@FromaHarrop
Is Blue America Starting To Separate From Red America?

Is Blue America Starting To Separate From Red America?

It started quietly enough. MAGA Republicans put lunatic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services. He's forced top scientists to leave and slashed research in cancer, autoimmune diseases and other health threats. Thanks to him, getting the updated COVID vaccine is harder for many and confusing for everyone.

In response, Democratic-run states now talk of setting up their own "agency" to bypass the MAGA mess in Washington. Health officials from five New England states (New Hampshire opted out), New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania recently met to discuss putting together their own vaccine recommendations to bypass the federal government.

This could be the start of something bigger.

Not long ago, the right wing did most of the hollering about a national parting of ways. There was constant braying that Blue America is the land of crime, lax morals and bums freeloading off the hardworking MAGA heartland. A few years ago, the chair of the Texas Republican Party Allen West suggested forming a new union of "law-abiding states," by which he meant conservative ones. (That the big cities in Texas are Democratic might pose complications.)

Others on the right have toyed with actual secession talk. Some went so far as to make an implied threat, arguing that the Democratic states depend on the conservative farm belt for food. That's not true, however.

It happens that California is by far America's biggest producer of farm products — fruits, vegetables and nuts. Oregon and Washington are not slackers in that regard. The swing states of the upper Midwest might have to choose sides. Do Wisconsin and the other dairy powers want to antagonize customers in their biggest markets for cheese, butter and milk?

Heartland agriculture, meanwhile, is dominated by commodity crops, such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. These are major exports — and so good luck in Trump's trade war.

Blue America going its own way is not new. When California approved a rule in 2022 that would phase out the sale of new gas cars by 2035, 11 states joined it. They accounted for 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.

Want to hear an argument for secession? Listen to Eric's recent harangue on South Park: "If liberals are such lazy moochers, then tell me, why are 95 percent of the poorest counties in our country Republican? Why are eight of 10 poorest states Republican? Why are red states the welfare states that always take more from the federal government than they pay in? I think we all know who the lazy moochers are ... "

As for crime, there's been much commentary of late on the murder rates in Republican-run states after Trump sent National Guard troops to quell "unrest" only in Democratic areas. In one of his mocking tweets, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "Alabama has 3X the homicide rate of California."

As for running the nation's — or half the nation's — medical care establishment, Democratic states are well positioned. They are already home to the world's top four universities for medical research: Harvard, Johns Hopkins, University of California San Francisco and Stanford. Number five, the University of Pennsylvania, is in a swing state.

Fingers crossed here for no national breakup, but if it happens, let it be peaceful. There can be trade agreements and mutual defense treaties. There may be some complications involving the various "blue dots," the Democratic districts around Omaha and the Texas big cities. It can all be worked out.

MAGA may object to "progressive values." No problem. Blue America feels the same about MAGA values. Again, no problem. Good people in both places — and bad people. Let's see how this all progresses.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Russian oil

Did America's Enemies Write Trump's Backward Energy Policy?

President Donald Trump's energy policy is utterly screwed up — if you assume that advancing America's interests, and not pleasing his fossil fuel friends, is the objective.

This came to the fore when trade adviser Peter Navarro hollered at India for buying Russian oil. Navarro called the purchases "opportunistic and deeply corrosive" of efforts to isolate Russia and curb Vladimir Putin's war machine. Oh, is Trump isolating Putin? Could fool us.

Navarro is right that Russia's oil wealth is funding Putin's savage attacks on Ukraine. If so, then wouldn't it be in our interests to speed the move away from fossil fuels? That's the path Western Europe took shortly after the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine.

On the contrary, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is now demanding that projects "related to wind and solar energy facilities" go through new layers of political review. In other words, slow or kill them.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has canceled a federal loan guarantee to build an $11 billion transmission line through the Heartland. The Grain Belt Express was to send electricity generated by Kansas wind farms across four states. The states involved — Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana — had all approved the project. For reasons easy to guess, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley sided with Trump against the venture.

Invenergy, the Grain Belt Express developer, called Hawley's opposition "bizarre." Writing on X, the company accused Hawley of being against an infrastructure project "aligned with the President's energy dominance agenda."

As though Trump has an energy dominance agenda, as opposed to a slogan. Does even Trump believe that, well into the 21st century, fossil fuels are the golden-brick road to energy dominance? If he does, that would be most concerning of all.

Trump clearly hasn't read China's plan for "energy dominance."

China now dominates in electric vehicles, solar, wind and batteries. Electricity now accounts for 30 percent of its energy consumption versus only 20 percent in the U.S. The Financial Times reports that China is on its way to becoming the first "electrostate."

Electric vehicles represent both the present and future of transport. Trump is actively handing the EV market to China. He started by pushing Republicans to kill federal tax credits incentivizing Americans to buy or lease electric vehicles. (They end on October 1.)

Ford CEO Jim Farley recently called China's rise in the EV market the "most humbling experience" of his career. "Their cost, their quality of their vehicles is far superior to what I see in the West."

Also gone are tax credits for wind and solar power. As a result, dozens of EV or clean energy projects — investments totaling $27 billion — have been canceled.

Over half of Iowa's electricity now comes from wind power. And on sunny and windy days in Texas, wind and solar power can supply over 60 percent of the ERCOT grid's fuel mix. (ERCOT manages about 90 percent of the electricity flow in Texas.)

Trump's tariff mania, meanwhile, has thrown wrenches in the ability of both green and fossil fuel energy producers to plan their investments. Interestingly, it is hurting oil more than clean energy. Since April 2, when Trump launched his trade war "Liberation Day," S&P's main index for oil stocks has fallen four percent. By contrast, the S&P index tracking clean energy companies is up about 18 percent.

Trump continues to bellow about the "energy dominance" thing, by which he's clearly shown he means helping fossil fuels and hurting the green alternatives. He also goes on about cheaper gas, which is not what the oil business wants for obvious reasons.

Want to defang Putin and save the heating planet from environmental collapse? Trump is totally off that case. Only America's enemies could craft a more damaging energy policy.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

migrants border fence

How Trump's Immigration Cruelties May Finally Force Real Reform

It's with some discomfort that I consider the possibility that Trump's radical immigration agenda will lead to better immigration policies. The discomfort comes from the cruelty involved: the roughing up of good people who've been quietly working, the celebrations of brutal incarceration, the racially tinged rhetoric.

