Cory Booker: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: Resisting Fascism in America

 

Sen. Cory Booker

I am heartened by Cory Booker, senior Democratic Senator from New Jersey’s 25-hour marathon speech in the Senate yesterday, April 1^st. He gave this record-breaking speech as a response to pleas from constituents for Democrats to do more to fight against Trump/Musk’s harmful economic policies.

 I am reminded of actor Jimmy Stewart’s impassioned filibuster in the movie, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Mr. Smith was railing against corruption in politics and for returning to integrity, highlighting the struggle between these values and the corrupting influence of political power. Smith promoted the idea that even in a flawed system, individuals can make a difference by standing up for what's right. This is precisely what Cory Booker did yesterday, and he did it for all of us.

 He broke the record 24-hour filibuster time of Strom Thurmond against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Ted Cruz’s 2021 21-hour speech against Obamacare.  Thurmond read from a phone book. Booker used 1,164 pages of materials from messages from Americans who are experiencing pain over the proposed Medicaid, Social Security, housing, health care, and other benefit cuts, massive firings of employees in many government agencies, trade wars, and massive deportations. Over 350 million liked the speech on TikTok; 2.2 million viewed on YouTube; and over 1.2 million viewed on his X platform.

 Booker declared as he began speaking, “ I rise with the intention of getting in some good trouble” quoting his mentor, Civil Rights activist and Senator, John Lewis. His goal was to disrupt “the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able.” It was not a filibuster as there was no legislation on the floor to delay. Booker wanted to tell the stories of his constituents who are being harmed by the Trump/Musk agenda, to give them a voice. These are not normal times in our nation. And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate.” Arguing against political corruption, Booker accused Trump of putting profits over people.

 He said that he was always bothered by Thurmond’s filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, the passage of which allowed him to be standing right where he is now in congress.

 In order to go without bathroom breaks, Sen. Booker said that he hadn’t eaten for days and hadn’t drunk water since  Sunday, two days prior to the marathon speech. He admitted that he started to cramp up for lack of water.

 According to famous Republican pollster, Frank Lutz, Booker’s marathon speech “struck a note” with Americans. “He struck the kind of tone that grassroots Democrats are looking for. He gave them a reason to fight.” Lutz admitted that Republicans will call the speech nonsense. However,  Republicans were not Booker’s target audience. Lutz went so far as to opine that Booker will be a contender for the 2028 presidential race, and that Democrats will choose Booker over Schumer as their leader. This is high praise from a pollster whose opinions have been highly regarded by Republicans and some Democrats  for decades.

At the end of the speech, he referenced John Lewis again, the exemplary civil rights leader and congressman, as his inspiration to “get in good trouble, necessary trouble, [to] help redeem the soul of  America”.

 Will Senator Booker’s courageous speech inspire other courageous acts of resistance and rebellion on the part of his fellow Democrats, and all the rest of the masses who may have not known what to do to resist the corruption of  our increasingly totalitarian regime? Both mass actions like marches and rallies and individual acts like Cory Booker’s speech help break the  frozen silence and propel us toward making a difference, whether big or small. “This is a moral moment. It is not right or left. It is right or wrong.”—Booker’s X, 4/2/25

 

  

Notes

 

apnews.com, April 2, 2025

cbsnews.com, April 2, 2025

forbes.com, April 2, 2025, Bohannon, Molly and Siladitya, Ray

thehill.com, April 2, 2025, Fields, Ashleigh

politico.com, April 2, 2025, Carney, Jordain

usatoday, April 2, 2025, Lagatta, Eric and Beggin, Riley

 

 

 

 

Social Security Concerns

 

  https://unsplash.com/@markuswinkler

As I am sitting here typing, Congress is deciding whether or not I will keep Medicaid, SNAP, and other government benefits. Social Security is also being obliterated by Elon Musk and his minions. The house continuing resolution budget, passed yesterday, is before the Senate now. As has been the norm in recent days, Democrats are not actively resisting the government coup d’état in a united way. Senate Democrats are divided as to whether they will vote to pass this budget.

