Local News & Commentary Since 1890.

Posts Tagged ‘donald-trump’

Your questions, answered

In Media, National News, Uncategorized, World News on July 7, 2025 at 12:04 pm
By the Associated Press Staff of The Morning
Editor’s Note: Courtesy of the Associated Press.

As journalists, we ask questions for a living. And we strive to make sure our work addresses the pressing ones on readers’ minds, especially in this time of dizzying political news. That’s why we regularly invite the audience of The Morning to send us their questions, and have our expert beat reporters respond.

Today, we’re addressing your queries about immigration, military spending, Social Security, Medicaid and whether now is a good time to build a house. (Got a question for us? Submit them here.)

ICE raids

With the raids on undocumented immigrants going on, targeting the people who work in the fields and the slaughterhouses, how have these actions affected the supply and prices in our grocery stores? — Anna Halbrook, Otis, Ore.

We asked Julie Creswell, who covers the food industry, to field this one:

We haven’t seen any obvious fallout from immigration raids on grocery prices yet. As of the end of May, prices were up about 2.2 percent compared with a year earlier. Eggs, coffee and meats — ground beef in particular — drove that increase.

But beef prices were climbing even before the raids, because of droughts and high interest rates (ranchers take out loans to run their operations). The nation’s cattle inventory is at its lowest level since the 1950s. Prices of fruits and vegetables have stayed about flat over the past year; tomatoes and lettuce are actually much cheaper right now.

Defense spending

Trump has pushed NATO countries to spend 5 percent of their economic output on the military. How much of its economic output does the U.S. spend on the military? — Diann Ebersole, Copperopolis, Calif.

From German Lopez, who has written several Morning newsletters on this very topic:

The U.S. spends about 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product on the military. That used to put America at the top of NATO’s ranks, but Poland now spends a larger portion, 4.1 percent.

Critics say this makes President Trump a hypocrite: If the U.S. isn’t spending 5 percent, why should other countries? But Trump says that the U.S. doesn’t need to spend as much now because it’s invested a lot more historically. Europe, the argument goes, has let its militaries and defense industries languish through disinvestment. (Some experts agree.) The president contends that those countries need to rebuild in a way that the U.S. doesn’t, and rebuilding has a big upfront cost.

Trump also has a transactional view of the world and alliances. He sees Europe’s renewed spending as payback after the U.S. bore the brunt of NATO’s duties and expenditures for decades.

Retirement benefits

I’ve heard a lot of talk that Social Security will be running out of money. I plan on retiring in the next two to three years. Should I retire sooner to collect my full benefit? — Elizabeth Y.

Here’s Tara Siegel Bernard, who recently interviewed retirees on this:

Social Security has long faced financing challenges, but the issue becomes more pressing each year. The trust fund that pays retiree benefits is projected to be depleted in 2033, or when today’s 59-year-olds turn 67. At that point, the program will have enough incoming revenue to pay only 77 percent of benefits — in other words, a 23 percent cut. But that happens if Congress does nothing to address the problem, like raising payroll taxes or trimming benefits.

The decision of when an individual should take Social Security is highly personal. There can be a huge payoff for healthy people who can afford to wait: Starting at 67 instead of 62, for example, can mean monthly checks that are 43 percent higher. And for each year you delay retirement past 67, your monthly payment rises 8 percent.

Ask yourself: Would collecting a reduced benefit for a couple of extra years be preferable to locking in a higher benefit for the rest of your life? A conversation with a financial planner is often a solid investment; these are high-stakes decisions.

Who loses Medicaid?

Are there some specific examples of who will be affected by Medicaid cuts and requirements to work in the big policy bill passed last week? Will people with Parkinson’s who are in long-term care be cut off because they can’t work? — Amy, Glenview, Ill.

From Margot Sanger-Katz, who covers health care for The Upshot:

The bill’s work requirement is focused on a relatively specific group of Medicaid beneficiaries: childless adults without disabilities and parents of children older than 13. But it is certainly plausible that the bill’s policies could have spillover effects for other populations.

A person in long-term care with Parkinson’s would almost certainly still be covered. But someone with Parkinson’s who has not yet qualified for Social Security disability status may have to prove they are too sick to work. States will also have to build new enrollment systems to check who is eligible and who is compliant, and several current and former state officials are worried the magnitude of that effort could lead to errors and delays for everyone.

