From Russia With Love

It feels these days like the Russia question was a pebble kicked from the top of a mountain that has now turned into a landslide or epic proportions. The question now is just how much of our political landscape will be effected by it's path.

This all started on the campaign trail when then presidential hopeful Trump made comments about Russia and Putin that were oddly complimentary. Russia is an ally of sorts but, even with the end of the Cold War, a deep rivalry still exists between our two superpowers. His comments drew ire from many as it seemed a faux pas to be praising a nation so highly that is often ideologically at odds with our own. Still, his comments were overlooked or excused for a variety of reasons and the nation moved on.

In the post election aftermath Russia floated to the surface once again, this time with information that seemed to suggest that Russia interfered in the elections in favor of Trump. This was where the whispering really began that Trump allied himself with Russia in order to win the election, an accusation he vehemently denied and continues to deny. US intelligence found conclusively (as shown in the referenced article) that Russia did interfere in the election and two out of three intelligence agencies had high confidence that it was done in favor of Trump. However, making the leap from working in favor of Trump and working with Trump requires a lot more evidence.

As early as the inauguration investigation into Trump associates colluding with Russia had begun. This investigation was officially confirmed by James Comey in March while he still headed the FBI. This initial investigation included Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, who previously resigned due to questions about his connections with Russia and is now being investigated on both the Federal and State level for various reasons.

Things really heated up after Michael Flynn resigned from his position as national security adviser less than a month into the Trump presidency. True to the theme for today his resignation took place after he provided inaccurate information to White House staff about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador. Essentially he lied in an attempt to cover up information he had talked about which was inappropriate for him to be discussing with a foreign official in the first place. This was the first definitive evidence of a member of the Trump collective having inappropriate relations with Russia and has only served to intensify scrutiny.

Next on our downhill slide comes the firing of FBI director James Comey on May 9th. This move was well within the President's power, but the timing and reasoning have been drawn into serious question. That lack of consistent reasoning behind the move added to the fact that Comey was leading the investigation into the Russian probe has made a lot of people wonder if Trump wanted to remove some of the pressure being applied to him over his and his associate's ties to Russia. This theory seemed to be confirmed days later when news broke about a possible conversation, and supporting memo documentation, between Trump and Comey in which the President asked the then director to end his investigation into Michael Flynn, which was mentioned earlier. If true this action dips into the realm of hindrance of prosecution, a serious crime.

All of the above has culminated in the appointing of Bob Mueller, a former FBI director, to serve as special counsel on the Russian investigation. While not the independent commission demanded by Democrats the special counsel does have a greater amount of autonomy in his investigation than the investigation previously held. Even the choice of investigator is encouraging as Congress members on both sides of the table have lauded him as being fair and justice minded.

Most recently the Russian probe has penetrated Trump's inner circle with the investigation now looking into Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law and one of his senior advisers. Like Flynn and Manafort before him, Kushner is under scrutiny for meetings he had with the Russian ambassador in December as well as a Russian banker.

While no charges have been filed we have come a long way in the last year from the grumbling about Trump's apparent pro-Russia stance. If you believe there's no such thing as coincidence then it seems almost impossible at this point that there wasn't some level of collusion between Trump's team and Russia during the 2016 election. As the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." It adds fuel to the fire when Trump makes claims, such as the Obama wire-tapping allegation which was proved conclusively to be false, that appear to be almost diversion tactics to draw attention away from the conversation about Russia. The question now becomes more of a matter of how far does the collusion go and was it willfully done or just a gaff on the part of a political novice. If Trump himself was knowledgeable about what went on will we ever know the truth or will one of his devoted cronies fall on his sword to spare the President the embarrassment? Americans have a right to know the truth. We don't live in Oz where we're charged with the directive to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

A Glimmer of Hope

It's nice to see Democrats and Republicans coming together sometimes. I doubt anyone is happy but all sides seem satisfied with the most recent Congressional Spending Bill. Seeing the word bipartisan attached to anything right now gives me hope for the future but especially when it comes attached to such a difficult subject as federal spending. It is particularly promising to see Republicans supporting spending increases to departments Trump had slated for substantial cuts. Granted, should the bill pass, it is only a temporary fix, but it would give us almost six months in which to hopefully grow some common ground and pave a rational way forward without Trump's all or nothing approach to spending.

Pay the Man

The Trump tax proposal is short but far from sweet. I found the one page release too ludicrous to laugh at. Breakdowns of what is included are available from multiple sources such as NBC News and CNN Money. To me the biggest take away is how this budget it obviously a rich man's attempt at living on a budget, and failing miserably.

Let's imagine for a moment that the Federal government is an individual trying to make their way in the world. An individual needs money to live off of in the same way the government needs money to perform its essential functions. An individual must pay their bills, buy food, and generally have some money to put into savings and for entertainment in the same way the government has bills to pay, programs to fund, etc. If an individual uses more money than they bring in they go into debt, the same as our federal government. The average, middle class American should about break even with their income vs. spending. If that individual made the voluntary decision to reduce their income substantially but still insisted on maintaining their same spending habits they would be insane, but that is exactly what Trump has set forth to do. He obviously has no understanding of living within your means.

In March I wrote about Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 plan. In this plan he states that he will not raise the national debt but his final numbers do not show any reduction in national spending either. His tax plan, on the other hand, reduces taxes across the board, especially for businesses and the wealthy, without providing any substantial and continuing replacement for the lost funding. This is just as insane as the hypothetical individual above who spends the same even though their income is drastically cut. Supposedly a hard line was taken on the budget but should not an equally hard line be taken on taxes?

Supposedly the cut in taxes will be made up for by economic growth. Even if it was possible to fill the financial gap in this way it would be years before the economy could adjust to fully make up for the cuts. During those intervening years without substantial budget cuts and/or some sort of transitional tax revenue our national debt will balloon even more than it already has.

Trying to get inside Trump's head (a horrifying thought) can only lead me to believe that this plan was designed to provide the greatest possible benefit to Trump personally. Who else could possibly stand to benefit more than people like Trump when you slash the business tax from 35% to 15% and reduce personal income tax from 39.6% to 35% for the highest wage earners? He may also be attempting to salvage his abysmal approval ratings by doing a whitewashed tax cut regardless of the consequences. His obvious love of the lime light would support this second theory.

