Countdown to Trump's 2025 Kakistocracy

[W. Niederhut]

The disastrous 2024 U.S. election is over.  Now we have to live with the fallout.

I'm starting a new thread for the forum that focuses on news and information about Trump's toxic 2025 agenda and administration.

 

RFK Jr could have disastrous global impact on public health, experts fear

Concerns anti-vaccine pick for US health secretary could pursue ‘anti-science positions’ on life-saving interventions

RFK Jr could have disastrous global impact on public health, experts fear | Global development | The Guardian

 

November 15, 2024

The appointment of a US health secretary with anti-vaccine views could cause deaths and have profound consequences around the world, global health experts fear.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, Donald Trump’s pick for the position, has a history of spreading misinformation on vaccines and questioning the science of HIV and Aids.

 

His nomination has been greeted with bemusement and alarm. One global health activist, speaking on background, said the move was akin to making the disgraced doctor Andrew Wakefield, who falsely claimed that the MMR vaccine caused autism, the UK’s health secretary.

Prof Sir Simon Wessely, a regius professor of psychiatry at King’s College London, said of the move: “That sound that you just heard was my jaw dropping, hitting the floor and rolling out of the door.”

 

Prof Sir Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, said there was real concern that Kennedy might use the platform “to pursue the same anti-science positions on life-saving public health interventions that he has advanced previously”.

He added: “If this makes families hesitate to immunise against the deadly diseases that threaten children, the consequence will be fatal for some.”

Prof Beate Kampmann, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the measles vaccine had averted more than 60m deaths worldwide in the last 25 years.

“Progress will be rapidly lost in societies where vaccine hesitancy is promoted – as I fear will be the case in the US if Kennedy is appointed,” she said. Beyond US shores, the influence “could swing either way”, she said. “My worry is that polarisation on the topic will further increase.”

The US is a huge force in global health as the largest funder and the home to many big pharmaceutical companies and leading health research institutes. The decisions of its regulators, such as the Food and Drug Administration, are closely watched by their equivalents elsewhere.

Some of those institutions are likely to be disrupted by Kennedy’s pledge to “clear out corruption” at US health agencies and potentially eliminate entire departments. But the impact of a Trump administration on global health will be broader than any policies pursued by Kennedy alone. Trump could reinstate plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization and is almost certain to cut funding to UNFPA, the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency that works in many poorer countries.

As under all Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan, NGOs expect there to be a “global gag rule” banning recipients of US health funding from performing or promoting abortions anywhere in the world, which will potentially expand to cover even recipients of humanitarian aid.

Kennedy’s stance on vaccination is being watched warily. Globally, routine vaccination coverage has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. Lower immunisation rates led to a 20% annual increase in measles cases in 2023.

Kennedy has previously made common cause with anti-vaccine groups overseas. In June 2019 he visited Samoa, where the measles vaccine was being blamed for the deaths of two babies a year earlier. It later emerged that the deaths had been caused by incorrect preparation of the vaccine mixture.

Immunisation rates halved to 31% and not long after his visit a measles outbreak ended up infecting more than 57,000 people and killed 83, including children. Even as the outbreak raged, Kennedy wrote to the Samoan prime minister suggesting it might have been caused “by a defective vaccine” rather than inadequate coverage. Kennedy said previously he bore no responsibility for the outcome.

His nomination was greeted with cautious civility in Berlin, where Kennedy made a name for himself as a coronavirus sceptic during the pandemic. The health minister, Karl Lauterbach, a qualified doctor, offered his congratulations but couched it in language that made his scepticism clear. “Here’s to a constructive collaboration. Will certainly not be just easy. But the choice of the voters is to be respected,” he wrote on X.

Kennedy managed to enter Germany in 2020 despite tight travel restrictions in order to address coronavirus sceptics at a rally in the capital. He became a hero of the so-called Querdenker anti-coronavirus conspiracy theorist group, speaking to a demonstration attended by about 18,000 people.

Kennedy drew parallels between his presence in Berlin, as a “fighter against totalitarianism”, and his uncle John F Kennedy’s appearance there in June 1963 during the cold war when he said the city had previously been a front against totalitarianism.

On Friday, individuals and groups linked to the Querdenker movement welcomed the appointment, with some claiming Kennedy would “save the rest of the world”.

The Hartmannbund association of German doctors voiced its concern about the overall effect a Trump presidency could have on Germany’s healthcare system. Its chair, Klaus Reinhardt, warned of the potential impact of any trade war between the US and Europe on the supply of medicines, saying issues over tariffs could greatly increase health costs and the individual contributions currently required by Germany’s health insurers.

