According to the U.S. Treasury website the national debt as I write this letter is $36.22 trillion and growing. The politics should be simple. Don’t provide any new tax breaks to corporations and individuals until the debt is substantially paid down.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expires this year. It increased the national debt and should be allowed to expire without action. It was a bad idea for America. Will the people who enjoy its tax cuts miss them after the law expires? Likely yes, but we all should make sacrifices for the betterment of our country.
Republicans in the Congress passed H.Con.Res.14 which provides a framework for establishing a federal budget through reconciliation. According to the bill, it “requires the maximum deficit increase permitted by the reconciliation instruction… ($4.5 trillion in the resolution).” Whatever bill is written seeks a total of at least $2 trillion in deficit reduction.
The Congress is having trouble finding $2 trillion in deficit reductions, and settled on $1.5 trillion which they can’t find either.
I took arithmetic in grade school. The Congress is proposing adding some amount, maybe $2.5 trillion or more to the deficit. We are going the wrong way, especially if we are funding tax cuts with these loans.
It is common sense to stop increasing the national debt to provide tax cuts and pass a budget that reduces the deficit instead. Politicians are not known for their common sense, so we plain folk need to keep reminding them.
~ Submitted as a letter to the editor, not published
The Situation Room during the death of Osama Bin Laden, May 1, 2011. Photo credit – Official White House photo by Pete Souza
While stationed in Europe, I drew an assignment to serve as a visiting officer to a French battalion of Infantry Marines in the coastal city of Vannes in Brittany. Not many American officers knew the French language, and even though my French was marginal, the command felt it would improve and be needed in case the balloon went up. That is, there was war on the central plains of Europe. After returning to garrison, I was asked to write a classified account of my observations while assigned to a French platoon. Our battalion S-2 officer knew what the word classified meant and complied with Army procedure in handling my report. Today, I don’t recall what I wrote, except to say the French were liberal in the use of corporal punishment by officers on enlisted personnel. I filed the report and hadn’t thought about it much since then.
The news this week is of the operational security breach when National Security Advisor Michael Waltz added national security reporter and editor in chief of The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg to a chat about an ongoing attack in Yemen on the messaging application Signal. I had not heard of this app, which is an American open-source, encrypted messaging service for instant messaging, voice calls, and video calls. Signal has known vulnerabilities to infiltration by Russian and Chinese intelligence. Worse case scenario, bad actors were listening in on the chat in real time, in addition to an experienced national reporter present by apparent mistake. There are issues.
First, the president was not part of the chat and likely should have been. When people on the chat asked whether the attack should commence, whether the president authorized it, no one knew. The decision to make the strikes then appears to have been made by deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, according to Heather Cox Richardson. What was the president doing then, instead of being in this meeting? Watching television or doom scrolling his phone? The president said he didn’t know anything about it.
Content of the chat aside, why weren’t the participants using secure channels for this discussion? Even if the Situation Room at the White House is not a viable option, the government has secure channels for use in its place. Either the administration hopes to avoid scrutiny by using a commercial messaging app, or they are incompetent… maybe both.
I would much rather write about other things on this blog. The truth is I need to process what I’m hearing and writing about it helps. What we heard this week is important and we can’t look away. Plenty of other sources have better detail and analysis about the security breach. I’ll let the story run its course, which is expected to be a long one.
The weather has been kind of pissy to this gardener. Ambient temperatures have been all over the place during the last ten days. The soil for the garlic patch has been spaded yet is too wet for tilling and planting due to intermittent rains. It is raining as I write… and wait for spring to truly arrive.
I received notice my Medicare Supplemental Insurance premium is increasing by 11.7 percent beginning May 1. Making a big assumption — that Social Security will continue to pay out as previously — there should be enough money to cover the additional $28.73 for me and a similar amount for my spouse. May have to cut back elsewhere, but insurance is a top tier priority.
My Social Security payment arrived on time this month. Two for two for the new administration. The Washington Post has been following the turmoil since DOGE turned its sights on the agency upon which more than 70 million Americans rely.
“What’s going on is the destruction of the agency from the inside out, and it’s accelerating,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said in an interview with the Washington Post. “I have people approaching me all the time in their 70s and 80s, and they’re beside themselves. They don’t know what’s coming.”
