around 50 conservative activists.[27][28] Supporters of the movement subsequently had a major impact on the internal politics of the Republican Party. While the Tea Party was not a political party in the strict sense, research published in 2016 suggests that members of the Tea Party Caucus voted like a right-wing third party in Congress.[29] A major force behind the movement was Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative political advocacy group founded by businessman and political activist David Koch.[30]

By 2016, Politico wrote that the Tea Party movement had died; however, it also said that this was in part because some of its ideas had been absorbed by the mainstream Republican Party.[31] CNBC reported in 2019 that the conservative wing of the Republican Party "has basically shed the tea party moniker"

From Wikipedia

If anyone is putting at an all points bulletin for the Tea Party, you don't need to do that because it's still around. But similar to let's say the Washington Redskins becoming the Washington Commanders, they're almost unrecognizable today. If you are familiar with Donald Trump's MAGA movement, that's the Tea Party. It's just that they're not so much populist now, as they are oligarch and run and funded primarily by billionaires today who think they should be able to run the world simply because they have so much more money than anyone else. And they also believe that anyone who tries to get in their way, should be arrested or beat up, or something. 

And the other key difference between the Tea Party and MAGA, is that of course the Tea Party from 10-15 years ago had its' fundamentalist populists, who put their religious and cultural beliefs over everything else. But they wouldn't have had the success that they did and electing all the Republicans that they did, if they weren't against the corporate, taxpayer funded bailouts, and their push for fiscal conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Fiscal conservatism is all but dead in the Republican Party today, because MAGA is almost completely dominated by oligarchs and right-wing, militant, cultural warriors. Not fiscal conservatives. 

Occupy Wall Street of 2011-12: 

"Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was a left-wing populist movement against economic inequality, corporate greed, big finance, and the influence of money in politics that began in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Financial District, and lasted for fifty-nine days—from September 17 to November 15, 2011.[7]

The motivations for Occupy Wall Street largely resulted from public distrust in the private sector during the aftermath of the Great Recession in the United States. There were many particular points of interest leading up to the Occupy movement that angered populist and left-wing groups. For instance, the 2008 bank bailouts under the George W. Bush administration utilized congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which purchased toxic assets from failing banks and financial institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in January 2010 allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures without government regulation. This angered many populist and left-wing groups that viewed the ruling as a way for moneyed interests to corrupt public institutions and legislative bodies, such as the United States Congress.

The protests gave rise to the wider Occupy movement in the United States and other Western countries. The Canadian anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters initiated the call for a protest.[8] The main issues raised by Occupy Wall Street were social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The OWS slogan, "We are the 99%", refers to income and wealth inequality in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. To achieve their goals, protesters acted on consensus-based decisions made in general assemblies which emphasized redress through direct action over the petitioning to authorities.[9][nb 1]

The protesters were forced out of Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011. Protesters then turned their focus to occupying banks, corporate headquarters, board meetings, foreclosed homes, college and university campuses, and social media." 

From Wikipedia

We had the New Left of the 1960s and 70s and now Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, who were the kids and grandkids of the New Left, at least ideologically and culturally. People who were left-wing hippies (or hipsters, if you prefer) trying to take down "The Man". (Democratically or otherwise) Because similar with the Tea Party of the same era, these leftists opposed all the corporate bailouts that happened during the Great Recession of 2008-09, especially when the country was dealing with 9% unemployment and lot of these folks were so young at this point and were buried in college debt and had no government bailout for themselves. 

But again similar with OWS's political ancestors, these folks weren't so much populist. We're not talking about Blue Collar Joe and Mary who worked very hard at the factory, just trying to pay their bills. Most of these folks come from well-educated, white-collar, middle class and upper class families, who thought they were getting a raw deal by their government. And decided to politically fight back.

As a Liberal Democrat myself (meaning someone who believes in liberal democracy) I'm all about liberal democracy, which means a helluva lot of free speech, (even if I don't agree with it)  free assembly, and personal freedom. Even for the people who don't believe in liberal democracy for their political opponents. But I think we have to be careful about throwing out terms like populist and populism. A populist is: 

"A person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

"he ran as a populist on an anticorruption platform"

From Dictionary

And of course the Don Trump's, the Liz Warren's, the Bernie Sanders, Alex Cortez's, (if AOC runs for President in 2027-28) try to appeal to ordinary Americans. But other than perhaps Bernie Sanders (everyone's favorite Socialist) most of these people aren't populists in the sense of how they live their own lives. All these folks are already very well-to-do who believe appealing to ordinary Americans simply helps them politically. 

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: Pardon Me

Source:Robert Reich talking about Joe & Hunter Biden.

"My first reaction to the Sunday news that President Biden was pardoning his son Hunter was sadness.