Scientific leaders say another pandemic is inevitable and that while during the Covid-19 pandemic Trump’s Operation Warp Speed aided the development, approval and mass manufacture of vaccines in record times, similar US leadership under Kennedy appears less likely.

On other issues, experts are waiting for more detail on Kennedy’s plans. He has pledged to tackle chronic diseases and address the issue of overly processed foods. Leadership in those areas could be welcome in a world where diabetes rates have doubled in the past three decades.

Many global health activists said they would agree with Kennedy that big pharma has questions to answer, but that companies should not be falsely accused of making vaccines that harm people; rather, they should be asked why so much of the world does not have access to affordable medicines.

Edited November 16 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

'A Disastrous Mistake': Trump Taps Fracking CEO Chris Wright for Energy Secretary

"This is going to be the oiliest administration since George W. Bush," lamented one environmental expert.

November 16, 2024

In a move that alarmed green groups, Republican President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday tapped Chris Wright—the CEO of a fracking company who denies the climate emergency—as his energy secretary.

Wright, who leads the Denver-based oil services company Liberty Energy, is a Republican donor whose nomination to head the Department of Energy is backed by powerful fossil fuel boosters including oil and gas tycoon and Trump adviser Harold Hamm.

'A Disastrous Mistake': Trump Taps Fracking CEO Chris Wright for Energy Secretary | Common Dreams

Edited November 17 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

Experts sound alarm as Trump mulls pardons for January 6 attackers

Experts sound alarm as Trump mulls pardons for January 6 attackers

 

November 17, 2024

lf Donald Trump follows through on his promise to pardon people who participated in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, attorneys and lawmakers who oppose such moves would not be able to stop him, according to legal experts.

If Trump does issue the pardons, it could indicate to many of his supporters that there was nothing illegal about the riot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and would undermine the US constitution, the experts said.

“It gives the message that Trump decides what is and is not actionable under the criminal laws of the United States,” said Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law who has studied constitutional law and the separation of powers.

Trump, who has not conceded that he lost the 2020 presidential election, described the insurrection as a “day of love” and calls the rioters “unbelievable patriots”. Those people, however, damaged the Capitol; injured about 140 police officers – four officers who responded have also since died by suicide – and the FBI declared it an act of “domestic terrorism”.

Related: ‘January 6 never ended’: alarm at Trump pardon pledge for Capitol insurrectionists

The federal government has filed criminal charges against more than 1,500 people. More than 1,000 people have pleaded guilty or been found guilty. The FBI is also still searching for people who allegedly participated in the attack.

During his campaign, Trump said that issuing “full pardons with an apology to many” would be a top priority.

Presidents issuing pardons is nothing new, and they are allowed to do so under the constitution. The long list includes President George Washington, who issued a presidential pardon in 1795 to people engaged in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion; President Gerald Ford, who gave his predecessor, Richard Nixon, “a full, free, and absolute pardon” for crimes he committed as president; and President Bill Clinton, who pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive financier who fled the United States after his indictment.

“There are many parties that could be criticized historically by those who think that someone was not deserving of that type of dispensation,” said Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor who is executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

“The difference here is we are talking about over 1,500 people whose efforts, individually and collectively, were not just violent … [they] also were done with the intent to prevent Congress from certifying the electoral college ballots and thereby override the will of the voters.”

Since Trump’s election, people convicted of crimes because of their actions on January 6 have said they look forward to pardons. Attorneys for defendants who have not been sentenced have also asked judges to delay court proceedings because of Trump’s pledges to abandon criminal prosecutions.

Among those expressing excitement was Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a security guard at a naval base who was one of the first people to enter the Capitol. He was convicted of obstructing an official proceeding and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Hale-Cusanelli also expressed support for Hitler and spoke at Trump’s golf club in New Jersey as part of a fundraiser for January 6 defendants, National Public Radio reported.

 

Trump delivered a video message to attenders in which he called them “amazing patriots”.

“I spent three years behind bars for protesting against Biden’s rigged election,” said Hale-Cusanelli, who had previously expressed remorse for his actions, the Washington Post reported. “I waited patiently for this day … All my dudes from the Gulag are coming home from prison … We were innocent on January 6 and we’re still innocent!”

Prosecutors, judges and lawmakers would not be able to prevent Trump from taking such actions because article 2 of the constitution gives presidents the right to pardon all “offenses against the United States”, except cases of impeachment.

