A Vote For Trump Is A Vote For Project 2025

Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency, explained

Project 2025: The myths and the facts

1) Concentrating power in the presidency: Trump’s allies believe that his first term failed because he couldn’t get enough “loyal” appointees in place and because the “deep state” bureaucracy sabotaged him. So a main recurring theme of Project 2025 is how to bend the executive branch to a conservative president’s will.

2) Longtime conservative priorities: The vast majority of Project 2025’s policy plan is focused on longstanding conservative priorities — with some tweaking and elisions for the Trump era. Though some are indeed quite extreme, they’re not all that new or specifically tied to Trump.

There are far too many to list here, but just as a flavor:

Education: Eliminate the Department of Education, give every parent a voucher-like option they could use to send their child to private school, zero out federal funding to low-income schools over the next decade, greatly cut “wasteful” school meal programs, and end Biden’s student loan forgiveness programs

Energy and environment: Deprioritize fighting climate change, repeal Biden’s clean energy subsidies, further unleash oil and natural gas production, roll back various environmental regulations

Health care: Majorly cut and overhaul Medicaid, roll back the recent law banning surprise medical billing

Immigration: Deny loan access to students at “schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens,” ban non-citizens from living in federally assisted housing (even if they live with a citizen), reinstate and expand the horseback-mounted Border Patrol

On a few issues — trade, antitrust, the Export-Import Bank — the plan states that the conservative movement is divided, and lays out the thinking of two different sides on each issue. On the question of Social Security and Medicare, which Heritage has long supported overhauling but Trump does not, the document is basically silent.

3) A hardline religious-right agenda: There are also parts of Project 2025 that, while not exactly surprising for conservatives, are quite extreme in ways that are politically problematic for Trump. The plan calls for:

Revoking FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, which is used in about half of US abortions (“Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world,” the document states)

Using an old law known as the Comstock Act to prosecute people who send abortion pills through the mail

Ending the mandate for insurance to cover the “week-after” contraceptive pill Ella (which the document argues is a “potential abortifacient”)

Crack down on “abortion tourism” in liberal states by requiring states to report where women seeking abortions live and cutting federal funds if they refuse

Ending subsidies for stem cell or fetal cell research

In a fiery introduction by Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, Project 2025 also calls for banning porn:

Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.

Roberts also adds that pornography is “manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children,” suggesting that he may define “pornography” much more broadly than is typical — that he may view any attempt to explain or teach about trans people as worthy of outlawing and imprisonment.

This is reflective of a broader push from religious and cultural conservatives. (The demand for porn prohibition does not show up in the document again after Roberts’s introduction, making it unclear how it would be implemented.)

What Trump doesn't want you to know about Project 2025

Project 2025

Another American Revolution Needed

The United States has 13 of the world's top 20 billionaires. 

Let's stop pretending welfare, social programs, minimum wage, retirement plans, etc. are the true American budgetary issues. Living wages, health care, and pension plans are NOT the problem.

It's the fact that we've allowed a privileged few to avoid paying their fair share whilst amassing grotesque fortunes. 

It's time to start taxing these kings and queens and return the United States to a shared prosperity instead of the current plutocracy.

[source]

Other Reasons Why Ron Johnson Is A Terrible Person

Ron Johnson Wants Social Security, Medicare To Be Discretionary Spending

Screenshots of Wisdom

 

Screenshots of Wisdom

Keep Crying Republicans, But The United States Is Already Socialist

What if Republicans actually wanted to discuss topics based on merit, priorities and facts? What if Republicans wanted to govern and actually help Americans?

Scott Walker faux worries, What if Santa were a socialist? Yes, he thought he'd use the holiday season to knock community, working together and caring for others. You know, the bedrocks of socialism.

Here's a news flash for Walker, Republicans and other dipshits that keep parroting the Socialism Is Bad trope, America is socialist.

Public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, fire fighters, police, public transportation, roads, bridges, the military and on and on are all socialist.

We do things better and we all live better when we work together and help each other out. For Republicans to keep pretending these programs and institutions are threats to freedom is garbage. These are the foundations of our society and our high quality of life. For Republicans to keep pitting every American against one another, for Republicans to keep tearing down the institutions that have made everyone's lives better, is a disservice to the entire nation.