It seems that most Democrats are against the bill with its increase in defense spending and the cutting of many social safety net programs. However, if they do not pass the budget, the government will shut down on Friday, in just two days. While a government shutdown is not a good choice, ripping away the social safety net of millions of children, elderly, veterans, and the poor, is less desirable. I hope the budget does not pass. I fear it will.

How can this budget be supported? We all know who will benefit from the cutting of these essential funds…billionaires, who will receive a continuation of tax breaks.

The former commissioner of Social Security, Martin O’Malley, warns that all the hacking already done by Musk and cohorts,  will result in a “system collapse” within the “next 30 to 90 days.”

Elon Musk has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He is targeting it because the fund is one of the largest in the treasury. However, that money is not the government’s money. Retired taxpayers have paid into social security for decades, which has been taken out of payroll taxes. It is not an entitlement, as Republicans have been calling it for decades. Asserting that Social Security is broken and insolvent is just a way to discredit the fund to pave the way for it to be dismantled and the funds stolen.

Social Security is a popular program, yet with all the disinformation promulgated by Trump/Musk, the public is getting confusing signals. Those who still follow the corrupt government may have started to lose confidence in Social Security, and may not be as likely to oppose its dismantling. That, apparently, is the game plan of DOGE.

Actually, those who say that Social Security will become bankrupt by 2030, fail to understand the situation. While it is true that if Congress takes no action whatsoever, Social Security will only be able to pay 77% of benefits beginning in 2034, it is not in danger of going bankrupt. The other issue is that if the cap on salary on which payroll taxes are paid, $128,700, were lifted, the fund would be flush in no time.

Many retirees are concerned about what we will do if our Social Security benefits are stopped. I am disabled, and have limited ability to work, as do many others my age. Will we all end up on the streets, adding to the already burgeoning homeless population?

And what about Medicare? Musk has it as his target, as well.

 

Notes

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5173332-social-security-cuts-risk-collapse/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/opinions/social-security-myths-opinion-richtman/index.html

 

Wealth Tax

 Wealth Tax

At a time when the ultrawealthy are amassing historic and dangerous levels of wealth, some propose a federal wealth tax. The  debt-ceiling crisis we are facing in mid-March is a direct result of giving tax breaks to the ultrawealthy. On February 12^th  House Republicans put forth a draft budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks that would unequally benefit the wealthy while proposing $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP food stamps. While Social Security benefits cannot be cut through the reconciliation process, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can.

We have surpassed the 1920s Gilded Age extreme wealth concentration in The United States. Since billionaires are almost all white and mostly male, wealth is also highly stratified by race and gender. Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on Earth.

At a time when millions of Americans are working two or three jobs to feed their families, the three wealthiest people in this country (Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos) own more wealth than the bottom half of all  the American people. The U.S. ranks sixth from the bottom among peer nations in the share of resources spent on public needs (less than a third of GDP). In contrast, European countries put closer to half of their economy into societal investments. That’s why European nations have universal health care, universal parental leave, and lower poverty. These social safety net programs pay off. People also live longer throughout western Europe than here.

Over the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 trillion increase in its wealth, while the bottom half of American society has actually lost $900 billion in wealth. This is a massive transfer of wealth from those who have too little to those who have too much. For the sake of our democracy and working families all over America who are struggling economically, that has got to change.

Wealth Tax as Transitional Measure

One of Vice President Kamala Harris’s policy proposals during her presidential campaign was a wealth tax—a 25-percent minimum tax on unrealized gains for taxpayers whose net wealth exceeds $100 million. This tax could bring in more than half a billion dollars of tax revenue over the next decade. 

While a wealth ceiling has its proponents, I propose a wealth tax at this point in time. This tax would establish a method for equalizing the tax burden in this country. A wealth tax would redistribute wealth from the top .1% to benefit the majority of citizens in this country.