The supreme court gave the president additional authority in July when it ruled in a case concerning Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election that presidents enjoy substantial immunity for actions that fall within the scope of the office’s “core constitutional powers”.

 

That would probably give the president immunity even if he provided a pardon in exchange for a bribe, Wehle said. The court ruled that “any crime that the president commits using official power is above the law and said very specifically that the pardon power is core, so you can’t look into a reason for the pardon”.

Still, there is also the chance that public opinion could influence Trump. While Trump resoundingly defeated Kamala Harris, only a third of Americans support such pardons, according to a recent YouGov and Economist survey. About a quarter of Republicans oppose the pardons.

During the campaign, a spokesperson said Trump would consider pardoning January 6 defendants on a “case-by-case basis when he is back in the White House”.

McCord argued that most people who voted for Trump did so for economic reasons rather than the January 6 issues.

 

“There is nothing in the polling I have seen to suggest that the majority of those who voted for Trump did so because of his campaign promises of political prosecutions and pardons for the January 6 attackers,” McCord said.

If Trump follows through on his promise to pardon the rioters, he could later face consequences, including impeachment by Congress, said Jeffrey Crouch, an American University assistant professor and expert on federal executive clemency.

“There may be political consequences for the president or their political party at the ballot box,” Crouch said. “Plus, the president always needs to keep the judgment of history in mind.”

Wehle said she was more concerned about some of Trump’s other recent moves, like demanding the Senate allow recess appointments, which would mean he could install officials without the lawmakers’ confirmation, and Elon Musk joining Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Wehle said: “With Republican sycophants willing to sell out the entire constitution and democracy, which seems to be Donald Trump’s unabashed, unmitigated, publicly stated plan, we’re in very deep water right now on the question of whether our system of government will survive the next four years.”

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

 

Opinion | Trump Is Creating a Government of Billionaires, by Billionaires, for Billionaires | Common Dreams

November 20, 2024

 

[W. Niederhut]

Reasons to Be Cheerful, Part 5

Trump has now chosen GOP/Fox/Florida Swamp Creature Pam Bondi as his AG nominee, to replace GOP teen sex molester Matt Gaetz.

Best known for taking a bribe from Trump in 2013, as Florida AG, to forego prosecuting Trump University fraudulence, Bondi has also fought to destroy Obamacare and to permit insurance companies to gouge people with pre-existing medical conditions.

MAGA!  🙄

Check out this swampy Bondi resume...

Pam Bondi - Wikipedia

Edited November 22 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

The American Prospect - When Pam Bondi Protected Foreclosure Fraudsters

The new attorney general nominee, while serving as AG of Florida, fired the first two prosecutors to investigate the use of false evidence to kick people out of their homes.

by David Dayen
November 22, 2024



June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards were attorneys in the Economic Crimes division of the Florida attorney general’s office, based in Fort Lauderdale. They joined the government to prevent companies from ripping off their customers. In 2010, they heard from an oncology nurse named Lisa Epstein, who delivered information about how law firms across the state were using hundreds of thousands of phony documents to foreclose on homeowners. Lisa knew this because the banks tried to do it to her.

A group of foreclosure victims had found documents that were literally signed “Bogus Assignee.” They had documents dated 9/9/9999. They had documents notarized on dates before they were allegedly created. They traced these documents back to Florida’s “foreclosure mills,” law firms that churned out foreclosures the way a factory churns out sweaters. The false documents were necessary because banks and lenders, striving during the housing bubble to sell mortgages and deliver them to investors, securitized the loans without maintaining chain of title, botching the true ownership records. Instead of rectifying the situation, the banks had the foreclosure mills concoct false evidence and present it in courts to dispossess people.

Within months, the attorney general’s office had opened investigations into Lender Processing Services, Florida Default Law Group, the Law Office of David J. Stern, Marshall C. Watson, Shapiro & Fishman, and other components of Florida’s great foreclosure machine. In the course of the investigation, Clarkson and Edwards deposed Tammie Lou Kapusta, a former paralegal with David J. Stern, who testified that the firm employed offshore foreclosure document shops in Guam and the Philippines, receiving fake documents that the paralegals would sign. Notary stamps were sitting around the office, and anyone on the team would use them and forge the signatures of the notaries.

By October 2010, all of the leading banks stopped pursuing foreclosures in Florida and across the country, because they could no longer do it legally. It was an incredible example of citizen activism making a real difference, aided by Clarkson and Edwards, the first two law enforcement officials who were actually willing to investigate the fraud.