Most of us fear what is coming. As the senator said, we don’t really know what’s coming, except that in fits and starts, the administration appears to be making random cuts and illogical accusations about the program with an endgame of privatizing or killing it. My fear is the billionaire class plans to rob the Social Security Trust Fund in its entirety. It’s almost $3 Trillion value won’t even begin to cover the tax cuts the president has proposed, and the Congress seems intent on legislating into law. That means more debt if it moves forward, in addition to poverty among many seniors, if it doesn’t kill them first. Republicans don’t seem concerned about bankrupting seniors, the government, or anyone but themselves.
Today’s news hits like a brick. I can deal with pissy weather and am reminded of this verse from Cristy Lane’s hit song One Day at a Time, which provides some resilience:
Do you remember, when you walked among men? Well Jesus you know if you're looking below It's worse now, than then. Cheating and stealing, violence and crime So for my sake, teach me to take One day at a time.
Snow and ice melt draining off the Lake Macbride watershed.
It’s no secret a new president has a limited amount of time before re-entering an election cycle. I assume our current president is not stupid and realizes, given recent polling, Republicans could well lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms. Those campaigns crank up in about a year and that’s how much time he has to make his mark. This is politics 101, and nothing about the current administration modified that.
It’s been nine weeks since the inauguration and the resistance is getting more active, court cases more numerous. What became clearer this week is the plan, whether it be Project 2025 or whatever, is to move as quickly as possible to dismantle parts of the federal government to stay ahead of the courts. The courts are now catching up with the administration. They will not bend a knee to the president, even some justices appointed in the president’s first term. Public resistance to dismantling our government is also growing.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared he was done with USAID on Monday, March 10. He cancelled 83 percent of their contracts and rolled the remainder of them into the State Department. A done deal, one could reasonably say. On March 19, a federal judge ruled that Elon Musk and his DOGE team likely violated the Constitution when they effectively shut down USAID, National Public Radio reported. Out here in the middle of the country, that looks like too little, too late to save the organization. The jig is up, though. By executing their plan, they also disclose it, empowering the resistance.
When on Friday, March 14, the executive order to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) came down, it didn’t take long for friends of libraries to respond. Over the weekend, libraries across the state launched an advocacy program to contact our elected officials to explain what the agency did and why it should not be dismantled. Various libraries explained it differently. Here is one example:
The State Library of Iowa relies on Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funding from the IMLS to deliver statewide library development initiatives and services to Iowa libraries and citizens. This critical funding is tied to matching dollars from the Iowa Legislature.
These funds directly support services our patrons depend on:
Interlibrary loan system and twice-weekly delivery service
Annual Summer Reading Program theme & resources, and the All Iowa Reads program
Bridges (Libby app) platform fee and magazine collection for the statewide digital library consortium
Brainfuse HelpNow online resource
Website hosting
Online calendar, registration, meeting room scheduling software
Train and support skilled public librarians and effective library boards and the State Library Endorsement program
Standards and Accreditation program for high quality libraries
People’s Law Library of Iowa.
I haven’t time to follow all agencies affected by the administration’s executive orders, yet am guessing the same response is happening widely. The resistance is building. I sent my own email to elected officials, saying, “As a resident of your district, I don’t understand how the executive branch can intervene in a congressionally created agency, cancel grants, and in effect put it out of business. Please explain.” Senator Grassley’s office was first to respond. Here is an excerpt from his March 21 response:
I appreciate hearing of your support for IMLS employees and the programs they administer. I agree that Iowa’s libraries play an invaluable role in the lives of Iowans by promoting literacy and information access, and our museums are valuable cultural assets that enrich the lives of Iowans and promote tourism in Iowa communities.
At the onset, I understand and recognize many Iowans are concerned about the Executive Order I will be discussing in this message. I would like to take this time to share as much information as I know about this situation, and please know myself and my staff are continuing to monitor this situation.
Grassley’s response was something, yet it left me feeling dissatisfied because he doesn’t seem to know much more than I do. It seems clear moving quickly to address the administration’s action with members of the Congress should be a main tool in our resistance toolbox.