I would also like to point out his use of the term "death tax" instead of the official term "estate tax" in the release. This is an obvious propaganda ploy to draw a negative connotation to the tax. A tax, it should be known, that only effects estates with a value greater than $5.5 million. In other words estates belonging to people like the Trumps, not middle class Americans and certainly not those of low income.

With just a very basic outline to go off of it may be too soon to tell, but it definitely does not start the tax debate off on the right foot.

Balance of Powers

The founding fathers knew first hand of the evils of ultimate power. The nation from which they sought to break was at the whim of its monarch. Dictates from the monarch had the strength of law, whether for good or ill. To prevent this collection of ultimate power in a single individual the founding fathers had the brilliant idea of a separation of powers. This manifested itself in our three branches of government. The Legislative, with the power to make laws; the Executive, with the power to enforce laws; and the Judicial, with the power to interpret laws. Over the course of the last 200 plus years these roles have been tested and refined but always they have stood in balance to ensure that no dictator could overthrow our system against the will of the people.

Enter his royal highness Donald Trump. Never have I been more grateful for our system of checks and balances. Despite his derogatory remarks about the use of executive orders by past Presidents, Trump has used the writs in an attempt to turn his word into law. The Legislature could block these actions, but party politics mean that a Republican controlled Congress are unlikely to go against the actions of a Republican President. This proves how a division of three instead of two was the founding father's genius. The Judiciary has stepped up to balance the powers and make a clear statement that Trump's actions, and the intent that is apparent from his constant media chatter, are outside of the scope of his position.

A President who believes they have no limit on their power is a danger to all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. A true President should be a servant to the people. A good President should protect, uplift, and unite the populace. Trump is not that President and we should all thank the Judiciary for stepping up to block his most egregious actions before his power becomes all consuming.

Review: The Next America

Title: The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown

By: Paul Taylor and the Pew Research Center

Dense in statistics and broad in scope I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a closer look at what makes America, culturally speaking, and a glimpse at what the future may hold for entitlement programs. This book is, at its heart, concerned with the the imminent problems of Social Security and Medicare in a nation with an aging population where the financial math is quickly reaching a crisis point.

To understand the problems and potential solutions this text looks at America's changing demographics broken down into the primary 4 generations currently living. The first is the Silents (born 1928-1945) who are currently the most senior generation at age 72+ and are currently benefiting from our entitlement programs. Next, and largest, is the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) who have just started leaving the work force en mass and drawing off of Social Security making the financial woes of the system all the more apparent. The smallest generation is the Gen Xers (born 1965-1980) who bridge the gap to the next generational powerhouse. The Millennials (born 1981-?) rival the Baby Boomers in size and are significantly different politically and socially from the generations who have come before. The author spends the most time contrasting the Boomers and Millennials as these two generations hold the greatest sway from sheer size alone.

Within this generational framework the text examines multiple aspects of America. In addition to general political leanings the author spends a chapter each on the financial circumstances, race/ethnic composition, views on marriage, religion, and technological adaptability of the various generations. The author also takes the time to compare America as a whole to several of our international neighbors, showing how some countries are fairing better than others but how all seem to be making their way towards much more senior populations and the consequences of this demographic shift.

All of this is brought around to conclusion with the question "how best to honor our commitments to the old without bankrupting the young and starving the future?" (pg. 194) The author provides only a general outline of how this should be done as the details of policy reform would no doubt take twice as many pages as it took to outline the problem to begin with.

Written in 2014 this book is a bit dated but the heart of the research and conclusions it draws still ring true. President Obama, despite effort, was unable to make significant headway towards resolving the problems. Now, with Donald Trump sitting in the White House, it seems even less likely for the nation to make progress towards resolving our looming Social Security and Medicare budget issues in the next few years. Hopefully the next president will be up for taking on the task. And hopefully by then it won't be too late to save these essential programs.

Live Long and Prosper

Without a doubt healthcare in America is a shameful thing. We come in last among developed nations when it comes to cost, efficiency, equity, and healthy living. We have a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than comparable countries. The US has even seen an increase in maternal mortality rate while world wide the rate has declined.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as Obamacare, was the first major effort in recent history to counteract these trends. It made inroads into the problem by improving access to health insurance for large portions of the population that had previously been ineligible or unable to afford it. Increased subsidies provided financial assistance to poor and middle class individuals. Parental coverage was extended to the age of 26. And preexisting conditions could no longer be grounds for denial or increased premium rates. This legislation also mandated minimum coverage, meaning that insurers could no longer offer plans that lacked basic provisions for care.

Trump may not have realized until recently but healthcare in America is, and has been for years, a very complicated issue. There are employer plans, private insurance, VA programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, in addition to state run programs that don't always work together and sometimes even compete with each other. There is also the discrepancy in Federal and State standards which can be more or less restrictive. Environmental and social factors should also be taken into account when considering the state of health, and healthcare, in our nation.

It should also be taken into account that the vast majority of our healthcare system is a for profit industry. What this means at the most basic level is that insurers are primarily concerned with the generation of profits, not the well being of those they cover. Their desire is to create the greatest amount of revenue with the least amount of expenditure. Since revenue, on some level, is limited by the laws of supply and demand reducing expenditure is the easiest way to increase profits. While streamlining office procedures can reduce some expenditures that greatest portion of insurer expenses are for covered services which leads to the logical conclusion that, to increase profits, there will be a decrease in services. In fact, generally speaking, insurance will seek to cover the least amount of claims possible. This is evidenced by the pre-ACA practice of denying coverage or only offering extraordinarily high premium rates to those with preexisting conditions (i.e. those who would necessarily require more than the bare minimum of services).

Trump's solution, which appears to have failed at this time, would have reset much of our system to pre-ACA levels. However, instead of rehashing the few pros and many cons of his plan, I would like to instead take some time and envision a brighter future for American healthcare.

In its ideal form a healthcare system should be one that's primary goal is the short and long term full body health of all covered individuals. Whether it is a minor stomach bug or a chronic, debilitating illness every individual should have access to the appropriate doctors, medicine, testing, and treatments for their condition. By full body I mean not just physical care but also care for the mental and emotional well being of a person. This access should be regardless of the age of the individual or cost of care. All of this boils down to creating a plan that has the goal of patient health, the scope of full body care, and equitable access for all.