The United States is socialist. And, we need more socialism, not less. What we could use less of - disingenuous and self-interested Republican stooges.

Merry Christmas, even to the idiots that lap up Walker's horseshit.

For Further Reading:
How Socialism Made America Great
America Is Already Socialist, And That’s a Good Thing

Social Security Myths

These 7 Social Security myths just aren’t true, no matter how often you hear them

Weekend Reading

There Is No Labor Shortage
We Don't Have Labor Shortage. We Have A Pay Shortage.
Fighting Climate Change May Be Easier Than We Think
Heavy Job Loss Since The 1970s Hit Milwaukee's Black Community The Hardest. Here's Why.
The Case Against The Electoral College In Stronger Than Ever
Journal Sentinel Slams "Liberal" News Site
David Koch's Monstrous Legacy
I Helped Create The GOP Tax Myth. Trump Is Wrong: Tax Cuts Don't Equal Growth.
Humans Versus Earth: The Quest To Define The Anthropocene
New Inequality Numbers Are A Gift To Campaign Sloganeers
No, Productivity Does Not Explain Income
How Trump's Foxconn Deal Conned Wisconsin Out Of Billions
The Financialization Of The American Elite
The 'War On Cars' Is A Bad Joke
Social Security Does Not Add To The Federal Deficit
Brazil, The Amazon, and Global Warming: It Ain't Quite What The Media Tell You
The Trump Vs. Obama Economy - In 15 Charts

Republican Deficits

Any Democrat Will Do 2020

So many good candidates and good ideas.  Hopefully the Democratic Party can coalesce into a strong, coherent platform with unwavering candidates for President and Vice President.

Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Apple too

With Estate Tax on Nation's Richest, Bernie Sanders' "For the 99.8% Act" Applauded for Targeting "Tyranny of Plutocracy"

The Democratic Party Wants to Make Climate Policy Exciting

The Green New Deal, explained

Cory Booker’s plan to fight wealth inequality: give poor kids money

Proposal to impose a progressive annual wealth tax on American households with net worth (sum of all assets net of debts) above $50 million

Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act

Sanders Files Bill to Strengthen, Expand Social Security

Bernie Sanders's new Medicare-for-all plan, explained

Two senators are proposing national rent relief bills. Here’s why it matters

Warren Proposes Universal Child Care Plan Funded by Wealth Tax

Ending the War on Marijuana

Still Bernin'

Holiday Reading

The FDA Is Cracking Down On The Shady, $3 Billion Homeopathic Drug Industry
How Many Taxpayer Dollars Is An Amazon Warehouse Job Worth?
22% Of City Workers Live In Suburbs
Study: Rich Kids 10 Times As Likely To Become Inventors, Creating 'Lost Einsteins'
Math Says You're Driving Wrong And It's Slowing Is All Down
State Of Wisconsin's Spending On Private Workers Up 57% Since 2010
Eau Claire Lawsuit Could Impact Foxconn, Other Developments
In Defence Of The Labour Theory Of Value
Can We Cut The Crap On The Debt From The Tax Bill Hurting Our Kids?
7 Reason To Be Thankful For Social Security
6 Reasons for Progressives to Stop Worrying and Love the GOP Tax Scam

We All Do Better When We All Do Better

Weekend Reading

The Reagan Boom, Kind Of Like The Ford-Carter Boom
The Washington Post's NAFTA Fantasy: 10 Years Later
Yes, Robert Samuelson Says It's Time To Cut Social Security And Medicare
Red Versus Blue States In The Job Recovery
Never Mind The 1 Percent, Let's Talk About The 0.01 Percent
The U.S. Economy Is Creating Millionaires At An Astonishing Pace. But What's It Doing For Everyone Else?

Note To Trump Voters: An Ally Can Turn

Deplorables 1, Sanity 0

A few things we can glean from the Wisconsin exit polling:

Third party candidates either held Trump back from a blowout or cost Clinton the election, more likely the latter. Again, third party candidates are a wrench in the system. Unless we move to something like an instant run-off voting system, third party candidates are destructive. Other than a sense of smug self-righteousness, what do Johnson and Stein voters have to show? 

Persons 45 and older seemed to have tipped the election to Trump. Amazing that folks receiving, or close to receiving, Medicare and Social Security would vote for the party that wants to end those programs. I really have no clue what these people think Donald Trump or the Republican party will do for them. 