When to build

Is this a good time to build a house? — Janie Spataro, Ringgold, Ga.

Conor Dougherty, who covers the housing industry, offers this advice:

Can you afford to build it, and do you plan on living there for seven to 10 years? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then it’s as good a time as any to build.

Housing is an unusual good in that it is both a consumable, like a car, and an investment, like a stock. Most of the worst home-buying decisions — overstretching on a mortgage, buying in an area you don’t really like — come from thinking of housing as an opportunity to make money instead of as a place to live. A house is only a good investment if you think of it as home.

Corruption fears the press

In history, National News, News Media, Opinion, Politics, Uncategorized on June 22, 2025 at 10:47 am

Deer In Headlines II

By Gery Deer

It’s one thing to feel your job is in danger—industries evolve, businesses close, and livelihoods shift. It’s another thing to fear that your work and profession could be criminalized. For those of us in the press, in my opinion, that moment has arrived.

Not long ago, journalists were considered the fourth estate, so-called because the press was seen as the fourth, unofficial, branch of government – the public’s eyes and ears, so to speak. A free press is a necessary check on power, the watchdogs of democracy. Today, Trump and company would rather call any of us who dare question them troublemakers, agitators—enemies of the people. And now, with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the White House’s ban on the Associated Press (AP), we stand on the edge of something far more dangerous than a bruised ego or a contentious press conference.

The justification? National security – as always. A vague, malleable excuse that’s nearly impossible to challenge or verify. Too convenient to ignore, too broad to oppose. It sets a precedent with sharp teeth. If AP can be barred, who’s next? The Washington PostReuters, or maybe any reporter who dares ask uncomfortable questions?

When a government moves to silence journalism, it isn’t just about limiting press access—it’s about controlling the public’s perception of facts. A free press must do more than inform; it should hold power accountable on behalf of the citizenry. That accountability is inconvenient, even infuriating, for those who prefer not to be held accountable for their actions.

We don’t have to delve deeply into history to see what happens when dissenting voices are silenced. Totalitarian regimes have long understood the value of controlling the narrative. In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, ensured that only state-approved messaging reached the public. In Stalinist Russia, independent journalism became synonymous with treason. And now, in a supposed beacon of freedom, we find ourselves edging toward a similar state.

Perhaps some believe these measures are justified—that journalism has gone too far and biased reporting warrants a firm correction. Some might even argue that disinformation (a great deal of which originates with the White House) has muddied the waters so thoroughly that restricting the press helps protect the public from chaos. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we like the press—it’s whether we need it. And if those in charge are willing to erase dissent under the guise of security, we may not have much time left to answer.

The implications go well beyond a single news outlet losing access or presidential attempts to discredit them. If a major institution like the Associated Press can be barred from the White House, and with Supreme Court approval, every journalist in America faces the same risk.

What happens when smaller, independent outlets push too hard? What happens when investigative reporters publicize facts surrounding corruption at the highest levels? This is how truth becomes dictated rather than discovered. This is how governments rewrite history while the present unfolds in silence.

The press has never been perfect—it has biases, it makes mistakes, and yes, sometimes it gets the story wrong. But journalism, at its core, is a profession based on the pursuit of facts. A reporter’s job is not to flatter or cater to power, but to question, to dig, to expose injustice and demand answers.

Our democracy was built on the idea that those in power answer to the people, not the other way around. That principle is maintained through open discourse, through transparency, through a press that is free to ask uncomfortable questions and uncover uncomfortable truths. Of course, that’s not how Trump sees it. He doesn’t answer to you or me – only to his donors.

Still, the president can boot them out of the West Wing, but he can’t stop them from reporting – yet. If we allow this moment to pass unchallenged, accepting that barring journalists is just another policy decision, we lose the foundation of informed democracy set in place under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Once the press is muzzled, once silence replaces scrutiny, and propaganda overshadows fact, there’s no telling what comes next.

Supplemental Information:

(Courtesy https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/)

The First Amendment Defined

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects what are commonly known as The Five Freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. The amendment is one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1791. 