Hope comes in the form of changed perspective. Outside of agriculture, the existence of an illegal workforce is no longer openly tolerated. The chaos at the border is stopped. And a resulting labor shortage may force leaders to adopt a rational immigration program that legally admits the workers we need. Such changes would include legalizing the status of many otherwise law-abiding migrants now working without papers.

Politicians from both parties have for decades blocked reform. We can start with George W. Bush, who subscribed to a Republican cheap-labor agenda. (A supportive cry from The Wall Street Journal was "Let there be open borders!") In 2004, Bush called for a temporary worker program that would "match willing foreign workers with willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job." Little mention was made about what those willing employers were willing to pay their workers.

In 2013, serious immigration reform cleared the Senate in a bipartisan vote. It offered a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, while requiring employers to check a national database for the right of new hires to work in this country. It was known as E-Verify.

The president at the time was Barack Obama. He pursued a muscular deportation program that removed illegal-migrant criminals. Obama clearly wanted to reassure the public that the bill wouldn't be just another amnesty without beefed-up enforcement. House Republicans brushed off the new policy while members of Obama's own party condemned him as "deporter in chief."

Joe Biden seemed blind to the awful situation on the border. It was political malpractice to believe that the sight of caravans of migrants charging over the border wouldn't alarm the American public. Never mind the need for labor. Toward the end of his term, Biden recognized the political damage the chaos was doing his party and fixed the problem. Calm came over the border before Trump became president again, but it was too late for Biden to get the credit he could have claimed.

But solving that problem without serious immigration reform has created new problems. For one thing, many undocumented workers pay into a Social Security system that will not provide them benefits. These contributions boost the program's trust fund by billions of dollars a year, according to estimates, extending the fund's solvency.

Trump's aggressive deportation campaign has already resulted in a labor shortage and hurt consumer spending, according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Immigrants' spending power in 2023 is believed to have approached $300 billion.

Then there's inflation. The construction workforce is heavily made up of immigrants, many undocumented. Losing these workers will hit the supply of housing, already too expensive for many Americans. That could cut economic growth by 0.4 percent.

Donald Trump could continue his campaign to replace solid government statistics with phony economic numbers more to his liking. But there's no hiding the cost of things from ordinary Americans.

Who knows? Trump might force acceptance of higher immigration numbers. Recent history suggests that he still exerts mind control over many Republicans who formerly stood in the way of legally admitting more immigrants, let alone fixing the status of the undocumented.

Add the trade war to a reduced workforce and you have higher inflation flashing in neon. Trump was happy to employ undocumented workers at his various businesses, so he may be open to letting some currently illegal workers stay. After all, he's full of surprises.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on The Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Is A Mass Tragedy Ahead For America's Unvaccinated Children?

Is A Mass Tragedy Ahead For America's Unvaccinated Children?

In 2008, Madeline "Kara" Neumann, age 11, died of diabetic ketoacidosis in Wisconsin. Her parents treated her symptoms with prayer instead of medical care. The day before she died, Kara could no longer talk while suffering terrible stomach pains. Yet her adults still wouldn't take her to a doctor. A Wisconsin jury convicted the mother of reckless homicide.

This is one of several famous cases involving parents charged with murder for denying their children medical treatment that could have saved their lives. Past examples have generally pitted the right to hold certain religious beliefs against the obligation to protect children. The judgments almost always went against the caregivers — and the idea that parents have the right to do with their children as they wish.

When a child dies of starvation in a slum because the parents were cruel or just crazy — no religious excuse given — they get dragged off in handcuffs. Not so when children die of measles because parents denied them a two-second jab-in-the-arm, explaining that they don't believe in vaccines.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the crackpot Trump put in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, covers his rear by insisting that he's not stopping anyone from taking vaccines. He and fellow "skeptics" are just calling for "vaccine transparency and safety" while undermining the public's trust in both.

"Bobby" has rolled back government support for mRNA vaccine research, canceling 22 projects for tools to fight respiratory viruses such as COVID and the flu. No new projects will be started. This technology could be used to treat or cure cancer and other diseases.

Kennedy has no scientific background and evidently suffers from his own mental confusion. He's said batso things like Lyme disease is "highly likely a militarily engineered bioweapon."'

He has never openly promoted violence against vaccine scientists. More cleverly, he's telling unstable people to question whether widely used vaccines could hurt them. He has linked life-preserving vaccines to autism in children — and hired a vaccine foe who practiced medicine in Maryland without a license to study the matter.

His department is no longer recommending the COVID vaccine for healthy young children. How many children may die as a result? We already know that from September 2023 through August 2024, about 152 children died from COVID. How many more perished without the disease being reported we cannot know.

The lunatic who attacked a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention building, killing a police officer, claimed that the COVID vaccine had made him sick. Where did he get that idea? It seems no coincidence that this assault took place in the summer of 2025. Can you envision the medical researchers having to barricade themselves in their offices?

Has the public become so dazed by political chaos that it's not up in arms over government actions that could cost millions of lives? During the pandemic, nearly a quarter-million Americans talked out of taking the COVID vaccine died unnecessarily from the disease.

This is more harmful than the religious beliefs that miracles can cure anything. They skirt rather than fight science. Kennedy and company distort it, putting a scientific veneer on dangerous misinformation. And they are backed by a creepy pack of influencers.

What grown-ups do with their lives is not the great concern here. Rather we should find shock in having a government actively promoting ignorance at the cost of children's lives. Parents who do not protect their charges belong behind bars. Never mind their claiming good intentions. That's what child abusers do while insisting they were just disciplining unruly kids.

It may take a mass tragedy to move responsibility where it belongs. We seem headed for one.


Froma Harrop
is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the
Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

To Win, Democrats Must Offer Pragmatic And Progressive Governance

To Win, Democrats Must Offer Pragmatic And Progressive Governance

The Democratic Party's low approval ratings have sent a stern message to its members. But what is it? Is it a failure to loudly fight an unpopular president on every matter? Is it anger over the party's previous obsession with boutique causes — transgender rights, for instance — while downplaying broad economic concerns? Or is it the lack of an alternative vision in the form of nuts-and-bolts legislating that contrasts with Trump's toxic conflict? How on earth did Democrats lose the working class to the party that's slashing its health benefits?

My vote goes to the last theory. Rather than rely on a mirror image of MAGA extremism and push solutions for things voters don't much care about, Democrats should offer a calm vision of stability.

There was a reason "No Drama Obama" got elected president twice despite having "Hussein" as a middle name. The fringe left sulked over Bill Clinton's "triangulating" — that is, adopting parts of opposing platforms to appeal to a wider audience. But that's why Clinton won two terms and left office with higher approval ratings than the sainted Republican Ronald Reagan.