Of these three areas the goal is the easiest to solve. Our current system, as mentioned above, is concerned primarily with profits rather than patient health so it fails the first test. Next is the debate of private sector nonprofit or government run. The problem with private sector nonprofit is an issue of stable funding and ideological differences. Many nonprofits receive government funds already or must rely on private donors. Should a nonprofit's funding fail it is those they cover who will suffer. Member contributions can provide some stability but income differences can make this inaccessible to those without funds to contribute. Ideological differences, on the other hand, can take many forms. As a few examples, a Scientologist run network could exclude all mental health services, a Catholic run program may offer no forms of contraceptive (even pills and condoms), a new age philanthropist could start a service that insists all illness must be cured by targeted meditation and offer no other services. These are extreme examples, but patients should not be limited to one philosophy of care, and should especially not be influenced by religious ideals (I will discuss this more when I talk about access). The government, on the other hand, should provide neutral ground for medical philosophies and should also have a stable funding base. As for the question of State vs. Federal I would argue that the Federal government is in the best position to institute minimum standards while the States would be allowed (from their own tax revenues) to institute and provide greater coverage if, where and how they choose.

A trickier subject is scope of care. There are obvious things that should be covered such as preventative care, cancer treatment, etc. And there are things that obviously should not such as cosmetic surgeries not prompted by an injury or other elective treatments. But then come the gray zones. How crooked do your teeth need to be before braces are covered? If you need glasses how much of the frame cost should be covered? And what about alternative treatments? Acupuncture? Massage? Chiropractic? In general I would allow physicians the flexibility to prescribe the treatments they feel are best for their patients and to make the call on whether a procedure is purely cosmetic or medically necessary. For the most difficult of decisions, such as cases for treatments that are alternative or still in testing, I would suggest a review panel but only if said review panel was able to give decisions without requiring patients to suffer through excessive waiting periods. The problems that have been discovered with the VA serve as an excellent cautionary tale on this front. In general I would insist upon basic coverage for medical, dental, vision, and psychiatric care. This would include prescription coverage, emergency services, lab work, maternity and pediatric care, rehabilitation services, etc.

Finally we come to equitable access for all. What I mean by all is every American regardless of age, race, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, familial status, you get the picture. Now obviously every person's health status is different. Not just for the obvious differences I've stated above but also due to environmental circumstances, unique genetic traits, socio-economic conditions, and the list could go on. When I talk about equitable care what I mean is that every individual's experience with the health care system should be the same. The poor black family living in a rural, economically depressed region should be able to get the same care and individual attention as a rich white family living in New York. If someone wants to pay additional money out of their own pocket for elective procedures that is their choice, but no American should ever have to choose between filling a prescription and putting food on the table. On the flip side, just because certain treatments are offered does not require an individual to take advantage of them. There are millions of Catholics who choose not to use birth control even though surely many of their medical plans cover it. A Scientologist is not obligated, unless they are seen as a danger to themselves or others, to seek psychiatric care. And if someone believes that meditation will heal all ills that doesn't negate their access to traditional medicine. However, this must also mean that health care professionals can not use religious or moral exemptions to get out of discussing, let alone providing, medicine that would be considered a normal part of their professional activity. If too many providers in a particular area exempted themselves from certain treatments it could cause an undue burden on patients and limit their access to the health care they deserve. Also, as a professional, patients expect to be able to trust them to give the best medical opinion, which should be the case even when that opinion conflicts with a personal view.

When we talk about healthcare too often we obsess about the dollars and cents. The reality is that much of the developed world provides universal healthcare to their citizens. Some of these systems work better than others but we can not deny the fact that they work and that their citizens are better off, as a whole, because of it. I will paraphrase a quote I saw once from a Canadian about their health care system:

I don't see anything wrong with paying a few extra dollars so that an 8-year-old across the country can have heart surgery

Too bad we can't all have this outlook on life.

Fiscal Year 2017

The President has just released a partial budget proposal for the 2018 fiscal year and I have taken the last few days to examine just what it entails. The President's message at the beginning of this proposal states the following:

Our aim is to meet the simple, but crucial demand of our citizens- a Government that puts the needs of it's own people first. When we do that, we will set free the dreams of every American, and we will begin a new chapter of American greatness.

Today I will endeavor to show just what the President means by our "own people" and how he thinks he can "set free the dreams of every American." You be the judge...

Because of it's length I have included my full synopsis of the budget proposal at the end of this post. For my actual analysis I would like to highlight my top 5 concerns with this budget:

1) Fear tactic defense spending
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
3) Reckless environmental actions
4) Dissolution of public education
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences

Here is my analysis:

1) Fear tactic defense spending

One of the most basic and agreed upon responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for a national defense. That being said, the US already has the greatest military spending in the world by a substantial margin. In fact, we spend more to fund our military than the next 7 countries combined, 34% of the world's military spending. While every other area on the budget has significant emphasis on efficiency and reducing redundancy this seemingly does not apply to defense spending.

I have no issues with the comparatively moderate increases to the Department of Veteran's Affairs, but the Department of Defense already has nearly 10 times the budget of the next largest department and is set to receive an additional 10% boost to funding. If there was any area where efficiency and redundancy should be looked at for cost saving measures it should be here. However, that is apparently not the President's plan. The President's obsession with winning has resulted in him stating:

Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force, driven by... the need for American superiority not only on land, at sea, in the air, and in space, but also in cyberspace.

This choice of words is chilling to me. Even in military operations more death should never be the objective. He states further on that the investment of more Navy ships is only a "down payment" suggesting that there is much more to come.

He keeps pressing this idea of how insecure our nation is but, I don't know about you, but I don't feel unsafe or in imminent threat from foreigners. Granted, I don't have access to top secret threat analysis data, but we will never be 100% secure and, while prevention is important, strength at home can mean a lot more than military might. Investments in education, infrastructure, and health care can go a lot farther towards improving the daily quality of life for Americans than stockpiling weapons for some vague possibility of threat. The President's proposed increase in military spending to the detriment of other fundamental programs does not speak of a man wishing to "make America great" it says to me that he wants to keep America in fear.

