Donald Trump Is The Unabashed King Of Insider Trading

 

Donald Trump has said the members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks while in office. But now we learn that Trump has traded more stocks in the first 17 months of his second term than all of the members of Congress combined.

Trump supporters try to defend Trump's stock trades by saying they are done by a third party and Trump has nothing to do with them. If you believe that, then I have some oceanfront property in the Texas Panhandle I'll see real cheap.

Donald Trump has always been a micro-manager. Nothing happens in his businesses or his administration that he does not know about and approve. I don't doubt that Trump himself does not call his brokers and tell them what he's about to do. But that doesn't mean he's not still in control. It would be very easy for a member of his family or trusted staff to slip a note to them about what stocks it would be smart to buy or sell (because of impending actions by the president).

We've known for a while now that Trump is corrupt on a massive scale. Now we learn he is the King of insider trading. His corruption knows no boundaries.

There should be a law preventing members of Congress (and their government paid staff) from buying and selling on the stock market. But that law should include the president, and any of his staff that receive a government check. 

Corruption is corruption - whether done by Congress or the executive branch.

GOP Congress Has Made It Easier For Their Rich Friends To Evade Paying Taxes

The following is part of an article by economist Paul Krugman: 

Much of the rise of the modern American oligarchy has been driven by deliberate policy rather than technological or market forces. And that deliberate policy has been the decades-long dismantling of the system of progressive taxation — a system that had ended the Gilded Age, the last period of great inequality. Starting in the 1970s, right-wing politicians pushed through large reductions in effective tax rates on the wealthy. And in the 2010s, Republican-controlled congresses stripped the IRS of resources to enforce the tax code. These two changes set the stage for the reemergence of immense fortunes, with vast social and political consequences.

What exactly does a “reduction in effective tax rates” mean? Much of that change was implemented through reductions in the statutory rates. For example, the top federal tax bracket on individual incomes was more than 90% in the 1950s, versus 37% now. Large corporations paid a tax rate of 52% on their profits in the 1950s, which is now down to 21%. Large estates paid a 77% tax rate until 1976; now the rate is only 40%, and that only applies to the value in excess of $15 million.

However, beyond these reductions in statutory rates, tax avoidance and tax evasion have grown significantly. “Avoidance” and “evasion” may sound like synonyms, but they are not: avoidance involves exploiting loopholes in the tax code in ways that are legal, even if they shouldn’t be, while evasion involves breaking the law.

And tax evasion is now a very big concern. Reasonable estimates of the “tax gap” — taxes that individuals and businesses are legally obliged to pay, but don’t — are startlingly large — $600 billion a year or more – approximately 40% of the current budget deficit. Furthermore, much of this tax gap is surely accounted for by tax evasion by high-income Americans. So tax evasion is a significant contributor to both the rise of American oligarchy and the high federal debt.

Thus it is startling to realize that, except for a brief attempt to reduce the tax gap by the Biden administration, the U.S. government has over time reduced its efforts to ensure that the wealthy pay the taxes they owe. It’s clear that the purposeful reduction in the enforcement of the tax code for the wealthy is both a symptom as a well as a cause of America’s rising oligarchy. It is a key factor in America’s downward spiral into oligarchy, which is currently ravaging our politics and our democratic institutions.

Voters Think Congress Is Corrupt And Would Ban Them From Trading Stocks While In Office

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 22nd and 26th of a nationwide sample of 1,397 registered voters, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

About Half Of Voters Say Congress Should Reflect The Country's Racial Make-Up

 

The chart above is from the Change Research Poll -- done between May 5th and 10th of a nationwide sample of 2,244 registered voters.

Term Limits Is NOT The Answer To The Problems With Congress

Thom Hartmann (at The Hartmann Report) explains why term limits would be a very bad idea, and I agree with him. He writes:

Yesterday, I came home from the studio and turned on the TV to see an MSNOW host and her guest agree on how important it is that Democrats “unite around the issue of term limits” for members of Congress. Last week, the Democratic governor of a swing state said on my program that he was pushing for term limits.