'Tis better to triangulate than lose nearly all power to the other party. Republicans control the presidency and both Houses of Congress. Democrats would most effectively "fight back" by choosing the right direction and tone.

The recent intraparty throat-grabbing over the bipartisan policing legislation provides a clear contrast. It started when Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey tore into fellow Democrats for supporting it. He hotly called them "complicit" with the Trump policy agenda.

"I say we stand, I say we fight," he bellowed. "I say we reject this. When will we stand and fight this president?"

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, fought back. The policing bills, though not perfect, do useful things, such as maintain mental health services for law enforcement officers. They promote recruiting police in the officers' home communities.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota joined Cortez Masto in supporting the package and in trying to stop Booker from hanging a soft-on-crime-sounding position around the party's neck. She further noted that Booker failed to show up at the committee meeting where he could have tried to modify the legislation. Only after it was on the full Senate floor did Booker take the stage to condemn it.

Booker responded angrily to the implication that he was a showboater. "Don't question my integrity," he shouted back.

It's a good guess that Booker plans to run for president in 2026. Toward that end, he's auditioning to become champion of the Democratic "resistance" toward Trump. One recalls his 25-hour tirade on the Senate floor as an impressive act of endurance. But things Democrats say to the far-left bleachers can come to haunt them in a general election. Just ask Kamala Harris.

Democrats wanting their party to take back power should promise relief to a public wearied by daily Trumpian chaos. Both Cortez Masto and Klobuchar represent purple states that determine the outcome of national elections. They must appeal to independents and others wary of radical politics from all sides. Booker's New Jersey is reliably Democrat.

Look at Roy Cooper for guidance. The Democrat is the popular former governor of nearly red North Carolina. Cooper is now running for a U.S. Senate seat and polling ahead of his likely Republican opponent.

Cooper championed Medicaid expansion, raised teacher pay and pushed for planting a million urban trees, an environmental policy that doesn't threaten anyone's livelihood.

It's not just Democrats. Polls also show strong disapproval of Trump. Voters don't need reasons to dislike him. What they need is a pragmatic governance and policies that don't scare them. That's what Democrats must offer.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Why That Sydney Sweeney 'Great Jeans' Ad Is Pure Genius

Why That Sydney Sweeney 'Great Jeans' Ad Is Pure Genius

How nice to have the Sydney Sweeney "great genes" controversy. It is happily of no consequence, which is just what we need for escape from unhinged behavior spilling out of Washington.

Donald Trump's sending nuclear subs toward Russia, a likely distraction from his tangle with Jeffrey Epstein, is something I don't want to think about. Not far behind is his firing the keeper of labor statistics over the less-than-stellar employment numbers she had to report.

Trump's top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, was on the Sunday talk shows defending that action. "It's the President's highest priority that the data be trusted," he said.

Talk about numbers, Hassett co-wrote a book titled "Dow 36,000." Published in 1999, it predicted the index, then averaging just over 11,000, would approach 40,000 in 10 short years. The Dow didn't reach even 30,000 until 2020.

The polemics over Sweeney's genes have gotten much press, but the heated commentary has yet to hit a homer. It centers on an ad towering over Times Square that has the blonde-haired blue-eyed actress saying: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue."

The wordplay is on "genes" and "jeans," leading some to accuse the American Eagle ad of treading on the disgraced area of eugenics. That is the Nazi-associated concept of selective breeding to improve humankind. Sayantani DasGupta, a Columbia University professor, produced a critical video that rightly calls eugenics "the pseudoscientific and immoral notion that we can improve the human race." However, she adds more questionably that "a woman of color would not have been hired for this advertisement." She posted the video on TikTok, of course.

Let's discuss. Genes determine such physical characteristics as height, hair, face structure and skin color. If Sydney Sweeney can thank good genes for her good looks, so could Naomi Campbell. She was the ebony-skinned supermodel of the 1990s. Campbell represented such top fashion brands as Versace, Chanel, Yves Saint Laurent, Prada, and Burberry.

Salma Hayek, the part-Mexican, part-Lebanese warm-complexioned beauty, is also a possessor of good genes. In addition to her Hollywood roles, Hayek became a spokeswoman for Revlon and an ambassador for Cartier. As to DasGupta's point, the American Eagle ad would have been more interesting had it featured a dark-skinned woman speaking the same words.

There's no doubt that the creators behind the ad campaign for American Eagle knew full well that the genes message would make a stir and get people talking about the product. The advertising agency was cleverly trolling Columbia professors and the social media hordes with some cultural bauble they would surely jump on.

People magazine dutifully reported that some women criticized the ad for also "catering to the male gaze." It shows Sweeney buttoning up her jeans.

These feminists need not strain their necks looking up at the Times Square billboard. They could look down at street level and note all the women and girls catering to the male gaze via their cleavage and the butt cracks outlined in stretchy shorts. But we don't want to "body shame," do we.

The genes-jeans controversy is so bush league that Trump waited a long time to pipe in about it. That didn't hold back Sen. Ted Cruz. He made a fool of himself on Fox News accusing "the Democrats" of saying that "beautiful women are no longer acceptable in our society."

The many Democrats working for American Eagle or invested in its stock must be thrilled by what these dimwits are doing for sales figures. And thanks from the rest of us for diverting our gaze, however temporarily, from the lunacy that's overtaken our politics.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Billionaires Rant About Falling Birth Rate (But They Won't Fund Child Care)

Billionaires Rant About Falling Birth Rate (But They Won't Fund Child Care)

When Elon Musk and his first wife talked about how many children they would have, Justine reportedly said she wanted one or two. "But if I could afford nannies, I'd like to have four."

Musk reportedly replied: "That's the difference between you and me. I just assume that there will be nannies."

And that's also the difference between the tech billionaires up in arms about flat birthrates and the many Americans who feel they can't afford children.

JD Vance, father of three, famously launched into the political opposition, complaining that the country was being run by "a bunch of childless cat ladies." He had a net worth estimated north of $10 million. His wife Usha is a high-powered corporate lawyer.

The Vances' use of nannies has been a tightly controlled secret. Usha didn't leave her demanding job until mid-2024, when JD became Donald Trump's running mate. She stated she wanted "to focus on caring for our family."