People living in fear find it harder to make rational decisions and are more easily provoked. Teaching the American people to live in fear, which seems to be the President's plan, puts us at risk of turning against each other. It is essential for communities to band together for their own betterment and be constantly critical of the real reason the President wants such a large military power under his control.

2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities

The President's plan calls for substantial cuts to programs that assist the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities. Just a partial list includes the following:

Eliminates:
-Economic Development Administration- encourages economic development in depressed regions
-Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant- grants to college students with financial need
-Low Income Home Energy Assistance- assists families with energy costs
-Community Services Block Grant- funds programs for low-income individuals
-Community Development Block Grant- for the development of viable urban communities
-Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing- assists communities in developing affordable housing
-HOME Investment Partnerships Program- low-income housing assistance
-Choice Neighborhoods- assisting struggling neighborhoods
-Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program- grants to non profits who build low-income housing
-Senior Community Service Employment Program- job training for low-income, unemployed seniors

Reduces:
WIC
Work study
Department of Health and Human Services
Job training grants
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Job Corp

Also, while the budget protects funding to IDEA, which is an agency to protect disabled students under the Department of Education, the institution of vouchers, also outlined in the budget, will put disabled students at risk (see my previous post on education vouchers here). There is also the proposed health care bill, which I have not yet covered but seems to be implied in the substantial cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, which may result in millions of Americans losing their coverage.

The justification for much of these cuts seems to fall into one of two categories: reducing overlap or that a program is better provided by the states. The former excuse fails on two fronts as many grant programs have specific requirements with slight variations that mean organizations qualify for some but not others though at first look the grants may appear to overlap each other in purpose. It also fails in that it reduces overlap but fails to supplement the remaining programs to ensure continued coverage. The secondary excuse fails because states will be required to make up for the loss of Federal funding which will result in an increase in American taxes on the state level or cuts to programs. In any case these cuts will most likely have a direct impact on some of America's most vulnerable citizens

3) Reckless environmental actions

Not much needs to be said on this front. The President has made it clear that he plans to take no action to prevent climate change and has outlined said goals in his budget. He has also set forth in his budget to strip much of the EPA and give authority instead to the states. Considering there are several bills currently pending in Congress to allow states to permit things like fracking this is a dangerous trend. The actions of one state on the environment can have an effect on the entire nation and so it is important that as a nation we stand together on environmental issues.

4) Dissolution of education system

I have already posted at length about the dangers of voucher programs and much of the threat in the current budget comes from stripping the Department of Education and putting funds instead into so called school choice programs. The budget goes further however in reducing grants and work study programs for college students and doing away with other training programs that insure the public receives quality education to be productive members of society.

5) Disintegration of arts and sciences

Related to education but serving a separate roll, the President seems intent on removing all arts and sciences from the national scene. Between reducing or completely eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, public libraries, national heritage areas, and wildlife refuges among other programs he is dismantling much of the vibrancy of our nation. Some, possibly many, of these programs will survive, but the cost will be an additional financial burden at the state and local level with no reduction of Federal obligations.

My final thoughts as I turn you over to my lengthy synopsis are these:

If the President's goal is to make America great his budget is misguided at best, dangerous at worst. National defense is important but without real justification to increase spending the precious dollars in the hands of our government should be going to grow our economy and infrastructure and protect the most vulnerable among us. We need to tell Congress and the President that they can, and in fact must, do better.

Proposed Budget Synopsis

Department of Agriculture
- $4.7 billion reduction (21%)
- Fully funds Food Safety and Inspection Service
- $6.2 billion to WIC (reduction of $400 million)
- $2.4 wildland fire preparedness and suppression- fully funded
- Reduces funding for National Forest System "lower priority activities"
- $350 million for farmer-focused research
- Reduces funding for statistical capabilities while maintaining funding for the Census for Agriculture
- Eliminates duplicate water and wastewater loan and grant program ($498 million) stating that rural communities can be serviced by the private sector or other funds such as the EPA's State Revolving Funds
- Reduce staffing to the USDA Service Center Agencies to reflect reduced workload and encourage private sector conservation
- Eliminate discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service ($95 million)
- Eliminate McGovern-Dole International Food for Education

Department of Commerce
- $1.5 billion reduction (16%)
- Strengthen International Trade Administration enforcement and compliance functions while reducing export promotion and trade analysis
- Increase of $100 million to Census Bureau to prepare for the 2020 Census
- Consolidates parts of the Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, and Department of Commerce's Office of the Secretary
- Eliminate Economic Development Administration ($221 million)
- Eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency
- Discontinue Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program ($124 million)
- Eliminates certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs ($250 million)
- Maintains polar orbiting and geostationary satellites for weather forecasting
- Savings from the Polar Follow On program by utilizing commercial data
- Maintains National Weather Service forecasting with $1 billion in investments
- Maintains National Telecommunication and Information Administration

Department of Defense
- $52 billion increase (10%)
- Repeal of defense sequestration plus an additional $2 billion in funding
- Providing resources to "accelerate the defeat of ISIS"
- Use funds for war fighting readiness
- Increase/improve training, equipment, and infrastructure
- "Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force"
- Reduce cost of military programs wherever "feasible"
- Rebuild readiness of US Army
- Increase number of Navy ships- "This budget reflects a down payment on the President's commitment to expanding the fleet"
- Ensure a ready and fully equipped Marine Corps
- Invest in Air Force maintenance, training, and additional F-35 Joint Strike Firghters

Department of Education
- $9 billion reduction (13%)
- Increase funding for school choice such as private and charter schools ($1.4 billion)
- Maintains current IDEA funding for students with disabilities
- Eliminates Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program ($2.4 billion)
- Eliminates 21st Century Community Learning Centers program ($1.2 billion)
- Eliminates Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant ($732 million)
- Maintains the Pell Grant while cancelling $3.9 billion in unobligated carryover funding
- Maintains funding for programs that serve high percentage minority students
- Significant reduction to Federal Work Study
- Reduce Federal TRIO Programs and GEAR UP (reduction of $193 million)
- Reduce or eliminate over 20 additional programs including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments for Federal Property, and International Education programs