The system was working, until Pam Bondi came to town.

Edited November 22 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

Trump's Nomination of Project 2025 Architect Means Social Security, Medicare 'Are At Risk'

 

"Vought's nomination makes it crystal clear that Trump lied to the American people," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro. "Trump's agenda is the Project 2025 manifesto."

Trump's Nomination of Project 2025 Architect Means Social Security, Medicare 'Are At Risk' | Common Dreams

November 25, 2024

[W. Niederhut]

With new Trump administration, crony capitalism is coming to America

By Paul Krugman

The New York Times

 

November 27, 2024

It’s late 2025, and Donald Trump has done what he said he would do: impose high tariffs — taxes on imports — on goods coming from abroad, with extremely high tariffs on imports from China. These tariffs have had exactly the effect many economists predicted, although Trump insisted otherwise: higher prices for American buyers.

Let’s say you have a business that relies on imported parts — maybe from China, maybe from Mexico, maybe from somewhere else. What do you do?

Well, U.S. trade law gives the executive branch broad discretion in tariff-setting, including the ability to grant exemptions in special cases. So you apply for one of those exemptions. Will your request be granted?

In principle, the answer should depend on whether having to pay those tariffs imposes real hardship and threatens American jobs. In practice, you can safely guess that other criteria will play a role. How much money have you contributed to Republicans? When you hold business retreats, are they at Trump golf courses and resorts?

I’m not engaging in idle speculation here. Trump imposed significant tariffs during his first term, and many businesses applied for exemptions. Who got them? A recently published statistical analysis found that companies with Republican ties, as measured by their 2016 campaign contributions, were significantly more likely (and those with Democratic ties less likely) to have their applications approved.

But that was only a small-scale rehearsal for what could be coming. While we don’t have specifics yet, the tariff proposals Trump floated during the campaign were far wider in scope and, in the case of China, far higher than anything we saw the first time around; the potential for political favoritism will be an order of magnitude greater.

As I understand it, the term “crony capitalism” was invented to describe how things worked in the Philippines under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled from 1965 to 1986. It describes an economy in which business success depends less on good management than on having the right connections — often purchased by doing political or financial favors for those in power. In Viktor Orban’s Hungary, for example, Transparency International estimates that more than a quarter of the economy is controlled by businesses with close ties to the ruling party.

Now it’s very likely that crony capitalism is coming to America.

There have been many analyses of the probable macroeconomic impact of Trump’s tariffs, which will, if they are anywhere near as big as he has suggested, be seriously inflationary. Arguably, however, their corrupting influence will, in the long run, be an even bigger story.

Why do tariffs create more potential for cronyism than other taxes? Because the way they operate under our laws offers so much room for discretionary enforcement. The Treasury secretary can’t simply exempt his friends from income taxes (although Andrew Mellon handed out highly questionable rebates in the 1920s). The president can, however, exempt allies from tariffs. And does anyone really believe that the Trump administration will be too ethical to do so? Trump himself has bragged about his ability to game the system; he has bragged that not paying his fair share of taxes makes him “smart.”

Will tariffs be the only major potential engine of crony capitalism under the incoming administration? It’s doubtful. If you think about it, Trump’s deportation plans will also offer many opportunities for favoritism.

Some of Trump’s advisers, notably Stephen Miller, seem to imagine that they can quickly purge America of immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, rounding up millions of people and putting them in “vast holding facilities.” Even if you set aside legal issues, however, this is probably logistically impossible. What we’re much more likely to see are years of scattershot enforcement attempts, with raids on various businesses suspected of employing such immigrants.

But what criteria will decide which businesses become priority targets for such raids and which will be left alone, effectively exempted, for years? What do you think?

And there’s more, of course. For example, Trump has suggested a willingness to take away the licenses of TV networks that provide, in his view, unfavorable coverage.

If crony capitalism is coming, what will it do to America? Obviously it will be bad for democracy, both by helping to lock in a large Republican financial advantage and by guaranteeing vocal business support for Trump, no matter how much damage his policies do. It will also enrich Trump and those around him.

Beyond that, a system that rewards businesses based on their political connections will surely exert a drag on economic growth. Many attempts to explain Italy’s dismal economic record over the past generation attribute poor performance in part to pervasive cronyism. One recent study found that populist regimes, whether of the left or the right — regimes that are generally crony capitalist as well — tend to suffer a long-run growth penalty of about 1 percentage point each year.