There is a lot to talk about. Let me close with this: The game in the reconciliation bill (that hasn’t been written yet) is to cut government costs by $1.5 Trillion to give a $4.5 Trillion tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. If they pass it, they are going to get the money somewhere, namely by incurring more debt. I know in my household budget, thinking like that doesn’t stand the scrutiny of family members. Even someone with a basic understanding of arithmetic sees the numbers don’t add up.
Bottom line: if we can’t afford a tax cut (and we can’t) without incurring additional debt, we shouldn’t legislate one. House Republicans don’t know how to write a federal budget, as evidenced by the need for a continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year. There is plenty of time to resist a large tax cut for the wealthy. The resistance should keep our collective eyes on this ball.
Library lovers gather at the public library. It is not a formal meet up or conference. We are more like a living coral reef where symbiosis is more important than creating permanent structure. The weather was so mild on Tuesday, we chatted outside on the walkways to the parking lots. Library lovers are concerned about what our government is doing regarding libraries.
As mentioned March 12, there is an anti-intellectual movement afoot in Iowa that would abolish public libraries. The expectation is a slate of bills will be debated on public and school libraries soon. Hopefully they are defeated, and better yet, never come up for a vote because of lack of support.
Among the bills is repeal of the state exemption from obscenity laws for public libraries. A worst case scenario of repeal is some librarians may see jail time because a kid brought home a book their parents didn’t like. The purpose of public libraries is not to provide cheap child care to parents who are too lazy to supervise what their children read.
An equally serious problem is the impact state lawmakers new “library regulations” will have on the talented staff at libraries across the state. I would expect these good folks to err on the side of caution: caution against winding up in jail. If the zealots have their way, I would expect libraries to experience significant turnover. If such turnover happened, the quality of patrons’ experience would be diminished, possibly permanently.
Another impact on Iowa libraries is what the federal government does regarding the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)—the only federal agency focused solely on supporting the nation’s libraries and museums. Established by Congress, the agency assures federal resources would be available to improve and support the nation’s libraries. Iowa City Public Library Development Director Katie Roche issued a press release on the impacts of losing funding through IMLS last night. Read it here. The impacts of killing IMLS would be many. It would change dramatically what we could expect from public libraries. Yes, I’m talking about your library.
Folks who work at public libraries are well aware of how to deal with budget constraints. What makes the current climate different is a third party, namely outside zealots and the federal government, are directing actions with expected and politicized desired outcomes. People across the political spectrum can agree public libraries are a positive influence on society. We should stand up to defend them. How best to manage them should be and is an ongoing topic of discussion. Library lovers are stakeholders who shouldn’t be excluded from the discussion. For heaven’s sake, visit a library and check out a book. That’s what I was doing on Tuesday and it was uplifting. We do more than check out books.
Would I call Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office and tell her how to vote on the pile of crap that is the House continuing resolution to keep the government open? No, I would not. Same goes for Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, and others. Senator Chuck Schumer? Especially after he announced last night he would be voting for the House CR? No I would not do anything there either. It is important to look at Schumer’s stated reason.
“For sure the Republican bill is a terrible option,” Schumer said on the Senate floor, according to the Washington Post. “But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take … much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option.”
It is what it is, although Schumer’s announcement provides cover for some Democrats to vote yes. If every senator shows up for the vote, and the two independents side with Democrats, (I think one Republican is absent). Republicans need 8 Democrats to file cloture before the actual CR is up for a vote, passing with a simple majority. So they have Fetterman and Schumer. That leaves six more.
Progressive personalities were out after Schumer’s announcement last night.
“Should Schumer and Jeffries be replaced?” Stacey Walker asked on Substack. ” Instead of leveraging this moment to demand real concessions, Schumer has once again capitulated without a fight, proving that Democratic leadership is not just ineffective but woefully complicit in the assault on our democracy. At what point do we demand a change?”
“Tonight, Chuck Schumer announced that he is going to vote in favor of the Republican budget resolution, which includes massive, unprecedented cuts to social services like SNAP benefits (better known as food stamps), Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all so that billionaires can get even richer through tax breaks.” Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin wrote in her weekly newsletter about Trumpland. “Reportedly, Chuck is doing this because he’s afraid of what the American people will think of Democrats if the government shuts down. That is complicity. It is cowardice. It is shameful.”