 In his State of the Union address, President Biden proposed changes that would add revenue and improve tax fairness. The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax would phase in for those with wealth over $100 million, requiring that they pay at least a 20 percent tax rate on all income including unrealized capital gains. Currently, the morbidly wealthy can accumulate capital gains and pay no taxes if they don’t sell their assets. Correcting this could raise over $350 billion over a decade from only the extremely wealthy.

A wealth tax is one path toward reducing the federal deficit, which sits at an all-time high of more than $35 trillion. But it is not without its challenges.

1.      Wealth can be difficult to measure, as some of it exists in illiquid assets such as real estate and collectibles. 

2. To pay the taxes, taxpayers who are cash-poor yet asset-rich, may have to sell assets.
3. Taxpayers may leave the country to go where there is no wealth tax as happened when Norway instituted a wealth tax.

4.      The morbidly rich are able to evade taxes, so a wealth tax would be only another tax they are able to get out of paying.

Even with all these potential pitfalls, it is my contention that a 20-25% wealth tax is the optimal method to equalize the tax burden on US taxpayers. It would end the budget reconciliation passed by the House in which social programs like Medicaid and Snap food stamps would be cut $2 trillion through 2034. At stake is coverage for roughly 79 million people enrolled in Medicaid and its related Children's Health Insurance Program. So, too, at risk  is the financial health of thousands of hospitals and community health centers — and a huge revenue source to all states.

The resolution also authorizes the Ways and Means Committee to increase the deficit by $4.5 trillion over the same time period — this is the “instruction” that allows the committee to craft legislation to pave the way for the proposed tax cut for the wealthy of this same amount.

Medicaid covers Americans from the beginning of life to the end — paying for 4 in 10 births and care costs for more than 60% of nursing home residents. The program operates as a state-federal partnership, with the federal government paying most of the money and matching state funds regardless of how many people enroll.

What is Prout?

I call this wealth tax a transitional measure because the reality of the situation is that now, during tax season, 6000 IRS agents are slated to be fired by the Elon Musk DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), presumably so that they will not be there to collect taxes from the wealthy, who are most likely to be audited for tax evasion. However, focus needs to be set on rescinding these cuts.

What we really need is a society which is based on the social welfare of all citizens, not on the upper tenth of one percent billionaire class. Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory) is a socio-economic system created by Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar in 1959. Prout is about economic democracy as well as political democracy. It’s based on Neohumanist philosophy, which encourages respect and love for all beings and the environment. The decentralization of wealth is a key point in a Prout economy. It is achieved by supporting local cooperatives and industry to meet the needs of communities, making them self-sufficient. A democratically restructured Prout economy is based on cooperatives, private businesses, and government-run large-scale utilities.

In Prout, all minimum necessities of life; food, housing, health care, and medical care, is guaranteed to all people. A minimum and maximum wage is created, to ensure that the purchasing capacity of all people is constantly increasing with 100% employment of citizens. After meeting the basic needs of all individuals, the excess of capital would be given to individuals, depending upon their service to society. The economy would be focused more on the bottom up, rather than top down, with elected boards governing locally. A strong national government would administer programs that help make localities strong and prosperous.

It is time for a more drastic measure like a wealth tax. I realize that such a proposal in this country or anywhere else is not something that will be popular and easily adopted. However, it is the best course of action to create equality of wealth and opportunities for all to live the life we all want to see. Everyone wants to be  free of struggling to make ends meet, and to be able to have the opportunity for the ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ that the US Constitution sets out for all citizens.  We can achieve this wealth equality through the implementation of a wealth tax. Then we need to consider an alternative to capitalism. Prout is that viable alternative.