Do the math. By the middle of 2024, their oldest child was about 7, and the youngest was at least 2. We don't imagine that JD changed a lot of diapers or that Usha routinely brought her babies into the offices of Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Musk is too weird to hold him to the same hypocritical standards as Vance. Let it be noted, however, that he has married and divorced two other women since Justine. He now has an estimated 14 children. They surely have no shortage of nannies, but fatherly attention may not be in great supply. It would be no surprise that his adorable son X, on display in his father's Oval Office visits, served mainly as an accessory. (We look forward to X's memoirs.)

Suffice it to say, the sight of the super-rich waving fingers of disapproval at the one-child or childless middle-class families is unappealing. Still, it's worth pondering why so many younger men and women don't want children.

The discussion is a long one, but it could include a growing materialism and stress. Many young people don't wish to forgo vacations and free time to pursue family life. It could be that many were the product of a stressful divorce or no marriage to begin with. They may have suffered related trauma they don't want to deliver on anyone else.

It could even be prohibitions on abortion, which has made problematic pregnancies potentially life-threatening. (Blaming abortion itself doesn't work. The abortion rate in the U.S. is well down from the level of 50 years ago.)

A lack of affordable child care may be a factor, though countries with that and other bountiful government benefits are seeing a notable drop in births. The right-wing, allegedly family-friendly Project 2025 failed to advocate for child care programs. It even called for ending Head Start.

Young people are said to be suffering widespread depression for a number of reasons. The result, some studies say, is little hope for a future that children represent.

However, there is also debate about whether the falling birth rate is a serious crisis, especially in a country with a housing supply unable to keep up with demand. The U.S. now has about 350 million people, 60 million more than it had in 2000. The population has almost doubled over the last 50 years.

Meanwhile, the rich princes of tech or finance can "phone in" fatherhood from their beach houses or country chateaux, knowing that wherever their kids may be, professional child care will be abundant. It doesn't even matter whether the mother — a wife-, ex-wife or never-wife — is available to cover play dates.

There will be nannies. Those well down the economic scale from the Silicon billionaires know there won't be.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Elections Have Consequences For 'Trump Country' Too

Elections Have Consequences For 'Trump Country' Too

The flooding in Texas is cataclysmic. It was a hellscape as dozens, many of them girls from a summer camp, were swept to their deaths. Such tragedies spawn questions over whether the National Weather Service could have better warned the public. But this one is different in that the Trump administration is shrinking the weather service and vows to draw down the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Add to such losses the closing of rural hospitals due to Medicaid cuts and farmers suffering at the hands of Trump's trade war. It's a good guess that Trump doesn't worry much about Trump Country. In any case, he's not running again for president and so doesn't need its voters. Now that his super-rich supporters on Wall Street and in Palm Beach have their tax cuts, he may see the job as largely done.

One may have mixed feelings about some programs Trump wants to cut. I don't discount the three ugly siblings of fraud, waste and abuse often found in them. Taxpayers shouldn't have to cover rebuilding in flood zones.

I don't live in hurricane alley, tornado alley or in flash flood alley. But FEMA should have a role in providing food, water, shelter or other emergency services at times of crisis.

While I'm OK with helping fellow Americans trying to recover from natural disasters, I'm not OK with Trump's gaslighting America about where the money goes.

In February, Trump accused New York City of "massive fraud" for using FEMA money to house migrants. He accused hotels that provided temporary shelter of "making a fortune." This produced cries of outrage all over MAGA country.

But here are some facts about FEMA:

The five states receiving the most FEMA dollars per person tend to be Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Known as FEMA's "frequent fliers," they are all red states.

Let's look at total FEMA spending on direct financial assistance to residents. From 2015 through April 2024, Florida led the nation with payouts totaling $2.5 billion. It was closely followed by Louisiana's $2.4 billion and Texas getting $2.3 billion, according to data from the Carnegie Disaster Dollar Database.

By contrast, Illinois received only about $300 million during that period. As for money FEMA spent housing migrants in New York City, that totaled a mere $81 million.

What about Democrat-run California? Deep blue California was the fourth top beneficiary, at $3.7 billion. That's understandable given the state's exposure to wildfires, earthquakes, flooding and mudslides — also its far higher population.

Trump says that responsibility for disaster management should be left mostly with state governments. He wants FEMA to be "phased out" after the 2025 hurricane season. Governors would then coordinate any response. If they can't, Trump said, "they shouldn't be governor."

This vision seems plucked out of Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump term. It calls for "reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government." It also wants to end most of the Department of Homeland Security's grant programs. That would include work on disaster response and recovery.

One difference between California and many other states suffering a series of natural calamities is that California is rich. It can more easily pick up the costs. So could Texas.

Hundreds of FEMA employees have already been let go. Hundreds of scientists are gone from the National Weather Service. That includes several at the San Angelo office, which covers some of the hardest hit areas.

There's too much pain here to sternly lecture Trump country on its false notions of where federal money goes. One can simply repeat that familiar line: "Elections have consequences."

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Elon Musk

If Musk Is Really Worried By Deficits, He Should Back Democrats

Elon Musk warned that if Republicans passed their big domestic policy bill, he would form a new "America Party" to primary those who voted for it. He doesn't need a new party. He has his old one, the Democrats.

Many Democrats have grown to intensely dislike Musk, and they have their reasons. His prancing around with a chainsaw as he gleefully fired thousands of valued federal employees was ugly. But his most damaging act was spending nearly $300 million to get Donald Trump reelected.

As it happens, the right doesn't like Musk, either. Trump's serial abuse of him is something to behold. When Musk opposed his "big beautiful" bill, Trump let loose on Truth Social. "Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back to South Africa," Trump bellowed. "No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production ... BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!"

Look, Musk is a weird guy. He's been a genius at building new companies, making him the richest person on earth. But his understanding of human behavior is sketchy, especially with a personality as diabolical as Trump's. By putting Musk at the head of DOGE, Trump made him the fall guy for unpopular budget cuts.

A longtime Democrat, Musk was turned off by the woke thing. It's true that Democrats let some activists' obsession with transgender issues and use of pronouns get out of hand. The reality is that most Democrats are moderate.

If Musk wants to exert power in primary races, he'd have more impact in Democratic primaries. Removing fringe leftists from the national stage would do a world of good for Democrats, helping the party regain control of Congress. In sum, Musk could use his smarts, money and control of X to support the Democratic mainstream.

Trump has argued that Musk is angry because the bill ends federal subsidies for electric vehicles. Why the man who built up Tesla went over to the anti-EV side mystifies to this day. But Trump was correct in noting that "Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate."