Department of Energy
- $1.7 billion reduction (5.6%) however a $1.4 billion increase to the National Nuclear Security Administration (11%)
- Restart Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ($120 million)
- Eliminate defense sequestration for the National Nuclear Security Administration
- $6.5 billion to the Environmental Management program to clean up nuclear waste
- Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program
- Prioritization of projects within the Office of Science (reduction of $900 million)
- Limits scope of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program as well as eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program (reduction of $2 billion)
- Support cyber security  and grid resiliency within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
- Continues and enhances research, development, and construction of expanded Navy fleet

Department of Health and Human Services
- $15.1 billion reduction (17.9%)
- Maintain direct health care services such as community health centers
- Increase Health Care Fraud and Abuse Program funding by $70 million
- Support "efficient operations" of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Increase opioid misuse prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery services ($500 million)
- Increase the FDA medical product user fees (revenue increase of $1 billion)
- Reduce National Institute of Health ($5.8 billion) including eliminating the Fogarty International Center and consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Creates a new Federal Emergency Response Fund and a new $500 million block grant within the CDC
- Invest in "high-performing entities" to focus on "high priority" mental health activities
- Eliminate some health and nurse training programs ($403 million)
- Eliminate discretionary programs in the Office of Community Service including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant ($4.2 billion)

Department of Homeland Security
- $2.8 billion increase (6.8%)
- $2.6 billion for border security technology including planning of a border wall
- $324 million to recruit, hire, and train Border Patrol, ICE Agents, and support staff
- Increase funding for detention, transport, and removal of illegal immigrants ($1.5 billion)
- Mandatory implementation of nationwide E-Verify usage for employers ($15 million)
- Safeguard cyber space ($1.5 billion)
- Increase Passenger Security Fee to recover 75% of TSA operation costs and eliminate NFIP's Flood Hazard Mapping Program ($190 million)
- Eliminate or reduce FEMA state and local grant funding and require a 25% non-Federal cost match for preparedness grants ($667 million)
- Eliminate or reduce certain TSA programs ($80 million)

Department of Housing and Urban Development
- $6.2 billion reduction (13.2%)
- Provides $35 billion for HUD rental assistance programs
- Eliminates the Community Development Block Grant ($3 billion)
- Eliminate "low priority" programs such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program ($1.1 billion)
- Increase funding to promote lead-safe homes ($20 million)
- Eliminate Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing ($35 million)
- Support FHA mortgage insurance programs

Department of the Interior
- $1.5 billion reduction (12%)
- Increase funding to develop energy on public land and streamline permitting
- Maintains Office of Natural Resources Revenue
- Eliminates "lower priority" programs including Abandoned Mine Land grants, National Heritage Areas, and National Wildlife Refuge payments
- Maintains "stewardship capacity" operations for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
- Maintains tribal sovereignty and self-determination but reduces funds for "more recent" projects and initiatives that only serve a few tribes
- Reduces funds for land acquisition ($120 million)
- Increases funding for deferred maintenance but overall reduces funds for construction and major maintenance programs in National Park Service
- Provides $900 million for US Geological Survey
- Public/private matching plan for wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and recreation grants
- Maintain wildland fire suppression funding
- $1 billion for water resource management in western US
- Minor reduction to Payments in Lieu of Taxes program

Department of Justice
- $1.1 billion reduction (3.8%)
- Increase FBI funding ($249 million)
- Increase law enforcement component funding ($175 million)
- Link prosecutors and intelligence attorneys with investigations and the intelligence community
- Increase number of immigration judges ($80 million)
- Increase number of border enforcement prosecutors and deputy US Marshals
- Increase number of attorneys for immigration legislation and for obtaining land for border wall
- Increases detention space ($171 million)
- Maintain grants to protect state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as grants for victims of crime
- Eliminates outdated programs ($700 million)
- Reduce prison construction spending (estimated almost $1 billion) however, provides $80 million for prison activation and $113 million for repair and modernization (Net reduction estimate of $800 million)
- Increase bankruptcy-filing fees ($150 million in increased revenue)

Department of Labor
- $2.5 billion reduction (21%)
- Expands Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
- Reduce certain job training grants including elimination of the Senior Community Service Employment Program ($434 million)
- Eliminates Bureau of International Labor Affairs grant funding ($60 million)
- Closes low performing Job Corps locations
- Decreases funding for job training and employment services
- Fund states to expand apprenticeships
- Refocus the Office of Disability Employment Policy with less funding for technical assistance grants and more funding for early intervention projects
- Eliminates OSHA training grants ($11 million)

Department of State, USAID, and Treasury International Programs
- $10.1 billion reduction (28%) for Department of State and USAID, $12 billion to fund Overseas Contingency Operations, and $803 million reduction (35%) for Treasury International Programs
- Maintains embassy security and core diplomatic functions with $2.2 billion towards embassy construction and maintenance
- Increases funding to $3.1 billion for Israel security assistance
- Eliminates Global Climate Change Initiative and ends all funding to UN climate change programs
- Maintains funds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
- Maintains funding for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria programs
- Turn some foreign assistance from grants to loans
- Reduce funding for international peacekeeping operations, cap contributions to UN at 25% of peacekeeping costs
- Adjust economic and development assistance to countries that are of greater strategic importance to the US
- Eliminates Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
- Reduces funding to Educational and Cultural Exchange programs and focuses remaining funds on the Fulbright Program
- Eliminates certain peacekeeping and security building efforts including the Complex Crisis Fund and small organizations that also have non Federal funds such as the East-West Center
- Consolidates and Reorganizes the DOS and USAID
- Reduces funding of development banks such as the World Bank ($650 million over 3 years)

Department of Transportation
- $2.4 billion reduction (13%)
- Privatize air traffic control
- Reduce Amtrak subsidies, particularly those associated with long distance service
- Only allocate funds for currently approved grants under the Capital Investment Program (New Starts)
- Eliminates Essential Air Service funding ($175 million)
- Eliminates TIGER grant program ($499 million)

Department of the Treasury
- $519 million reduction (4.1%)
- Preserve IRS funding but reduce paper based review ($239 million)
- Enhance cyber security capabilities
- Prioritize funds for economic enforcement tools
- Eliminate Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants ($210 million)
- End taxpayer bailouts and advance financial regulatory reform
- Reduce federal workforce