Notes:

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/wealth-tax-vital-to-reduce-extreme-inequality-and-tackle-climate-crisis/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/block-advisors/2025/01/22/do-you-know-the-right-structure-for-your-small-business/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-budget-resolution

https://prout.info/to-tax-the-rich-or-to-cap-wealth-that-is-the-question/

https://toolstochangetheworld.org/modules/level-1/3-the-wealth-cap/

https://poole.ncsu.edu/thought-leadership/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-wealth-taxes/

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4782461-wealth-tax-supreme-court-decision/

https://proutglobe.org/2011/10/the-wealth-cap-and-other-practical-proposals-for-reducing-inequality/

https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/

https://ips-dc.org/report-billionaire-bonanza-2018/

https://itep.org/worried-about-the-debt-tax-the-rich/

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/20/nx-s1-5303475/republicans-medicaid-cuts-trump-hospitals/

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-republican-budget-takes-away-health-care-food-aid-to-pay-for-expanded-tax-cuts-for/

 

What Then Must We Do?

 

With all the recent barrage of sweeping shutdowns of long-standing programs like US AID, and Elon Musk’s  team’s takeover of the U. S. Treasury Department’s computer system, I, and many other citizens are outraged and dumbfounded.

What is really behind this coup to dismantle the government? This freezing of government funding, rash program shutterings and government employee firings are all set out in Project 2025, created by Russell Vought, recently confirmed to head the Office of Management and Budget. Project 2025 calls for outlawing medication abortion and putting abortion in the hands of the states. It wants to rollback protections for transgender people, cut diversity and equity offices, gut the immigration system, and start mass deportations, and strip funding from public assistance programs.

We now have an oligarchy by the rich replacing America’s representative democracy. Many people are suffering financially, having problems buying groceries, finding affordable housing and health care. The system is not perfect. We need a system that will take the money out of politics, not a dictatorship by the morbidly rich.

What can we do? Some people say they don’t know what to do. I can understand that response. I have some trouble with the response of other people I know, who tell me to just focus on myself, to be the best person I can be, not to let stress and worry overcome me, and everything will be all right. What about all those children who will starve if they don’t get AID food? What about the HIV sufferers who will not get essential medication? Are we to only think of ourselves? Other people say we should just wait until the government collapses, then those with a moral purpose and social consciousness can work together to put our society back together. Others keep telling me that all these shuttering of government agencies, firing of government workers, and freezing of government funding to programs is illegal, and won’t stand.

Wait! I have issues with all these stances. I think we have to do everything we can to help the most vulnerable—children, people of color, LGBTQIA folks, the poor, and the elderly, especially. Head Start’s funding, which was frozen on January 31^st, along with Medicaid’s, and other social service programs’ funding, is still partly frozen. Schools either cannot access federal funds, or are having great difficulty doing so. Some schools have closed. Despite the fact that a federal judge ordered a temporary restraining order to stop the funding freeze, funds remain frozen for some agencies, including US AID.

Today there are 580,000 homeless, a totally unacceptable number, especially as the US Census reports that there are 6 empty houses for each homeless man, woman, and child. This number can radically increase under the Trump/Musk rash slashing of programs that provide a social safety net for millions of citizens. Do we want large numbers of our population unable to provide food for their families? Do we want more people to die because they cannot afford proper health care? I say ‘no’ to all these scenarios.

 Many organizations are joining to challenge in the courts the legality of  the Trump/DOGE executive orders. Unfortunately, Vice President Vance said recently after a federal  judge put a restraining order on the continued pillage of our Treasury Department, “ If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”. In fact, they are. It is part of the checks and balances system, keeping one part of the government from wielding too much control.

Perhaps this country has strayed from being a democracy, with wealth concentrated in the top one per cent of the population. Yet if Project 2025 goes forward, millions of citizens will lose their social security checks, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, SNAP food stamps, tax refunds, as well as experiencing the closing of dozens of other federal programs depended upon by millions of people.

We need to get money out of politics. We must organize in our local communities to ensure that people who may lose their social safety net, do not end up as part of the homeless population, which is increasing in this area, due to Helene, which displaced hundreds of North Carolinians, many of whom are still living in FEMA-supported hotels, waiting for federal funding to find permanent housing solutions. FEMA? Another agency Trump has cut off funds to.