Fact check time: There is no EV mandate, never was. The subsidy was to encourage people to buy EVs. No one had to. It was also to help domestic automakers compete in a world that is rapidly moving to electric vehicles.

Musk's association with Trump has trashed Tesla sales in this country and in Europe. A reconnection with the worldwide campaign for green energy could make Teslas cool again. In any case, a return to the environmental fold — which the eccentric Musk could pull off — would become a spectacular turnaround.

Musk's description of the massive bill as "the biggest debt increase in history" is accurate. It's odd how little Americans recognize that Democrats have been better at controlling deficits and growing the economy than Republicans.

Democrat Bill Clinton was the only president to balance the budget in over half a century. Republican George W. Bush ran through the surpluses, leaving Barack Obama with the Great Recession and a deficit of nearly $2 trillion. (This and the numbers that follow are in today's dollars.) By his last year, Obama brought deficits down to $759 billion.

Trump in his first term oversaw an almost $1 trillion deficit before COVID, almost $4 trillion in his last year. Joe Biden brought deficits down to $1.87 trillion by his last year — and that was after big investments in America's infrastructure and chip manufacturing.

Today's budget monstrosity is projected to increase budget deficits by roughly $4 trillion over the next decade.

Musk should return to the Democratic Party, and Democrats should welcome him.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Blocking Vaccines, RFK Jr. Guarantees 'A Lot Of Americans Are Going To Die'

Blocking Vaccines, RFK Jr. Guarantees 'A Lot Of Americans Are Going To Die'

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican from Louisiana, is also a doctor. He put up resistance last February to Donald Trump's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "Bobby," as Trump likes to call him, has long cast doubts on the safety of vaccines that have saved millions from death or serious disease while causing almost no problems.

Kennedy is an ignoramus on such matters and has a few loose screws besides. But Cassidy ultimately gave in, presumably to escape MAGA's wrath. He gave Kennedy the deciding vote for confirmation.

Cassidy is back, however. As leader of the Senate's health committee, he tried but failed to delay a committee meeting to consider RFK Jr.'s nutty move to fire all 17 members of the panel that advises on the use of vaccines in the United States. Kennedy's eight replacements, Cassidy wrote, "do not have significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology or immunology." Another concern was that a director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which takes guidance from the panel, had not yet been put in place.

Kennedy's manipulative line is that "a clean sweep is needed to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science" — a confidence that he and fellow crackpots have done their best to undermine with junk science. Kennedy has falsely accused the fired experts of having conflicts of interest with companies developing vaccines. That problem does not exist because of stringent oversight.

It's truly rich that Kennedy would accuse anyone of a conflict of business interests. He currently takes a cut on money extracted in lawsuits against drug companies.

Cassidy may have been moved by the resignation of Dr. Fiona Havers from the CDC. A senior physician overseeing virus surveillance, Havers warned early this month that "people are going to die" if Kennedy's new vaccine advisory panel takes over.

Another reason given for Cassidy's attempt to slow down approval of the panel — formally known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — is that Kennedy had promised during the confirmation process that he would not change ACIP. Guess Bobby was lying.

Trump earned credit in his first term for the Operation Warp Speed program that sped the development of a vaccine against COVID. And so why did he name a vaccine "skeptic" (the nice word) to run the incredibly important HHS?

I have theories. One is that Trump simply enjoys Kennedy's wackiness. He is colorful with those stories of a whale head strapped on his car, the dead bear cub left in Central Park and the worm eating his brain. In sum, Bobby amused him. Trump told him to "go wild" at HHS.

Little sleep would be lost if some rubes and woo-woo Californians suffer illness and death because they believed the conspiracies fostered by medical quackery? Americans able to distinguish expertise from TikTok baloney would know to get their shots. Stuff happens to the ill-informed or, to use one of Trump's favorite terms, "stupid people."

The tragedy goes beyond Americans dying because they were talked out of a vaccine shown to be overwhelmingly safe. The vaccine-bashing also slows the development of protections against future health threats. The Trump administration's undermining of medical expertise — and cuts in research money — will slow down advancements in messenger RNA vaccines, T-cell work and other medical miracles that have begun to smite formerly incurable diseases.

Yes, people will die. They already have. An analysis of CDC data concluded that perhaps 250,000 Americans who had access to shots and didn't get them died unnecessarily from COVID.

This is the America we live in. The well-informed will survive. Others are on their own.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump Wants 'Illegal' Workers -- For Himself, At Least

Trump Wants 'Illegal' Workers -- For Himself, At Least

Donald Trump recently wrote on Truth Social: "Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long-time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace."

Let's get the obvious out of the way. Trump is heavily invested in two of those three businesses. He's proven himself very good at looking out for Number One.

That's much easier than formulating an immigration policy to meet the needs of employers while ensuring decent wages for all workers. Many of these "very good" workers would have been admitted to this country legally, if we had carefully written immigration policy. The lack of said policy is a major driver of illegal immigration.

Consider also the weirdness of singling out two industries for lax immigration enforcement. Suppose an undocumented worker tending almond trees in California's Central Valley chooses to start a window-washing business in Bakersfield. Is he now slated for deportation?

Border czar Stephen Miller is putting on a show of force that is both nasty and ineffectual. The wannabe warlord says he wants to arrest 3,000 migrants a day, apparently any migrants. His enforcers have been pulling people with pending asylum cases and valid work permits off worksites.

Few will argue against booting out undocumented aliens who have committed crimes, other than being here illegally. Barack Obama did a better job of that than Trump has. MAGA's obsession with the Southern border, already calmed by Joe Biden before leaving office, ignores nearly half the dilemma. An estimated 42% of undocumented immigrants now in the U.S. arrived legally but overstayed their visas.

Meanwhile, organizers of the "No King" rallies did a masterful job. They broadly named the event to take much of the focus away from the sometimes-abusive activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Americans have diverse opinions on what immigration policy should look like while there is growing anger at Trump's caudillo act and personal lawlessness.

That combined with Trump's toxic personality and chaotic politics resulted in small crowds honoring the U.S. Army's 250-year anniversary. That was too bad. The anniversary marked centuries of faithful service and sacrifice to the country. That was inevitable when Trump made the celebration an adjunct to his 79th birthday.

Trump set the scene by holding that unseemly political rally featuring himself at Fort Bragg. The Trump brand of vulgarity further diminished the Army's parade by including an official broadcast shouting out "Special thanks to our sponsor — Coinbase." Coinbase operates a huge exchange for cryptocurrency, one of Trump's shadowy avenues for amassing more wealth.