Department of Veterans Affairs
- $4.4 billion increase (6%)
- Increase $4.6 billion to improve VA health care
- Extend and fund Veterans Choice Program- set to expire in August 2017
- Fund programs to aid homeless and at-risk veterans
- Fund programs to assist veterans transitioning to civilian life
- Continue funding efforts to optimize the VA claims process
- Fund IT systems to improve quality of services

Environmental Protection Agency
- $2.6 billion reduction (31%) including the elimination of 3,200 jobs
- Marginal increase to funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure including the State Revolving Funds and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ($4 million)
- Defunds the Clean Power Plan and climate change initiatives ($100 million)
- Reduce Hazardous Substance Superfund Account ($330 million)
- Reduce EPA enforcement budget to focus on programs not delegated to the States ($419 million)
- Reduce Office of Research and Development activities by half ($233 million)
- Reduce Categorical Grants ($482 million)
- Eliminate region specific efforts such as Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Chesapeake Bay ($427 million)
- Eliminates more than 50 additional programs deemed low priority or poorly performing including Energy Star and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border ($347 million)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Funded at $19.1 billion (0.8% decrease)
- Increase use of public-private partnerships
- Allocates $624 million for aeronautics research
- Allocates $1.9 billion for the Planetary Science Program but no funding for a mission to land on Europa
- Allocates $3.7 billion to send astronauts into deep space but cancels the Asteroid Redirect Mission
- Allocates $1.8 billion for Earth science portfolio, eliminates PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR, and CLARREO missions as well as reducing Earth science grants ($102 million)
- Eliminates Office of Education ($115)
- Restructures robotic satellite refueling demonstration mission ($88 million)
- Strengthen cyber security capabilities

Small Business Administration
- $43.2 million reduction (5%)
- Maintain loan guarantees
- Reduce duplication and coordinate best practices for outreach center programs
- Maintain disaster relief lending
- Eliminate grant programs covered by the private sector ($12 million)
- Provide training and support for transitioning veterans towards business ownership
- Maintain funding for microloan financing
- Ensure SBA can advocate and assist small businesses in accessing government contracts and research opportunities

Travel Ban Round 2

On January 27th of this year our President issued Executive Order 13769 entitled PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES (yes the caps lock is how it appears on the White House website). This order, dubbed the Travel Ban, caused chaos across, not just the US, but the world. The order banned all travel from 7 countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Protests, aid from lawyers, and finally a judge's intervention put a halt to the ban in short order. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn the stay of the Executive Order the President was left with two options if he wished to continue on this vein.

His choice has now been made clear by the issuing of his Executive Order: Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States. Sound familiar? That's because his new Executive Order (issued 3/6/17) reuses the title from the previous controversial order. At least this time they figured out what caps lock is. Changes have been made, some of them substantial, but the core of this order is essentially the same.

This order begins with a recap, explanation, and attempt to justify the previous Executive Order. This first part of the order feels overwhelmingly like a parent trying to explain to a small child why bed time is important or, worse, like someone talking exaggeratedly slow to someone who's hard of hearing even though they understand them perfectly well. Section 1(b)(ii) shows the President insisting that what he did was within his powers though there is a clear disconnect in what he can legally do and what he should and actually did. He also insisted in Section 1(b)(iv) that this was not religiously motivated despite the President's previous statements against those who practice the Islamic faith. Section 1(c) goes further by heaping scorn on the court ruling using language clearly designed to delegitimize the court's actions.

The President continues his justifications by adding a country by country list of reasons for banning travelers for 6 of the 7 countries he previously excluded. It is interesting to note that Iran, Sudan, and Syria are justified because they are on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list however the President fails to note that they have been on the list since 1984, 1993, and 1979 respectively. Apparently now, suddenly, the threat of terrorism is great enough to ban all travelers despite the fact that 2 of the 3 have been on this list for more than 30 years.

The President's first concession comes with the treatment of Iraqis. The President calls this a "special case" because of "the close cooperative relationship between the United States and the democratically elected Iraqi government, the strong United States diplomatic presence in Iraq, the significant presence of United States forces in Iraq, and Iraq's commitment to combat ISIS justify different treatment for Iraq." It is important to note that the overriding theme of his justification is US intervention in Iraq.

To further drive home fear of those entering from abroad the President states: "Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States." The President made a similar statement to a joint session of Congress last week. To Congress he stated "According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country." Politifacts has an excellent article debunking this statement. The highlights of this article include the fact that the DOJ numbers only included those convictions with an international element that began with a terrorism tip, regardless of what the final conviction was for. Of the 580 people on the list 380 were judged to be foreign born based on research conducted by a Senate committee headed by Jeff Sessions at the time. However, only 40 of those 580 involved terrorism that was planned and/or executed on US soil. Additionally, 241 (or half) of the people on that list were convicted of non-terrorism crimes though they are included in the list because the investigation began with a terrorism tip that wound up being unfounded. The President has spent extensive amounts of time concerned with international terrorists while all but ignoring the problems of domestic terrorism and gun violence.

Couching it as an effort to "temporarily reduce investigative burdens" the President then re-ups his travel ban for 90 days stating that "the unrestricted entry into the United States of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." His use of the term "unrestricted" seems misplaced since travel to the US has not in recent history been unrestricted and in fact there is a wide gap between unrestricted and no admittance which seems to be his aim. Other than removingIraq from his list his concessions to the outcry include restricting the ban only to those who:
     a) are outside the country on the date of this order
     b) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017
     c) do not have a valid visa on the date of this order
He also allows exceptions for:
     a) lawful permanent US residents
     b) any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the effective date of this order
     c) a national with documents other than a visa valid on or after the date of this order that permits entry
     d) dual nationals when traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country
     e) those traveling on a diplomatic or diplomatic-type visa, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visa, C-2 visa for travel to the United Nations, or G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa
     f) those who have been granted asylum; any refugee who has already been admitted to the United States; or any individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture
This is of course all subject to "case by case exceptions" though he has clarified said exceptions to include when there would be undue hardship, AND entry would not pose a threat to national security AND would be in the national interest. He even provided examples which seem to parallel some of the most egregious offenses of the previous ban. However a review will be conducted of all country's entry procedures and any country found out of compliance may be subsequently added to these restrictions.