I’ve already written my U.S. Senators and Chuck Grassley wrote back already. There is no changing Republican minds on the CR. So we wait. The vote is expected today, and if there is no CR, the government begins shutting down a minute after midnight tonight.
In addition to calling the American Library Association a “Marxist” organization, and asserting librarians should be arrested for materials found within the walls of spaces they manage, there is an anti-intellectual movement in Iowa to eliminate public libraries. There isn’t a bill for that, because it is a sub rosa campaign. The intent is there, yet supporters hide it because they are dishonest.
Our local library community responded to the bad bills filed by members of the Iowa legislature. They sent an email to patrons and published a guest column in the March 11, Cedar Rapids Gazette. Click here to read the guest column. Shedding light on what this small minority is attempting is the best way to defeat these bills. Anyone with common sense realizes the value our libraries represent in our communities.
I sent this email to my district legislators:
Dear ___
I live in your district urge you to vote no should HF521/SF235 come up for a vote. The bills would repeal current exemptions from Iowa obscenity laws for educational institutions and libraries.
Here is my reason.
The basic question is who should decide what content is available in public libraries and schools? I submit it is someone trained in library science and rooted in the community. We should empower librarians to do their job and settle any disputes regarding content, including those relating to obscenities, without getting run out of town on the rail. The obscenity exemption protects government employees who seek to do their job.
Should we have public libraries? I believe we should because they benefit the entire community, especially those who have limited means. We need an arbiter of what resources are in our libraries, and that person should be a trained librarian.
Vote no on HF521/SF235.
Thanks for considering my request.
Regards, Paul
Supporting your local library includes standing up for them when an unreasonable minority tries to impose their values on the rest of Iowans. The time to contact legislators is now.
Editor’s Note: On Friday, FOX News mentioned President Donald Trump sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, seeking a new deal with Tehran to restrain its rapidly advancing nuclear program and replace the agreement he withdrew America from in his first term in office. Iranian state media immediately picked up on Trump’s acknowledgment, though there was no confirmation from Khamenei’s office that any letter had been received. This seems largely a head fake. The real issue is the nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia.
When the president mused about all the money the United States was spending on refurbishing our nuclear weapons complex, he can’t be taken seriously. This is what he said:
There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons, we already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.
What motivates this comment? Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I plan to view it with a skeptical eye until the discussion gets beyond the type of public brainstorming the president is known for. This is what he meant:
The U.S. House is having trouble coming up with enough savings to fund my $4.5 Trillion in tax cuts, so maybe we could use some of the nuclear complex monies.
Cognizant there is a national security issue around the use of nuclear weapons, the president’s team developed a policy. Invoking the failed Reagan missile defense policy, the administration proposes we try it again under the aegis of an “Iron Dome for America.” As Stephen J. Cimbala and Lawrence J. Korb point out in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the plan has serious technology and policy problems. What needs to happen is renewal of discussions between Russia and the United States concerning arms control. If nuclear arms are eliminated, there would be no need for a missile defense system by any name.
Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association said, “a dialogue between Moscow and Washington could lead to negotiations to maintain or lower current limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals before the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expires in February 2026.” If the president is serious about reducing the number of nuclear weapons, this is a reasonable approach. I don’t think reason can be applied to the current administration when they lust after tax cuts for the wealthy.
While public oxygen is taken up by the uninformed chopping away at the federal government by Team DOGE, the country could be working on arms control. In a recent substack, Joe Cirincione opined that to keep Europe safe, two things were needed:
For over seven decades, there have been two basic frameworks that have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in Europe. One is NATO, founded in 1949, that provided positive security assurance to Europe. America assured European NATO members that if they were attacked, the United States would defend them, including with our nuclear weapons. So, these countries did not need to get their own nuclear weapons. America would protect them.
That extended deterrence, as it is called, was not, by itself, enough to stop countries from considering their own nuclear arsenals. The United Kingdom got nuclear weapons in 1952 and France in 1960 despite the security assurances. Another framework was needed: the arms control and disarmament commitments embodied in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), negotiated in 1968 and ratified by the Senate under Richard Nixon in 1970.