The "No Kings" planners, who put together big gatherings in every state, wisely kept the protests outside Washington. That avoided conflict with the Army/Trump birthday parade. Many of the "No Kings" rallies turned joyful with a here-comes-summer feel.

A few hours after calling to exempt farm and hospitality workers from harsh immigration enforcement, Trump blamed Biden for the problem Biden went far in solving. Trump himself has employed an illegal workforce, most famously the construction workers who built Trump Tower.

Immigration chaos is too useful politically and too personally enriching for Trump to end. Nor does the Republican-controlled House have the courage to act. Republicans memorably refused to vote on a bipartisan bill that would have gone far in strengthening enforcement.

Americans don't want open borders. They also recognize that many of the people who came through these open borders without the proper documentation are, indeed, otherwise very good people. Also that they are taking jobs it's hard to find Americans to fill.

Don't expect sane immigration reform in the Trump era. That requires hard work.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Best-Selling, Liberal-Bashing 'Abundance' Is Abundantly Clueless

Best-Selling, Liberal-Bashing 'Abundance' Is Abundantly Clueless

The hot-selling book Abundance is written by liberals who bash liberals, or more precisely, try to make them feel guilty. Sure, authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson shed some blame on conservatives for why America doesn't build as easily as it used to. But it's those liberals in expensive cities, the authors insist, who are callously driving less-than-rich families to move elsewhere.

Klein and Thompson argue that Democrat-run "superstar" cities have failed to provide enough affordable housing because of all their building rules and regulations and pesky zoning ordinances that make it harder to build. The chief culprits are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and, as always, New York City. The comparisons made against them are ludicrous.

A sample complaint: "The Austin metro area led the nation in housing permits in 2022, permitting 18 new homes for every thousand residents. Los Angeles's and San Francisco's metro areas permitted only 2.5 units per thousand residents."

Where do we start? Let's start with the not-insignificant matter of buildable land. The population density of San Francisco is five times that of Austin. Even sprawling Los Angeles has nearly three times as many people per square mile as Austin does.

Another sampling: Houston "is not facing the crises of homelessness and housing affordability seen in the superstar cities of many blue states." Why? In 2023, the Boston metro area issued 10,500 new housing permits, while Houston issued almost 70,000.

Boston has nearly four times the number of people per square mile as Houston. And Boston Harbor borders a big, blue-gray body of water. The land to its east is Portugal. Of course, buying and building in Boston is harder to do — and more expensive.

Really, all the so-called superstar cities getting roasted in Abundance — San Francisco, New York, Boston, Los Angeles — are bounded by water whereas Austin and Houston can easily expand into open country. The authors speak a lot about "bottlenecks" impeding progress. I'd say that the Pacific Ocean is a significant bottleneck to Los Angeles building out. Wouldn't you?

Houston has no zoning laws, so you can put almost anything anywhere. That's the Houston way. (This dynamic metropolis might rightly bristle being left out of the list of superstar cities.) Urban Texas has some fine old neighborhoods that locals treasure, but there's a lot more history to protect in the older cities.

Let Houston be Houston, Boston be Boston and LA be unlike either.

This is a big country. The four ultra-costly superstar cities combined take up a minuscule 0.025% of the total U.S. landmass. Let's not insult the thousands of smaller cities and towns by portraying the glitzy coastal metros as the only places where opportunity beckons. Fortunes can be made anywhere. Silicon Valley was almost all fruit orchards into the 1950s.

A needed update: Austin's heralded building boom is over for now. Austin's growth, fueled by the pandemic, now limps along with sky-high office and apartment vacancy rates.

Klein and Thompson speak in that confident wonky voice, arms outstretched with futurama visions of shared prosperity. If only Americans, Democrats especially, would get out of the way.

"Democrats cannot simultaneously claim to be the party of middle-class families while presiding over the parts of the country they are leaving." They predictably single out liberal California, noting "California's most populous cities are run by Democrats."

As it happens, Democrats also preside over Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

Abundance operates on the assumption that liberals can be shamed for wanting to preserve landmarks, intimate Main Streets and tenements with old shops at the bottom. Pass the guilt by. Liberals, joined by their conservative neighbors, have every right to slow down the bulldozers.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

The Real Problem With Politicians Like Joni Ernst

The Real Problem With Politicians Like Joni Ernst

What do you do about Joni Ernst? The Republican senator from Iowa is being mocked by liberal media and beyond for her snarky response to a question about cuts in Medicaid: "We all are going to die."

That clumsy remark has been skewered for its insensitivity, but its greater significance lies in the bigger issue. Ernst answers to Donald Trump and no one else.

She is not alone in this. Bowing down to Trump's demands and caving in to MAGA threats have turned several Republicans against the people who voted for them.

Elon Musk has just called Trump's tax-and-spending bill a "disgusting abomination," thus freeing more Republicans to express their doubts. Some House members now express regrets about voting for it. Their excuse is that they didn't quite read it.

Think about that. They regard not doing their job as less politically damaging than owning up to their vote.

More than one in five Iowans receive Medicaid benefits. Rural hospitals will be especially hard hit by the cuts, but so will other medical centers serving large Medicaid populations. Even before the Republican House voted to chop over $700 billion from the program, 28 Iowa hospitals were at risk of closing, according to Becker's Hospital Review.

As the Senate considered the nomination of Pete Hegseth for Defense secretary, Ernst was riding high as one of the holdouts. A handful of other Senate Republicans wouldn't go along, giving Ernst the power to ditch a candidate known for sexual assault, drunkenness and abuse of corporate funds. Worse, Hegseth had little experience relevant to heading the department tasked with defending America from foreign attack. He was just a pretty boy on Fox News.

A combat veteran, Ernst made some impassioned objections to the appointment. But when the MAGA brigade threatened her reelection with a primary challenge, she forgot all about national security.

She explained her decision to cave as follows: "I will be supporting President Trump's pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth." In other words, she was doing it for Trump.

American soldiers risk their lives for the country. Ernst was one. But then she changed shape into a politician who wouldn't even risk reelection, that is, a job, for the country.

In her service to Trump, she turned out to be not very good at politics either. Ernst's attempted recovery from her unfortunate "we are all going to die" comment was a not-very-clever video on Instagram, foolishly staged in a cemetery. Screwing her face up in a look of pain, she apologized for any misunderstanding. Then she made a failed stab at humor, saying, "I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the Tooth Fairy as well."