Those with only some college or a high school diploma or less tilted toward Trump. Ignorance is bliss.

The US Elections Project estimates that 128.8 million Americans cast a ballot in 2016, out of 231 million eligible voters — a turnout rate of 55.6 percent. Thus, around 45% of eligible voters did not vote. In 2012, there were 153 million registered voters out of 235 million eligible voters. Nearly 133 million people voted in that presidential election.

Wisconsin, by a thin margin, went for Trump. Odd. Has the state learned nothing from the disaster that has been Scott Walker? 

Persons identifying as religious leaned toward Trump. How is this even possible? Trump is one of the most obscene and deplorable candidates to ever run. He's mean-spirited, twice-divorced, sexist and racist. Not really in keeping with the teachings of Jesus. So, how about this, all you conservative gas-bags talking about values and family and church, shut the fuck up! You are full of shit. You have no spine and Jesus is ashamed of you. Grab 'em by the pussy!



The majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump. Unbelievable. Do they really think Trump gives a shit about them? I can only play armchair psychiatrist and assume these women must really hate themselves to vote for such a vile and sexist man.

The fact that any women or any person who calls him or herself religious would vote for Trump is sad and disturbing. As a John Mulaney joke states, "You have the moral backbone of a chocolate éclair."



Lets flash back to the George W Bush presidency. Mired in war, economy in ruins, retirements wrecked, there really wasn't any good news from the two terms. Since President Obama, millions now have health care, unemployment is down from over 10% to under 5%, the stock market is at all-time highs, and the country has seen years of steady job growth, to name a few positives.

Trump voters were supposedly voting for change. Do they want to go back to the recession economy of George W Bush? I guess I'm still feeling a bit squishy about what the Trump voters actually want. I mean, platitudes are great, we want our country back, make America great again, build a wall, kill health care...but how and what exactly is Trump going to do? Exit polling showed Trump voters believe he can "bring needed change." (Although, again, the things they seem to want to change would make all of us worse off, not better.) Their most important issues were terrorism and immigration. Funny, Obama was actually Commander in Chief when Osama bin Laden was killed. Net migration from Mexico has been negative every year since 2008. So, really, what are you talking about? I have a hunch (as always) it's about taxes, deregulation, racism and sexism.

They really can't logically claim Trump would be better for the economy. Just leading up to the election, with the chance of a Trump victory, the market began a downturn. As the headline the day after the election stated, Trump Win Leaves Dollar, Stocks, Mexican Peso Reeling. Investors fear a Trump victory could cause global economic and trade turmoil and years of policy unpredictability.

Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote. More of the people that actually voted wanted Hillary Clinton to win (and 45% were either discouraged, disenfranchised or didn't vote). Yet the antiquated Electoral College gave the victory to Donald Trump. The Electoral College is gerrymandering at the Federal level. If we must keep the Electoral College, why not just give the electoral votes that match the percentage of votes won? Using Wisconsin as an example - Trump got 48% to Clinton's 47%, thus, of Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes, Trump would get 4.8 and Clinton 4.7. Or we could just go by the popular vote, seen as that best represents direct democracy.

One of the lessons we can take from this election is that Republicans, or at least those voting that way, really have no principles. Voting has become a contest for them. The ends justify the means. They really don't care about the details. They just want their guy to be in power...and then they make excuses and outright lies when the reality of that candidate doesn't match the rhetoric.

Another lesson Democrats need to learn, which I thought they would have by now, is that they need to, just as the Republicans do, passionately and relentlessly pursue and push the policies they want, win, lose or draw. Can we make elections public? Get rid of Citizens United? Get rid of the Electoral College? Get rid of gerrymandering? After Gore v Bush one would have thought this would have been a more pressing issue for Democrats.

Also, how about making voting a national holiday? Turnout for elections in the U.S. is embarrassing. Not to mention the fact that Republicans are continually trying to restrict voting rights and disenfranchise voters. (Yes, Republicans are cheaters, just like Donald Trump.) How about more polling places. Newer, modern voting equipment. More early voting. If anyone really cares about the will of the people, democracy, the constitution and all the other bromides that get shouted around, voting would be a mandatory duty of American citizenship.