We all know how the president feels about NATO. He doesn’t care for treaties any better. As we have seen, he appears to be forsaking Europe for his new relationship with Vladimir Putin.
So what is the administration doing to control nuclear weapons? Short answer: Nothing. He should be doing more, and elected officials need to hear from us on this topic. The U.S. Capitol Switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
Heat stored in the driveway concrete is doing its job. As I write, the snow is forecast to end in about an hour. After that, very high winds are expected: the kind that blow trees over and wreck buildings. It will be a day of staying indoors and wondering how the apparent demise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will affect these small updates. Several hundred NOAA employees have been fired. National Public Radio reported staff cuts at NOAA could interrupt the weather forecasts many Americans rely on.
We finished our federal and state tax returns and neither owed anything nor expect a refund. In the meanwhile, Associated Press is reporting the Internal Revenue Service is drafting plans to lay off half of its 90,000-person workforce. “A reduction in force of tens of thousands of employees would render the IRS ‘dysfunctional,'” said John Koskinen, a former IRS commissioner.
Our Social Security pensions came on time in February. The Social Security Administration plans to lay off 7,000 workers, bringing its workforce headcount to about 50,000, according to a recent news release. Workforce cuts may delay benefits, shut down offices, and create problems for retirees who rely upon government assistance, according to a US News and World Report article. Our family bellwether is whether the payments arrive on time. We are waiting to see what happens.
There is the uncertainty at the National Institutes of Health which is the government mechanism to help fund research in so many diseases we seniors might get. The way cuts rolled out was the same way a group of kids dink around with a live turtle, seeing what it will do under stress conditions. Morale at the clinics and labs that rely on this government funding must be low. Low enough for employees to look elsewhere for a new, more stable job. I hope they get NIH funded so the research on infectious disease, cancer, and other common ailments continues before more people need life-saving treatments and die for the lack of them.
We don’t use Medicaid presently. We might as we age and perhaps need continuous care in a nursing home. It is best if a family can care for their aging members, yet not always possible. The Congress is playing a shell game about cuts to health care, yet it is no secret they are looking at $880 million or so in cuts to Medicaid in addition to other programs poor people and children rely upon. The prospects for such cuts loom like the forecast high winds later today.
The wind picked up since I began writing this post. After experiencing the 2020 derecho, high winds have been unsettling. Maybe it wasn’t the best idea for me to watch damage occur in our yard during the derecho, rather than take shelter in the lower level. What the experience gave me was a direct connection to the potential damage of high winds. If NOAA is dissolved, the uncertainty of from where we will get reliable weather forecasts can cause stress. With everything going on in the administration, more stress is something we don’t need.
Try though I did to reach out, my Republican members of Congress did not hear the message. All of them voted yes on the reconciliation framework. Following is what I wrote my congresswoman:
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Vote no on the reconciliation bill. During your recent telephone town hall you mentioned the reconciliation bill and ways to offset the tax incentives it creates/extends with savings from Federal government operations. I have studied the matter, and some of the proposed budget cuts, and have more to learn. Based on what I have learned, I urge you to vote no on the reconciliation bill. Providing tax cuts to the well-off in Iowa and in the country at the expense of programs less well-off people depend upon is the wrong direction. In part, your parsing of the Medicaid cuts at the telephone town hall helped me understand the direction, and I thank you for that explanation. Good luck making your decision. I hope you vote no on the final reconciliation bill. Regards, Paul Deaton, resident of the first Congressional District.
Somewhere in Miller-Meeks D.C. office likely rests a tick list on the bill with my email registered as a no.
Because the Republican House is so narrowly divided, they know they have to stick together to get anything done. So far, they are. As the chaos in the federal administration unfolds, there will be pressure on members of congress to do the right thing. Regarding my senators and congresswoman, I won’t take no for an answer, so they will hear from me again during the remainder of this spring and summer. That’s when it counts the most because after that, it’s time for the 2026 midterms.
Here is Congresswoman Miller-Meeks’ response to me email.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.