She further insulted the audience by stating, "I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth." That also diverted attention from the issue at hand. The voters weren't demanding immortality, just medical care that would enable them to live longer, healthier lives.

If she really wanted fuller recovery from some awkward moments Ernst could have looked straight at the camera and say, "You know? I'm going to vote against a bill that would deprive so many of my constituents of the most basic health care." And if she wanted to nail down her conservative bona fides, she should have added, "I'm also not voting for tax cuts that blow up federal deficits by trillions."

Chances are excellent that she will vote for whatever Trump wants. That's the real problem with Joni Ernst. It's not a stray comment. It's straying from her duty to her constituents and the country.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Elon musk

Behind Elon Musk's Rift With His Presidential 'Buddy'

Elon Musk may have thought that dropping more than $250 million into Trump's reelection campaign would have bought permanent affection from the president. No, it was a show of obeisance that labeled Musk as one to be played. Besides, in Trump's dog-eat-dog view of wealth, the far-richer Musk may have needed cutting down to size.

Trump knows about human nature. Musk, for all his awesome faculties, does not. Like Heracles brought down by trusting a scheming wife, Musk suffered the fatal flaw of assuming that Trump was truly on his side.

At first it looked like Musk's hopes would be met. Stock of the tech mogul's crown jewel Tesla soared on the belief that Trump would grandly reward his enterprises. It's now down 29 percent from its December high.

Musk didn't get that his union with Trump would repel Tesla buyers. They tend to be the better educated and environmentally aware. Trump proceeded to drive a stake in the U.S. electric vehicle market that Musk had launched. Trump's toxic comments about Europe, made worse by his tariff machinations, deep-sixed Tesla sales there.

Did Musk think he was being rewarded with a big government job as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE? What Trump did was make Musk the face of unpopular budget cuts.

And so, while Trump was out front vowing not to touch Medicaid, Musk's team found large sums to chop from the program. When the Republican House tax and spending bill cut about $880 billion over 10 years from the program, Trump warmly applauded.

Last Friday, Trump held a bon-voyage press conference for Musk in the Oval Office. Trump patted Musk on the head as he left DOGE to save his wounded businesses. The enduring visual was of an unsmiling Musk with a black eye caused by who-knows-what.

The very next day, Trump delivered more disrespect by announcing the withdrawal of his nomination of Musk's pick to head NASA, his pal Jared Isaacman. As an explanation, Trump cited Isaacman's "prior associations," that is, his contributions to Democratic campaigns.

Musk's enthusiastic endorsement apparently no longer counted for much. Perhaps realizing that he had once again been dissed, Musk "bravely" posted a contrary view on his X website: "It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted" as Isaacman.

There's something sad about that. It may be hard to summon tears for the world's richest man, a guy who coldly backed big reductions in life-saving humanitarian aid. But one must also account for his inability to guess how others would react, a genuine handicap that prevented Musk from accurately sizing up Trump. He simply couldn't imagine how the public would respond to DOGE's more savage cuts.

Musk says that he was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a condition tied to difficulty understanding social cues and unwritten social rules. We can well believe it. He suffered at the hands of an abusive father. Bullied in school, he was sent to a hospital after a group of boys pushed him down a staircase.

As Musk returns to his limping businesses, the Tesla board seems unsure what to pay him. Investors had become highly irritated by Musk's disappearance into MAGA land. As pay consultant Alan Johnson put it, the board must require that Musk start "to run it like a real company."

It's hard to see how Tesla can recover from its founder's toxic links with Trump and fascistic movements in Europe. As for SpaceX, foreign governments are already canceling contracts.

As he sent Musk into the sunset, Trump clearly wanted to keep the door open for more play. "He's going to be back and forth, I think."

Feeling sorry for Musk is not impossible.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

'More Than A Little Stupid': Republicans Try To Kill Renewable Energy

'More Than A Little Stupid': Republicans Try To Kill Renewable Energy

Wyoming is the second windiest state, after Nebraska. It's obvious why the wind power industry is investing $10 billion there. And it's hard to see why any state politician would oppose this. But some have. Wyoming is one of those fossil-fuel producing states in which so-called conservatives feel obligated — or are paid — to stop competition from clean energy. Texas is another.

Wyoming State Sen. Larry Hicks proposed a temporary ban on renewable energy projects. "It does one thing: puts a moratorium on wind and solar for the next five years," he said. "It's a simple little bill."

A "simple," five-year plan? How do you say, "Aw, shucks" in Russian?

Hicks swiftly diverted blame to California: "Our friends on the 'left coast' with their renewable portfolio demands, eliminating fossil fuels and moving in a direction that's unsustainable."

We can't untie this knot of confused ideology. But let's point out that renewable energy is the only kind of energy that is, by definition, sustainable. Wyoming may have coal, oil and gas. But it has wind forever.

This hostility toward wind power is even weirder in Texas. Texas harvests more electricity from wind than any other state, or nearly 28 percent of all wind-generated electricity in the U.S. In one recent week, nearly half of Texas's electricity came from solar and wind power.

The key for these renewables is batteries that can store power when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Texas has been crowned "ground zero" for a U.S. battery boom. Last year it switched on more power stored in batteries than California did.

Texas was expected to double its storage capacity this year — that is, until Donald Trump slapped huge tariffs on China. More than two-thirds of imported batteries come from China.

In March, the Texas Senate passed a mandate that half of all new power capacity come from sources other than battery storage. In other words, at least 50 percent of all new power plant capacity had to be produced from coal, natural gas, and oil. (The natural gas industry needed propping.)

Back in Wyoming, lawmakers wedded to fossil fuels are complaining that large wind and solar projects are fundamentally changing the look of Wyoming's wide-open spaces. That's ignoring the aesthetics of Wyoming's coal pits, wide open craters that stretch for miles.

Wyoming is over 63 times the size of Rhode Island, with less than half the population of the Ocean State. There are dozens of wind turbines in Rhode Island, onshore and off. More are planned with minimal complaint. Wyoming could easily accommodate new wind projects under its big sky.

There does exist public support for clean energy in Wyoming, which is why Hicks' initiative failed. Gov. Mark Gordon tried to bridge the differences by endorsing an "all of the above energy strategy." He wants to keep Wyoming as "the energy state" but also to address climate change by developing clean renewables.

The far-right Freedom Caucus went after Gordon for acknowledging climate change. It introduced a bill designed to stop the state from pursuing any carbon reduction targets and titled it "Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again."

A pragmatic Republican, Gordon called such proposals as "a little bit stupid."