The First Amendment Reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Source: National Archives

This amendment gives Americans the right to express themselves verbally and through publication without government interference. It also prevents the government from establishing a “state” religion and from favoring one religion over others. And finally, it protects Americans’ rights to gather in groups for social, economic, political, or religious purposes; sign petitions; and even file a lawsuit against the government. (Source: History.com)

In the news from the wire, April 18, 2025 – Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen posted photos of himself meeting in El Salvador with Abrego Garcia and much more…

In Local News on April 18, 2025 at 8:03 am
By Jayakumar MadalaApril 18, 2025
 Good morning, I’m Jayakumar Madala, filling in for Sarah Naffa.

In the news today: The Kilmar Abergo Garcia case pulls Democrats into the immigration debate Trump wants to have; a deep staff cut at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the latest step in an extraordinary reshaping of the federal government; and survivors talk about the lessons of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Also, scientists find possible chemical signs of life on a faraway planet.  AP Morning WireMaryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, right, speaks with Kilmar Abrego Garcia in a hotel restaurant in San Salvador, El Salvador, on Thursday. (Press Office Senator Van Hollen, via AP)POLITICSThe Abrego Garcia case pulls Democrats into the immigration debate Trump wants to haveFor Democrats, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is about fundamental American ideals — due process, following court orders, preventing government overreach. For the Trump administration and Republicans, it’s about foreigners and gang threats and danger in American towns and cities. Read more
Recent developments:This dichotomy is playing out as Democrats double down on their defense of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported and imprisoned without communication. On Thursday evening, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen posted photos of himself meeting in El Salvador with Abrego Garcia. The lawmaker did not provide an update on the status of Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are fighting to force the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the U.S.

In defending his administration’s position, Trump says he is doing what he was elected to do and justifying the need to deport millions. “I was elected to get rid of those criminals — get them out of our country or to put them away, but to get them out of our country. And I don’t see how judges can take that authority away from the president,” Trump said Thursday.
RELATED COVERAGE ➤Rubio suggested the US will drop Ukraine-Russia peace efforts if no progress within days
Supreme Court keeps hold on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship but sets May arguments

Absolute Power

In history, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Uncategorized, World News on March 26, 2025 at 1:58 pm

Deer In Headlines II

By Gery Deer

Power, like money, is nothing if you have enough, but everything if you don’t. But what is it? Who has it, and what are those without it supposed to do when faced off by those who do? I’m not sure I’m smart enough to answer any of those questions. If you’ll indulge me, however, I’ll make an attempt to do so and put it into a contemporary context. First, a little history – the kind we should learn from or be doomed to repeat.

It was 1887 England. In a series of letters to Bishop Creighton concerning the issue of writing history about the Inquisition, John Dalberg-Acton, the 1st Baron Acton, or better known as Lord Acton, wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Most people are familiar with the quote, but few know the preceding passage, which gives it perspective.

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong,” Acton wrote. “If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.”

That’s some pretty fancy, but important language. Put more simply, Lord Acton was saying that the same moral standards should apply to everyone, including political and religious leaders. Throughout history, kings and popes were permitted, essentially, to wield their authority unchecked.

America’s Founding Fathers shared the same concern. So much so that when they created a constitution for their new country, coincidentally ratified the same year as Acton’s historic correspondence, it established three separate but equal branches of government to prevent such authoritarian power.

Power is a dangerous thing, especially in the hands of two kinds of people – those who want it, and those who want to keep it from others. The first is driven by greed, the second by fear. Lord Acton was commenting on accountability, something the Constitution ensures by setting equal the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. Should some power-hungry tyrant manage to occupy the White House, the other branches would be able to keep him or her in check.

If that individual managed to wield enough control over two of the three branches, the third would be able to mitigate some of the potential danger. But if all three branches were heavily influenced, even manipulated by one individual, then we have a problem. That lands our country in Lord Acton’s absolute power corrupting absolutely territory, and on a much larger scale.

Let’s not forget the second kind of power broker (to borrow a term from one of my favorite authors, Robert A. Caro), the kind who want power out of fear. This individual, or group, is afraid that someone else will gain the power to control them or do things they don’t like.