Biden has a constitutional right to pardon his son, and I can understand his concern that Trump’s overt aim to use the Justice Department and FBI to pursue “retribution” against political enemies might subject Hunter to further charges and harassment.

House Republicans have claimed Hunter is guilty of more than the felonies he was charged with: lying on a firearms application form about his drug addiction and failing to pay taxes that he later did pay.

My sadness comes from President Biden’s suggestion that the charges against his son were influenced by Republican politicians. “It is clear that Hunter was treated differently,” he wrote. “The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.” Biden continued: “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

I can understand President Biden’s frustration, but his claim that Republican politicians were responsible for Hunter’s legal problems lends credence to Trump’s long-term claim that the justice system was “weaponized” against him and that he was the victim of selective prosecution, as Biden says his son was.

Biden’s claim also makes it more difficult for Democrats to stand against Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department for political purposes as Trump seeks to install as director of the FBI the cringeworthy sycophant Kash Patel, who has vowed to “come after” Trump’s enemies... 

But in suggesting that the charges against his son were politically motivated, President Biden has handed Trump something of a Trump card for arguing that of course the Justice Department is used for political ends, so watch me do the same.

Biden’s pardon also makes it more difficult for Democrats to criticize Trump for his use of the pardoning power to immunize friends and allies, at least one of whom he’s now appointing to an important diplomatic role.

Almost immediately after the news broke of President Biden’s pardon for Hunter, Trump used it to justify his planned pardon of the January 6 rioters. “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” he wrote on social media. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!”

Among the people Trump pardoned in his final weeks in office was Charles Kushner, the father of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who spent two years in prison on tax evasion and other charges. Over the weekend, Trump announced he would nominate the pardoned Kushner to be ambassador to France.

From Robert Reich

"As a father, I get why Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter.  But, as president, you don't get to make purely personal decisions. This one will reverberate backward and forward in disastrous ways for Biden and Democrats." 

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Joe & Hunter Biden.

From Chris Cillizza

From a post that I replied to David Pakman about this on Blue Sky yesterday.

David Pakman: No one is above the law (except for some people who are)

Derik Schneider: Damn, right! No one is above the law. Except the people who are. 

From David Pakman

Former U.S. Representative and 1 of the chief Never-Trumper's in America, Adam Kinzinger on President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter: 

"[Pres. Biden] was very clear that he wasn't going to [pardon Hunter Biden] then he turns around and does it," former Congressman Adam Kinzinger tells #TheView.

"It pales in comparison to, unfortunately, what I think you'll see under the Trump administration."

From The View

Whatever you think of Representative Kinzinger's (a man who I have a lot of respect for) point about this, he misses the point almost completely. (With all due respect) 

Imagine someone robbing a bank and then his case is dismissed, because the detectives on the case didn't bother to read the defendant his rights. And then someone else comes along and decides to rob a convenient store and gets caught almost immediately. And his defense is: "What about the guy who robbed the bank? If he can rob a bank, I can rob a store". How do you think that would play in a courtroom?

I agree with Robert Reich as often as Seattle sees the sun and runs out of coffee on the same day. Or as often as people get stuck in traffic in Antartica. As often as Miami Dolphins home games are cancelled due to snow. But when Little Bob is right, he's damn right. And Chris Cilliza who I agree a lot more often (than Robert Reich, even) and who I have more in common with politically and generationally, is completely right here as well.

I'm not a father, (knock on wood) never wanted to be, especially now as I push 50 years old, and I completely understand President Biden wanting to do everything that he can to protect his last, remaining son, especially as he's about to leave The White House in about 6 weeks. But as Chris Cilliza said, he's not just a father. And I would add, he's not the President of the Biden Family, or even Delaware. He's the President of the United States. And therefor is constitutionally required to faithfully execute laws of the United States, equally, for every American. 

You are not supposed to get special legal treatment in America, because your father is governor of your state, or President of the United States, especially by your governor or president. Both cases against Hunter are solid, which is why he was convicted. He even wanted to plea both of them out. 

So those are bad legal, constitutional, consequences, as as well as the bad precedent that it sets. But the political consequence might just be as worst. Very likely that the first day that Donald Trump is sworn in again as President of the United States, which will be January 20, 2025, he'll pardon all the January 6, 2021 rioters. And perhaps other political allies who were involved in that case from the outside, people like Steve Bannon. 

And Democrats will have nothing credible to say about that. Unless they were against President Biden's pardon of his son. So for example, I will be able to credibility criticize President Trump's corrupt pardons, as well as rest of The New Democrat. But any Democrat or Republican, or former Republican, who defended President Biden on this, will not be able to do that credibility. Because Donald Trump will be able to say: "Hey, if Joe Biden can pardon his son, how come I can't pardon my political allies?"

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.