The new "Uniform Screening and Vetting Standards" are also a cause for concern. While it is important to prevent, whenever possible, any act of terrorism the language laid out by the President should cause alarm. My particular concern is with the statement "a mechanism to assess whether applicants may commit, aid, or support any kind of violent, criminal, or terrorist acts after entering the United States" (emphasis added). Ensuring that someone is who they claim to be, has not committed or expressed a desire to commit terrorism is all well and good, but the vague use of the word "may" ventures into conjecture that can too easily be colored by prejudice and stereotyping.

The US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) gets attention once again with a 120 day ban of all refugees. This time exceptions have been added for those already accepted and scheduled for transit. The President still caps the 2017 admittance at 50,000 refugees but no longer insists upon singling out Syrian refugees with an open ended ban. While this is progress the President might want to read up on the current screening for refugees before he deems that the screening is too lax. He also states a desire to increase state and local involvement in refugee placement which seems to imply requiring state approval before resettlement. This has been a common struggle for some time which is ridiculous considering once they are admitted to the US they will be free to travel within our borders.

In keeping with the President's apparent fear of foreigners this executive order also mandates certain information be published at regular intervals. This information includes:
     a) the number of foreign nationals who have been charged, convicted, or removed from the US for terrorism-related offenses while in the United States
     b) the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States
     c) the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women by foreign nationals
     d) "any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses"
The initial report will be back dated to 9/11/01. There are 4 key points in here that I would like to highlight. The first is his use of the term "terrorism-related offenses" which is the same term used in the DOJ report sited earlier and may include convictions for non-terrorism offenses. Next is the fact that this list includes those who have been only been charged with an offense which, in our system, should mean nothing until after the conviction. Under bullet (c) he singles out gender-based violence against women committed by foreign nationals as if this were somehow more significant than the violence suffered by women at the hands of US citizens on a daily basis. Finally is the President's use of the overly broad statement "any other information." I just imagine a group of cranky old white guys sitting around a table and saying "how can we make people unnecessarily terrified of immigrants today."

In general I say nice try Trump, but I'm not buying it.

The Israel Question

The United States has a long history as an ally to Israel but it has not been an alliance without turmoil. Israel's creation after World War II caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and there has been conflict ever since. For many years the policy internationally has been to pursue a two state solution but this has been fraught with difficulty as enumerated here.

In a recent turn of events Israel has broken with traditional boundary lines in settling Israelis on traditionally Palestinian territory among other things. This has resulted in the UN placing sanctions on Israel in Resolution 2334. Despite being a supporter of the two state solution for many years our current President has shown ambiguity on the subject and Congress has put forth a host of bills in clear defiance of the two state solution goals. Just some of these bills include the following:

S.11
S.107
S.169
H.R. 263
H.R. 265
H.R. 311
H.R. 769

These bills seek primarily to withhold funds from the UN until Resolution 2334 is repealed and the establishment of Jerusalem as the "undivided" capitol of Israel. None of these bills have the objective of peace but rather Israeli dominance to the detriment of Palestinian populations. Abandoning the two state solution without putting forth a viable path to peace is reckless. Waging war has played far too large of a role in American politics in recent years and we should be pursuing options for peace instead of supporting such ill advised measures.

Instead of continuing on at length about this subject I would like to encourage any reader of this post to read or watch the powerful words of Senator Bernie Sanders in his speech on Israel, Trump and anti-Semitism at a recent J Street Conference. Let me leave you with a quote from that same Bernie Sander's speech:

These values are based upon the very simple notion that we share a common humanity. Whether we are Israelis or Palestinians or Americans, whether we are Jews, Christians, Muslims, or of another religion, we all want our children to grow up healthy, to have a good education, have decent jobs, drink clean water and breathe clean air, and to live in peace. 

That’s what being human is about. And our job is to do everything that we can to oppose all of the political forces, no matter what side they may be on, who try to tear us apart.

Our "New" Reality

Every day the Trump administrations policies seem to be hitting closer and closer to home. Reading the news feels like a daily torment wondering "what's next" as the pendulum of fascist rule and the destruction of our democracy swings ever lower. For my reading today I had these nasty tidbits to chew over:

http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/2017/02/11/tennessee-passes-bill-allowing-people-hit-protesters-blocking-roads/

http://www.kgw.com/news/ice-agents-arrest-undocumented-woodburn-man/407765696

http://markmaynard.com/2017/02/5th-grade-charter-school-teacher-mika-yamamoto-fired-from-michigans-renaissance-public-school-academy-where-she-was-the-only-teacher-of-color-claims-she-was-told-by-her-principal-the-community/

With information like this out in the general public I don't know how anyone can not be afraid of not just the possible threats to our way of life but the actual actions that have been taken that are disrupting and in some cases destroying people's lives. Tonight I will not be fact checking, presenting statistics, or otherwise refuting legislation currently in motion. Instead I will be indulging in a bit of fiction, which unfortunately may contain more truth than I'd care for, of what we may see in the coming months and years.

Today is February 14th, Valentines Day, 2017. In less than a month under the new President we have seen fear and anger more than any time since the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Actions already taken have caused legal residents to be denied access to their homes and no doubt cost some thousands of dollars and in some cases their livelihood as they are trapped away from their homes and jobs and are forced to make alternative plans for transportation and lodging.

Disappearances and seizures have begun as illegal immigrants, some of whom have been in our country for decades and known to the US government, suddenly find what little security they had yanked away. These people will remain in detention for who knows how long only to be deported with nothing to show for their years of hard work and having to restart their lives from scratch. These actions are celebrated by many as the start of taking America back even as their neighbors mourn their family ripped apart or fear that they will be next.

Over the coming weeks and months we do not see life settle into a routine but rather things continue to change, subtly at first but then at a more rapid pace. Construction has begun on the border wall with Mexico and construction on the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines are moving forward. Protesters come out in the thousands but law enforcement is ruthless in driving them back and make dozens of arrests each day. Media access to the protests is limited but those who do make it through are the first targeted for arrest. The growing Federal law enforcement contingent supplements local police forces in this effort. Where local law enforcement refuses to carry out the brutal treatment of protesters Federal agencies deem the jurisdiction a "sanctuary jurisdiction" under the still nebulous definition of that term in order to remove funding from local authorities and allow a swift Federal takeover.