And, as far as elections laws are concerned, can we put some rules in place for what can be televised in election ads? We allow outright lies to pass as persuasive campaigning. Can we exercise some control over the allowable content of campaigns like the Canadian Elections Act, which sets out various provisions regarding the publication or broadcast of election advertising?

As Bruce Bartlett put it, "The lesson of this election is that when the media normalize racism, sexism, fascism, lying & stupidity, it has political consequences." This is truly horrifying; to think that our nation is still so sexist, racist and stupid. Donald Trump and a pliable media have normalized our national discourse into a reality television program.

All of this has left H.L. Mencken's quote ringing in my head, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Indeed, a good portion (but not a majority) of America has now shown itself to appreciate lies, chest-thumping and stupidity over all else.

Deplorables 1, Sanity 0

For Further Reading:
Election 2016: Exit Polls (NY Times)
Election 2016 National Exit Poll Results and Analysis

U.S. Election Results 2016

America hits new landmark: 200 million registered voters

Voter turnout in 2016 looks low so far — and that may have helped Donald Trump

Clinton clenched the popular vote, but both candidates missed out on half of voters
Michael Moore: Morning-After To-Do List

More Americans Voted for Hillary Clinton Than Donald Trump
America Elected A Man Who Said ‘Grab Them By The P***y’ Over The First Female President
Trump needed a huge drop in turnout to win and that’s exactly what happened

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was crippled by voters who stayed home

Weekend Reading

Scott Walker, the John Doe Files and How Corporate Cash Influences American Politics
How Privatization Is Killing The Public Sector
Scaring Kids About The National Debt
Wall Street Journal Mourns The Growing Efficiency of the Banking Industry
Elizabeth Warren Asks Obama To Replace Wall Street Regulator For Brazen Conduct
Ruling Against Wall Street Watchdog Decried As Reckless and Partisan
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin Declares 'Oilfield Prayer Day' To Ask God To Protect The State's Oil Industry
Larry Summers Makes The Case For Higher Capital Requirements
Social Security Is Not The Main Driver of the Country's Long-term Budget Problem
Economics Has A Major Blind Spot
Wisconsin Among The Worst Places In U.S. To Start A Business
Talgo Coming Back To Milwaukee
Solution To False 'Benefit Crisis' Isn't Cuts - It's Better Fiscal Policies
America Isn't The Greatest Country On Earth. It's No. 28
The Undercover War Against The Parks
How The Oil & Gas Industry Awakened Oklahoma's Sleeping Fault Lines

Weekend Reading

Tim Cook's Disingenuous Argument to Justify Apple's $215 Billion Offshore Cash Hoard
Ronald Reagan Wasn't A Ponzi Schemer
Suburbs Trying To Attract Millennials Diverge on Development Patterns
The Sinister Side of Cash
Media Loves Doomsday Stories About the West's Water Crisis. Here's What They Miss
The Freedom Lover's Case for the Welfare State
How to Learn to Love Maths
Undervalued Properties Deprive Schools of Millions in Funds
Life got better for pretty much everyone under Obama

The Economic Recovery Hasn’t Reached America’s Schools

Weekend Reading

Low-Income Workers See Biggest Drop In Paychecks
What Does The Average Rent Get You In These U.S. Cities?
Donald Trump Is Rich Because His Dad Was Rich
New Study Argues Hedge Funds Are Even Worse Scam Than We Thought
A More Accurate Measure Of Economic Output
The Stock Market Is Not The Economy
Wage Growth Continues To Be The Key To Social Security Solvency
Tax Cuts Do Little To Spur Job Growth
Waukesha Doesn't Need Lake Michigan Water
Waukesha Plans For Lake Michigan Water Raises Worries
Waukesha Request For Great Lakes Water Should Be Nixed
The Antidote To Economic Anxiety Is Better Government

Keep Republicans Away From Social Security

Here's yet another prime example of why Scott Walker and the Republican party are wrong for America.

Scott Walker Suggests Raising Age To Qualify For Social Security.

There is so much misinformation out there regarding Social Security. Much of it pushed by conservatives who would like to end the program.

For starters, hopefully everyone is aware that the current full Social Security retirement age (for those born after 1960) is 67.

