DO NOT TRUST LYING TRUMP & THE GOP ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

 On March 11, 2024, Donald Trump claimed that cutting Social Security and Medicare could help him cut the national debt tremendously. (See video above). On March 22, 2024, the House GOP announced cuts including a plan to raise the retirement age. This was the second straight year that the House GOP proposed a budget with deep Social Security and Medicare cuts. Trump started promising cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his second term before some audiences as early as January of 2020.  At a Fox News Town Hall in March of 2020, again promised to cut Social Security and Medicare.

All of this talk of cuts forms the prelude to last Thursday's debate which included a question about cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Biden gave a straight-forward answer saying that no cuts are necessary if we raise the Social Security tax to the same level for all. Currently, those making high incomes pay much lower rates than those making low incomes. As President Biden explained at the debate:

Right now, everybody making under $170,000 pays 6 percent of their income, of their paycheck, every single time they get a paycheck, [But] millionaires pay 1 percent – 1 percent. So . . . I would not raise the cost of Social Security for anybody under $400,000. After that, I begin to make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share, by increasing from 1 percent beyond, to be able to guarantee the program for life.

That provides a sensible and efficient means of securing Social Security. And, Biden never varies from that position.

Trump on the other hand, takes different positions with different audiences and covers the full spectrum of options. According to NBC News:

An NBC News examination found that Trump's views have zigzagged over the years — from calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” in 2000 to endorsing then-Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to restructure Medicare in 2012 to positioning himself as the protector of those programs in 2016 to taking aim at some retirement spending in his White House budgets (which never became law).

Essentially we know Trump is lying because of his radically divergent positions over time. In fact, in 2016 he promised to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and then in his budgets he proposed cuts.

 In recent months, Trump opened the way for Social Security and Medicare cuts and refuses to disclaim the GOP plan to cut those programs as, shown above. Which brings us to the his debate comments in response to a question about entitlement cuts. While Biden gave a simple and clear statement of how he intends to save Social Security and Medicare, Trump attacked Biden's honesty and switched the topic to immigration, Russia, Ukraine, a mysterious laptop, the VA, and luxury hotels. Trump was incoherent. Remarkably, he never addressed his recent comments about Social Security and Medicare cuts, nor the GOP plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. Trump provided no explanation of his prior budget proposals including Social Security and Medicare cuts.  As stated in the Washington Post: "Protecting Social Security . . . was also a major theme of Trump’s 2016 campaign. His avowed stance, however, is at odds with Trump’s own record as president: Each of his White House budget proposals included cuts to Social Security and Medicare programs."

Trump has staked out so many positions on Social Security that no matter what he says he lies. The only thing we know for sure about Trump and entitlements is that despite campaign promises to the contrary he included Social Security and Medicare cuts in each of his annual budget proposals as President. Given the GOP commitment to cutting Social Security and Medicare a vote for any GOP candidate is a vote to slash your Social Security and Medicare benefits by about 30 percent. If Trump gets elected the GOP will have a clear path to gutting Social Security and Medicare as he promised to do in a second term in 2020, and regardless of any lies or gibberish he feeds the voters today. 

New York v. Donald J. Trump: the Triumph of the Rule of Law in America 2024?

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.