The Supreme Court has rolled back some provisions of the President's executive order on immigration but not all. No one is surprised when the ban on Syrian refugees is made permanent. The President's review of the visa process as well as new legislation passed in Congress and increased actions by ICE and border patrol have brought US immigration to a near standstill. Strained relationships internationally mean fewer US companies gaining contracts overseas. Legislation has slowed imports due to excessive tariffs causing countries to retaliate and impose similar measures against US exports. American scientists and scholars are increasingly looking for positions outside of the US where their work sees greater appreciation and grants are more readily available while international scholars avoid the US even if they would be considered for admission at all.

By the beginning of 2018 the economy is feeling the strain of a declining workforce and limited interaction with the international economy. The stock market begins a steady decline as consumer confidence falls. Seeking someone to blame, the President insists that the poor economy is just a product of media lies and institutes his first actions aimed directly at censoring the media. This action is overridden through the Supreme Court but, like the immigration ban, is followed with actions through Congress that tie the first yoke to our system of free press. The President also doubles down on his claim that immigrants steal American jobs to take increased action against immigrants and expand that action to include those who support or protect immigrants.

Fear and anger spread as the future becomes increasingly uncertain. Families and friends are turned against each other. In the chaos crime begins to go on the rise as survivalist tendencies and opportunism take over. The landscape is increasingly polarized as communities fall apart and martial law begins to become the norm.

At midterm elections, despite increasing public unrest, the Republicans not only continue but in fact increase their majority in both the House and the Senate. People are baffled but Congress has already voted to defund the Independent Election Committee among other voter laws and back door deals have allowed voter fraud and corruption to flourish. Gerrymandering and Jim Crow laws see a resurgence that disenfranchises a large portion of the poor, students, and people of color. Though activists fight the changes and take the election results to court they make minimal impact due to the state of the new laws.

As civil unrest grows so do sanctions against the media and restrictions on the rights of protesters. With the free media slowly falling in line the President and Congress begin taking actions against social media and the internet in general. Their progress on this front is slow but unmistakable. Censorship becomes a thing of everyday life. With immigration at a standstill and civil unrest continuing to grow the President reassigns much of his already substantial ICE and border patrol force to a new task force within the Department of Homeland Security to deal with what is termed "a growing threat of domestic terrorism". Meanwhile the military is withdrawn from foreign soil but is not reduced in any way. The entire armed forces stands waiting, publicly to be ready for a foreign threat, though none appears likely.

By the general election of 2020 at least one state has secession initiatives on the ballot. Despite the lowest approval rating of any President on record Trump is reelected for another 4 years in office. At least one state votes to secede from the union. The US government does not out right deny the state's right to do so but, without any built in provisions for such a move, insists that the state pay back decades worth of Federal assistance while immediately cutting off all new funding to the state. When the state naturally refuses these terms the Federal government takes military action to deny them all access to the outside world by sea, land, and air. The swift and overwhelming military presence is a deterrent to some but causes other states to act out and the country will descend into civil war without significant external intervention.

It doesn't seem necessary to look beyond that at this point. No one wants to see such an end. There are of course alternate scenarios of a more or less dire nature but we must all hope we never get that far.

And So It Begins

7 days.

When we look back on this period of our nation's history I hope that we all remember that it took only 7 days for President Trump to openly enact policies of discrimination. Really it wasn't even that long, though his executive actions against the Latino(a) population will take longer to implement. All of the people who insisted "it's just words, Trump hasn't actually done anything," while comparing him to Hillary Clinton should now see what he will do once given the power and opportunity. I hope we remember, but are we surprised?

If you're surprised by this turn of events then apparently you had your head buried in sand for the last year. Trump campaigned on this sort of legislation, and worse, but if you're surprised maybe you got lost in all the propaganda chanting of "Make America great again." To my eyes he has brought America back, but not to a period of greatness, to a period of discrimination, fear, and hatred. And, once again, it has only taken 7 days. We are still looking at more than 1400 days left in his reign of terror.

It is important at this juncture for us to connect with the rest of our society, and humanity in general, to close ranks against those who wish to drive us apart. We must remember the individuals already affected by the immigration ban and their stories. Here are a few of those stories:

Dr. Suha Abushamma- http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2017/01/cleveland_clinic_resident_from_1.html

Hamaseh Tayari-  http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15055469.Anger_as_Glasgow_vet_is_stranded_after_being_caught_up_in_Trump_immigrant_ban/?ref=twtrec

International Scientistis- http://www.nature.com/news/meet-the-scientists-affected-by-trump-s-immigration-ban-1.21389

A compilation of stories- http://www.complex.com/life/2017/01/heartbreaking-stories-individuals-being-detained-as-a-result-trumps-executive-order

Eman Mohammed- http://time.com/4652798/donald-trump-immigration-ban-photography-eman-mohammed/

Fortunately there is some good news in the wake of so much turmoil. The people are rising up. People are protesting at airports around the country. Lawyers have come to the aid of people currently detained at airports just because they were in transit at the time this executive action was signed. Judges have come forward with injunctions halting the executive action in their jurisdiction. Even politicians are standing up against this order, Governors and and Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike. Here is a breakdown of our politicians' stances on the issue thus far:

Senators:
Oppose- 59
- 12 Republicans
- 45 Democrats
- 2 Independents

Silent- 37
- 36 Republicans
- 1 Democrat

Support- 4
- 4 Republicans

Governors:
Oppose- 13
- 5 Republicans
- 8 Democrats

Silent- 36
- 27 Republicans
- 8 Democrats
- 1 Independent

Support- 1
- 1 Republican

Even with this good news it is still too early to celebrate. We can celebrate when Trump's executive order on immigration is repealed, either by himself or by being deemed unconstitutional through our system of checks and balances. In the meantime, protect your neighbors, look out for your friends, fight back against discrimination, and never forget that we are a nation of immigrants and that is what makes America truly great.