We must work together to make our local communities self-sufficient and responsive to the needs of local citizens. Stopping the hijacking of the US government is a tall order, yet necessary to prevent needless suffering of our populace. We need to consider alternate systems to replace monopoly capitalism, which has run amuck, creating the disparity between the billionaire class and the rest of the population. We now have an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. 

Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory),  is economics as if all living beings mattered.  It provides a viable alternative to capitalism and communism. Prout works for the good of all, with emphasis on providing minimum necessities of life to all people, protecting the environment, and including all people in decision making, ensuring diversity, gender equity, and safeguarding LGBTQIA rights.

Prout will be addressed in my next blog.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/february-2-2025/

https://nwlc.org/russell-vought-the-project-2025-architect-and-omb-nominee-coming-for-our-democracy

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-rescinds-order-attempting-freeze-federal-aid-spen-rcna189852

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-head-start-health-centers-trump-funding-freeze/).

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx253xjnxrmo

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/jd-vance-judges-trump

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-extension-republican-salt-deduction-student-loans/

Tim Walz as VP Choice: Image vs. Policies

 

I have gotten some feedback in which arguments were made extolling Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’ VP choice. I have listened, and understand why, as a person and even as a politician, he is exemplary. However, I still am not convinced Walz was the best choice for a Vice President candidate.

 As much as I appreciate his background as a teacher, military officer, and governor, as well as his  social service bent, I think Harris would be better served with a younger, more articulate running mate, such as Pete Buttigieg. I realize that Buttigieg is not electable, as I have been reminded, due to his being gay, which is unfortunate. In the future, when younger Americans have a bit more presence in day-to-day politics, one’s sexual orientation will not be such a hindrance to being elected.

 In today’s fast-paced world of sound bites and personality politics, voters often take short cuts in voting. Some study a candidate’s policy proposals; however, most rely on other factors to make their voting choices. The reason I feel strongly that Tim Walz is not an ideal choice is that ever since the 1960 presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon, policies have given way to image as far as electability. The hierarchy of voting preference goes like this: Party, Person, Policy - in that order, because most people vote Party first because it represents their tribe, thinking that their tribe will best represent their interests (https://www.quora.com/Do-voters-care-much-more-about-the-personality-of-the-person-they-vote-for-or-about-the-policies-of-the-person-they-vote-for).

 A candidate’s personality comes second in voting preference, while their policies come in dead last.  Therefore, if Harris had chosen a younger, more photogenic running mate, regardless of her/his policies and background, she would have made a better choice, in my opinion. For example, in the famous Kennedy/Nixon debate (which I watched on TV as a child), Kennedy looked youthful, photogenic, and energetic, while Nixon looked pale and tired, with a five o’clock shadow beard. Nixon’s running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, watched the debate on TV, and lamented that Nixon had lost the election for the Republicans. Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s running mate, who heard the debate on the radio, thought Kennedy had lost the debate. Presidential debates became an election fixture in 1980, after the GOP challenger, Ronald Reagan, used a strong debate performance just a week before the election to win by a comfortable margin over Carter.  (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics).

 Image trumps the person and their policies. Donald Trump is a master at crafting an image, and in so doing has merged image and personality, the main focus of his campaign. Who knows what his policies really are?  If Harris and Walz rely on standard debate rhetoric, they may lose the debate, even if they would win the debate on the strength of content and arguments. I have no doubt that Harris will win the debate over Trump, though it could be close, due to Trump’s personality cult. I suggest that Walz dye his hair, get a face lift, and practice crafting his best television image. ( Not serious here. Just making a  point.) Of course, Walz is debating J. D. Vance, who may be younger with a more palatable TV image. No matter what Vance says, his image is more youthful and photogenic than Walz’s image. However, Vance’s personality may do him in. Personality and image seem inseparable on our current political horizon.