Time will tell. The evidence suggests that the rules for how to succeed in American business are about to change, and not in a good way.

Paul Krugman, a New York Times Opinion columnist, writes about macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

[W. Niederhut]

 

77 Nobel Prize Winners Write Message To The Senate: Don’t Confirm RFK Jr. | HuffPost Latest News

December 10, 2024

[W. Niederhut]

Trump and Musk's Billionaire Plot to Destroy Social Security

by Robert Reich

December 10, 2024

World's richest man Elon Musk has revealed the truth about what he plans to do with his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Gut Social Security and Medicare.

Musk retweeted a series of posts by Utah’s Republican Senator Mike Lee, who dubbed Social Security “deceptive” and called for its dismantling. “Interesting thread,” Musk added.

On Thursday, Musk and his “DOGE” co-chair, Vivek Ramaswamy, went to Capitol Hill to discuss their plans. Republican lawmakers immediately announced that “everything is on the table,” including cutting Social Security and Medicare.

During the campaign, Musk said his goal was to cut $2 trillion — or about 30 percent — of the entire federal budget.

There’s no way to do this without cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Social Security alone accounts for almost a quarter of the total federal budget.

Ramaswamy has been even more explicit about their plan, saying in a CNBC interview that “there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings to extract” from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Elon Musk spent $277 million of his fortune to elect Trump. He bought the power to gut Social Security and give himself more tax cuts and tens of billions in government contracts.

Just to remind you: Neither Musk nor Ramaswamy was elected to his position. Which means they’re utterly unaccountable. (Musk and Ramaswamy will work in concert with budget-cutters in the Trump White House, with the support of a congressional DOGE caucus that’s now forming.)

They’re both multi-billionaires who couldn’t care less about Social Security. Meanwhile, you’ve probably been paying into Social Security your entire working life.

Republicans have been out to kill Social Security since its founding in 1935 because it’s one of the most popular and successful government programs ever created. It doesn’t only help retirees. It also keeps 26 million people out of poverty.

Republicans have used public concern about Social Security’s future solvency as a cynical excuse to demand cuts in benefits.

True, the trustees of Social Security — of which yours truly was once a member — say the program will be able to pay full benefits only until 2033. After that, Social Security will be able to dole out only about 77 percent of benefits.

But Social Security could easily pay everything it will owe to everyone for the next 75 years if the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes were eliminated.

That cap is set at $168,600 this year (it rises with inflation). That means that anyone who earns more than $168,600 this year pays nothing in Social Security taxes on the excess.

Elon Musk finished paying his 2024 Social Security taxes 14 seconds past midnight on January 1 of 2024.

Even a run-of-the-mill CEO earning $20 million per year pays Social Security taxes on less than 1 percent of their income.

Meanwhile, a typical American worker pays Social Security taxes on 100 percent of their income.

The Social Security trustees anticipated the current boom in boomer retirements. This is why Social Security was amended in 1983, to gradually increase the age for collecting full retirement benefits from 65 to 67. That change is helping finance the boomers’ retirement.

But the trustees failed to anticipate that most Americans’ wages would remain stagnant and how much of America’s total income would be going to the top.

Most of the American working population today is earning less than the Social Security trustees anticipated years ago — reducing revenue flowing into the program.

Had the pay of American workers kept up with the trend decades ago — as well as their growing productivity — their Social Security payments would have helped keep the program flush.

At the same time, a much larger chunk of the nation’s total income is now going to the top compared to decades ago.

But income subject to the Social Security payroll tax is capped. So as the rich have become far richer, more and more of the nation’s total income has escaped the Social Security payroll tax.

The rise in the amount of income above the cap due to inequality has cost the Social Security Trust Fund reserve an estimated $1.4 trillion since 1983.

The solution is obvious: Scrap the cap and make the rich pay more in Social Security taxes.

Bernie Sanders has come up with a plan that would eliminate the cap on earnings over $250,000 and also subject investment income to Social Security taxes. This would extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years without raising taxes on 93 percent of American households.

But Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and the other billionaires who’ll be running the administration starting January 20 don’t want to pay their fair share to keep Social Security going. They’d rather kill Social Security.

Buckle your seatbelts. This is likely to be one of the biggest fights of the first year of the Trump administration. It’s also a glaring illustration of the difference between the American people and Trump’s rich and powerful lackeys.

If we want to ensure Social Security’s long-term future, and that working people can retire with dignity, we must make the wealthy — including the richest person in the world — pay their fair share.

[W. Niederhut]