These people tend to be all-or-nothing types. In other words, if they can’t have it, they don’t want anyone else to because they fear it will weaken their position. Those who are afraid of minority advancement fit this category. 

But what if you’re on the receiving end of all this – the powerless. Powerless people are led to believe, by a government or other authoritative body, that they don’t deserve power. Classism, racism, ageism, and most other “isms” are examples of one group trying to maintain power over another. To quote a great role model of the late 1980s, Ferris Bueller, “Isms, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.”

When the people lose the power over government, when their elected representatives act in blind service to one policy or individual rather than the best interest of their constituents, when power begins to corrupt absolutely, freedom no longer exists. The trouble is, corrupted power often goes unrecognized until it’s too late.

Corruption dons the cloak of misdirection, intended to fool those who are unwilling to see the danger. Try to remember that power can also be a good thing that benefits all instead of one person or ideology. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make for very good reality television, now does it?

Efficacious Electoral College

In Books, Children and Family, Economy, Education, history, Local News, Politics, sociology, Uncategorized on October 19, 2024 at 10:20 am

Deer In Headlines II

By Gery Deer

Without question, 2024 has been and will continue to be one of American history’s most charged and controversial election years. Among the points of contention is the continued argument regarding the necessity – and validity – of the Electoral College.

Political operatives and pundits alike have been outspoken on the subject from all political viewpoints. There seems to be no consensus because, quite frankly, even some government officials don’t understand its purpose. So, before I give you my thoughts, here’s some non-partisan history.

During the first Constitutional Convention of 1787, a significant debate unfolded about the method of electing a president to lead the executive branch of our newly established government. It was a pivotal moment in our history after the decision to have a single individual in the office rather than two or even a triumvirate. Just imagine the complexity of electing three people every four years.

The primary issue was whether a congressional vote should elect a president or do it by popular vote.  The latter eventually won out until the smaller states began to weigh in, concerned that those with a larger population would wield more control.

Another lesser-known concern was that the political elite of the time were worried about a mass of uneducated voters swaying the results. Discussions continued for several months until, one day, in a closed-door subcommittee, James Madison laid down the concept for what became known as the Electoral College.

Enacted as a compromise and safeguard, Article II of the U.S. Constitution (later the 12th and 23rd Amendments), as well as the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887) formally established the Electoral College. These laws regulated the voting process and defined the events between Election Day and the Inauguration.

Now, to clear up some misconceptions. Regardless of rhetoric to the contrary, I assure you that the Electoral College is an entirely democratic process. It is not, however, easy to explain. But I’ll try anyway (insert a deep breath here).

In a presidential election year, the political parties hold conventions where they nominate “presidential electors.” That’s simple enough to understand, but hang on. Here’s where it can get… confusing.

When a party’s presidential and vice presidential candidates win the popular vote, that party’s electoral nominees become “Electors.” Each state has the same number of Electors as members of Congress, and each Elector votes for their party’s ticket on separate ballots – one for president and one for vice president. So, your individual vote is still vitally important because the candidates cannot earn Electors without it.

For example, if Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater (president and vice president, respectively) won the popular vote in California, the Republican nominees from that state would become Electors and cast their votes to the Electoral College. Once all the electoral votes are cast, the candidate who reaches 270 out of a possible 538 wins – and this is only triggered if the candidates win that state’s popular vote in the first place.

In the news, the results sound something like this: Nixon has won California and its 54 electoral votes. Of course, those results still have to be certified. As you might recall, there was a slight hiccup during the 2020 election certification. However, new security measures have been taken to reduce any potential repeat of those terrible events.

Remember, this is just a glance at the process, but I hope it helps. If it’s still puzzling, a good analogy is Major League Baseball’s World Series. Every year, the winner is determined not by which team got the most runs per game but by which won the most games in the series. The Electoral College works the same way.

In my opinion, the Electoral College is the only practical, efficient, and fair way to ensure everyone’s voice is heard because we’re represented just as we are in Congress. The Founders realized that the popular election alone could and would eventually bring chaos.

If we want an election process that stays in constant contention, then eliminate the EC. But if we’re going to have all our citizens represented equally, let the system do what it was designed to do. If you want to make a real difference, make sure you vote.

Is this your new site? Log in to activate admin features and dismiss this message
Log In