As Ezra Klein stated:

But “cutting” Social Security is unpopular and people don’t like to talk about it. So folks who want to cut the program have instead settled on an elliptical argument about life expectancy. Social Security, they say, was designed at a time when Americans didn’t live quite so long. And so raising the retirement age isn’t a “cut.” It’s a restoration of the program’s original purpose. It doesn’t hurt anything or anyone. 

The first point worth making here is that the country’s economy has grown 15-fold since Social Security was passed into law. One of the things the richest society the world has ever known can buy is a decent retirement for people who don’t have jobs they love and who don’t want to work forever. 

The second point worth making is that Social Security was overhauled in the ’80s. So the promises the program is carrying out today were made then. And, since the ’80s, the idea that we’ve all gained so many years of life simply isn’t true…. 

[S]ince 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen six years in the top half of the income distribution. But if you’re in the bottom half of the income distribution? Then you’ve only gained 1.3 years.

Christian Weller adds:

Workers who have paid into Social Security have to wait until a specific age before they can receive full retirement benefits. In the past, the full retirement age was 65, but it has been gradually increasing and will eventually reach 67 for people born in 1960 and later. Retirees can still claim Social Security at age 62, but their benefits will be reduced significantly if they do. These permanent benefit reductions are greater the earlier somebody claims Social Security and the higher the full retirement benefit age is. Some conservatives, including Cruz and Paul as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have now called for raising the full retirement benefit age even further –- for instance, to 69 years. This translates into across-the-board benefit cuts due to Social Security’s formula, which yields a larger amount for every month a worker delays claiming retirement benefits up to age 70. And it translates into especially deep cuts for workers who must retire early. These cuts are particularly harmful to lower-income workers and people of color.

David Rosnick and Dean Baker have found that increasing the Social Security qualification age also increases inequality:

The full retirement age for Social Security benefits – originally 65 – is currently 66 years, and is scheduled to increase over the next 15 years to age 67 for workers born in 1960 and later. Every year of increase in this “normal” retirement age (NRA) is equivalent to a cut in benefits of 6-7 percent.1 Despite this increase, there has been discussion of raising the retirement age even further – to 69, 70, or even higher.

Rosnick and Baker, in their research, also address the falsities regarding solvency and life expectancy:

The primary justification for such an increase is that the Social Security Trust Fund faces a looming shortfall. Yet the Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security will be able to pay all promised benefits through 2038.2 Thereafter, even with no changes whatsoever, Social Security will be able to pay more than 80 percent of benefits until 2070. Under current law, a young worker planning to retire at age 70 will receive a monthly benefit 24 percent larger than if the same worker retired at age 67. However, those credits for delayed retirement would be eliminated if the retirement age were increased to 70, resulting in a 19 percent cut in benefits. In addition, workers who start collecting benefits at an earlier age would see a reduction in benefits of roughly 18 percent compared to current law.

Another justification for an increase in the retirement age is that life expectancy is increasing, and the retirement age has not kept up. But this makes little sense when discussing workers in physically demanding jobs who are often unable to continue working into their late 60s. Additionally, as we reported in earlier work, there has been considerable widening of the gap in life expectancy between high- and low-income workers. As a result, the already-scheduled increase in the retirement age has effectively wiped out the gains in expected years of retirement (if workers retire at NRA) for males in the bottom half of the income distribution.

Paul Krugman elaborates:

Start with Mr. Christie, who thought he was being smart and brave by proposing that we raise the age of eligibility for both Social Security and Medicare to 69. Doesn’t this make sense now that Americans are living longer? 

No, it doesn’t. This whole line of argument should have died in 2007, when the Social Security Administration issued a report showing that almost all the rise in life expectancy has taken place among the affluent. The bottom half of workers, who are precisely the Americans who rely on Social Security most, have seen their life expectancy at age 65 rise only a bit more than a year since the 1970s. Furthermore, while lawyers and politicians may consider working into their late 60s no hardship, things look somewhat different to ordinary workers, many of whom still have to perform manual labor. 

And while raising the retirement age would impose a great deal of hardship, it would save remarkably little money. In fact, a 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office found that raising the Medicare age would save almost no money at all.

The bottom line is that we all need to be very leery of Republicans claiming to have the best interests of social programs at heart when they propose increasing eligibility ages, reducing payouts or any of their other trojan horses. Social Security is too important to be left to the whims and disproven ideas of Republican apparatchiks.

For Further Reading:

Social Security

Social Security

Social Security