The bottom line is that Wyoming continues to develop wind energy projects. The Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project, now under construction near Rawlins, will be the nation's largest wind farm.

Much of what happens from here on in depends on Washington. The recently passed House bill strips away subsidies for renewables. How it fares in the Senate remains to be seen. Suffice it to say, slowing America's move to cleaner and also cheaper energy is more than a little bit stupid.

Froma Harrop is an award-winning journalist who covers politics, economics, and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump's 2017 tax cuts

Trump's Tax Cut Will Lead To Fiscal Disaster

First off, let's drop the Republican claim that not extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts is a tax increase.

Many of these tax cuts were purposely designed to expire and for a sneaky reason. Making them permanent would have hiked the bill's cost by more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Add to that the interest payments tied to the higher borrowing, and the number rises to $2 trillion.

The ugly bottom line is this: Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill is expected to tack another $3.8 trillion to budget deficits over the next decade.

Recall Elon Musk's vow to cut $2 trillion in spending a year ago? The amount actually cut was about $100 billion. Sorry to throw more numbers at you, but that's only 5% of $2 trillion.

Balancing the federal budget without added borrowing can be done. It was done when Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was president. Clinton had raised some taxes, notably on the wealthy, in his 1993 budget. Republicans demagogued those tax hikes, which helped them win big in the midterms that followed.

By 1998, the federal budget was in surplus. Republicans rightly insist that they helped by forcing lower spending. But the added tax revenue brought in more money than the spending cuts saved.

Most Americans got richer under Clinton. Despite higher tax bills, the rich got richer, too. They benefited from a stock market lifted in large part by the growing belief that the federal government had become a responsible financial steward.

During Clinton's presidency, the S&P 500 stock index rose a legendary 208 percent. Had dividends been included and reinvested, the total return would have been higher.

George W. Bush took over the presidency in January 2001 and squandered the surplus with tax cuts and dramatically higher spending. He also oversaw the reckless deregulation that led to the financial collapse at the end of his two terms — and a 40% drop in the S&P 500.

Anyone who has done a household budget knows that two numbers matter. One is for spending; the other is for money coming in. For the federal government, money coming in is the tax revenues.

Ronald Reagan bought into the idea that tax cuts would pay for themselves through greater economic growth. He quickly saw that his 1981 tax cuts didn't come close to covering the lost revenues plus higher defense spending. To his credit, Reagan acted to stabilize the financial picture by signing a tax increase the following year and then other increases in 1984 and 1986. Nonetheless, the national debt tripled during his eight years.

Trump is pushing hard for both tax cuts and higher spending. And that has the financial markets fearing a new era of financial irresponsibility. Moody's has just lowered its credit rating for the United States from triple-A to double-A. That's contributed to a global selloff of U.S. Treasury debt, as it is no longer seen as the ultra-safe investment it was. The U.S. must now offer higher returns to compensate for the higher risk. Our annual interest payments, meanwhile, now surpass the defense budget.

All this doesn't fully count the growth-killing effects of Trump's tariff plans. JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon says investors may not have fully digested how much of a threat to their portfolios the tariffs pose.

Trump's tax-and-spending bill has a long way to go — the Senate after the House. But the financial markets obviously don't like what they are seeing.

Republicans should not be extending and adding to the 2017 tax cuts. Responsible lawmakers would just let them expire as they were scheduled to do. Alas, they clearly don't have it in them to be responsible.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump and MBS Saudi

Suddenly, Trump Finds The Profit Motive Shocking

Donald Trump's whirlwind visit to Qatar was certainly an extravaganza: "Red and lavender carpets. Arabian horses. Glitzy chandeliers. Camels. Sword dancers," according to The New York Times.

Sounded like a night at Studio 54.

Back on Main Street USA, things looked less fabulous. Trump's tariffs have been menacing the nation's retailers, including the biggest, Walmart. About a third of Walmart's sales come from imports. (That share would be higher if it didn't also sell groceries largely sourced in the U.S.)

The president is now going after Walmart for saying the obvious, that the tariffs may force it to soon raise prices.

True to Trumpian form, this is not entirely a diversion from what we may think it's about: It's a diversion from a previous diversion. That would be the flashy galas in the Arab Gulf States, which were themselves a diversion from his economic chaos.

While Trump partied, family members fanned out on three continents vacuuming up millions in real estate deals. He was also planning a dinner for the 220 biggest holders of his meme coin. Buying $TRUMP coins is another means of shoveling money into his pocket.

Call it corruption. Call it grifting. Making a personal fortune off one's presidency is illegal. Though not unknown in previous administrations, Trump is self-dealing in megaton quantities. And what better way to draw attention away from the other stuff than to accept a $400 million jetliner from Qatar, a gift that will eventually end up in his library.

This is also part of the brand. It's about getting away with law-breaking and being blatant about it, mob-style.

So now Trump has us blabbing about his ridiculous demand on Truth Social that Walmart "EAT THE TARIFFS" and keep prices down. "I'll be watching, and so will your customers."

Given the overlap between MAGA and Walmart's customer base, the post gets extra buzz through the implied threat to America's biggest shopkeeper.

But it's a vain threat, given that for much of Trump country, Walmart is all there is. The retailing juggernaut long ago plopped its big-box discount stores on the outskirts of America's downtowns, thus wiping out the competition on what was traditional Main Street. With 4,000 stores, Walmart now claims about 90% of Americans as customers.

Trump also wrote: "Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain. Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected."

And so Trump gets us talking not only about the nervy assault on America's largest private employer — about 1.6 million people in the United States work for Walmart — but also his honking hypocrisy of hitting a business for trying to make a profit.

Again, duplicity is part of his act. Trump has often criticized companies for not capitalizing on profit opportunities. "The point is that you can't be too greedy," he wrote in The Art of the Deal.

And he's defended retailers when they could be used as a weapon against other enemies. Recall his attack on Amazon several years ago, claiming it was hurting the U.S. Postal Service.

"Amazon is doing great damage to tax-paying retailers," Trump wrote on Twitter in 2017. "Towns, cities and states throughout the U.S. are being hurt — many jobs being lost!"

Not coincidentally, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was the owner of The Washington Post. Back then the Post was a harsh Trump critic. Another day, another diversion.

For now, Trump has us noting the inconsistency of his expressing shock that others want to make money. Walmart, at least, is doing it legally. Meanwhile, no amount of diversion will hide the coming reality that Americans will be paying the higher prices.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.