 

Where Have I Been?

 

It has been a year since I have written a blog post. Some may wonder what happened. Others may not have noticed the absence of my infrequent blogs. It is a bit difficult to explain. Let me just say that I was told I had to move from my home a year ago, and spent eight months looking for a new place. Asheville is a tough housing market. I have a place now, though it is far from what I want and need. Now I feel a little bit settled again, and am setting out once again to blog.

Today since the election is drawing near, I want to  say that I am happy that Kamala Harris is now the Democratic candidate for president. A woman president is long overdue in this country. I am a little shaky, though, on fully endorsing Tim Walz for VP, although he seems like a wholesome pick--a National Guard reservist, former schoolteacher, and all-around good guy. I am unsure if the younger demographic will warm up to him, though. I would have much preferred to see my fellow Hoosier, Pete Buttigieg, as VP. He is young, brilliant, moral to a fault, former Naval officer, and also an all-around good guy. Perhaps his being gay may have hurt his chances with mainstream Americans, yet I think the younger generation may not have viewed that unfavorably. Let’s face it. Youth will make or break this election as they did with Barak Obama’s election.

There is always the unpleasant reality that Republicans will continue gerrymandering, and purging poor folks from the voting rolls, and  interfering with balloting at the polls, as they have done in the past. That could swing the election toward Trump, unfortunately.

At this point, who knows what will happen. And since big money is the underlying controlling force in politics, whichever candidate kowtows to big donors, will have the advantage in the race. The media has gotten increasingly conservative, even reactionary in certain cases. Everyday Americans are extremely influenced by media, especially Fox News with its reactionary agenda and support of Trump. Even major news media like The Washington Post that we could always count on to give accurate, fair reporting, has taken a Trump-ward bent, probably due to its new owner, Jeff Bezos. Not to mention that the Wall Street Journal and New York Post are both owned by Australian billionaire Rupert Murdock, who is also behind the Fox News Network. Whoever controls the media, controls public opinion.

This presidential race will be interesting to watch. While I support the Democratic ticket, I am more in favor of overhauling partisan politics in general, especially getting big money out of it entirely and out of our hair.

British Mysteries are for Me

 

I have to admit that I am hooked on British mysteries. Most anything the BBC cooks up is perfect for me! Believe me, I have tried to find mysteries to watch on Hulu. What is advertised as a light mystery often turns into dreadful, bloody, haunting fare, sometimes with zombies, to boot! I have about given up on the US studios and streaming studios with their over-the-top mystery fare.

Give me  good old Agatha Christie’s “Poirot” or her “Miss Marple” any day over most US mystery shows. The BBC has produced dozens of intelligent, interesting mysteries. Besides the renowned Agatha Christie and "Sherlock Holmes" films are: “Father Brown”, “Midsomer Murders”, “Vera”, "Death in Paradise", “Pie in the Sky” and many other quality shows. You can even see women, and not always Hollywood Barbie types in the lead detective roles, like with “Vera”. How refreshing!

As summer progresses, I will probably watch more British mysteries in the evenings when I am winding down before going to bed. I hope I don’t run out of these engaging series. I would not be happy to have to resort to American mysteries. It seems every time I think I have landed on a decent show, all of a sudden it degrades into a horror film with images of brutal, graphic murders or zombies stalking a city. Yuck!

It would be instructive to find out why American cinema has so degenerated. One thinks it is to keep viewers engaged and scintillated as they are dragged into sheer terror on screen. Why does the American viewing public seem to require blood and gore in order to be entertained these days? Perhaps there is a connection with the ever-increasing rate of brutal and bloody mass murders happening in this country. In Great Britain the police don’t even carry guns, and mass murders are so rare that it is hard to find an example in that country. What have we come to in the United Stares? Why are many so bloodthirsty and depraved in their viewing habits?

I am pondering this question as I turn on BritBox to watch another installment of “Pie in the Sky”.