In just the past 48 hours I’ve heard three different commentators on MSNOW and CNN speak of them as if term limits are the “solution” to “elderly” legislators or to the naked corruption that’s so rampant in DC.

This is the wrong issue for Democrats to be promoting now: term limits actually do more damage than good, which is why Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have been pushing them for decades.

For example, they’d get rid of good, effective, high-quality legislators like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and Pramila Jayapal, among others. 

But the problem with term limits goes far deeper than that. 

Unfortunately, term limits are popular because they seem like an easy fix to the corruption crisis in American politics (over 70 percent of Americans favor them) but in reality they simply hand more power over to giant corporations and the morbidly rich. Here’s how:

First, term limits shift the balance of power in a legislature from the legislators themselves to lobbyists, which is why corporate-friendly Republicans so often speak fondly of them.

Historically, when a new lawmaker comes into office, he or she will hook up with an old-timer who can show them the ropes, how to get around the building, where the metaphorical bodies are buried, and teach them how to make legislation.

With term limits, this institutional knowledge is largely stripped out of a legislative body, forcing new legislators to look elsewhere for help. 

Because no Republican has ever, anywhere, suggested that lobbyists’ ability to work be term-limited, we have an actual experiment we can look to. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota all have term limits. 

Research has shown, repeatedly and unambiguously, that in those states with term limits the lobbyists end up filling the role of permanent infrastructure to mentor and guide new lawmakers, and thus have outsized power and influence, far greater than they had before the term limits were instituted. 

Of course, lobbyists — and the billionaires and corporations that pay them — love this. It dramatically increases lobbyists’ power and influence, giving them an early and easy entrée into the personal and political lives of the individual legislators who, in those states with term limits, are forced to lean on them for guidance.

This simple reality is not lost on the GOP, which has been pushing these restrictions on service at the federal and state legislature level for years: term limits are law in 16 states, all as the result of heavy Republican PR efforts and lobbying during the George HW Bush presidency. . . .

In addition to strengthening the hand of lobbyists, term limits also prevent good people who aren’t independently wealthy from entering politics in the first place. 

What rational person, particularly if they have kids, would take the risk of a job they know will end in six years when instead they could build a career in a field that guarantees them security and a decent retirement?

Also because of this dynamic, term limits encourage legislators to focus on their post-politics career while serving. 

Many busily legislate favors for particular industries in the hope of being rewarded with a job when they leave office. This is just one of several ways term limits increase the level of and incentives for corruption. 

Because term limits encourage independently wealthy people to enter politics and push out middle-class would-be career politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they always shift the Overton window of legislatures — regardless of the party in power — to the right.

Probably the strongest argument against term limits, though, is that they’re fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, we already have term limits: they’re called elections. 

The decision about who represents the interests of a particular state or legislative district shouldn’t be held by some abstract law: it should be in the hands of the voters, and term limits deny voters this.

And, because term limits weaken the power of the legislative branch by producing a constant churn, they strengthen the power of the executive branch, a violation of the vital concept of checks-and-balances.

Even where governors or presidents are term-limited by law or constitution, the concentration of power in a single executive is inherently problematic, requiring a robust legislative branch to balance it. Term limits thus neuter a legislature’s ability to mount a muscular challenge to a governor or president grasping for excess power. . . .

For people who’ve never worked in politics or held elective office — which is most of us — term limits sound like a quick and easy answer for the complex problems of corruption and congressional dysfunction. But the only truly reasonable place for term limits to be applied are to the presidency (which we’ve already done) and the unelected members of the Supreme Court (18 years is generally suggested as an appropriate limit to their terms). 

So, the next time you hear some politician or TV pundit proclaiming that term limits are the “best solution” to the “problem” of corruption or congressional dysfunction, consider their real agenda.

 

Unless they’re simply naïve or cynical, it’ll almost always be that they are or once were (before Trump) a Republican and just can’t help themselves.

Swalwell(D) And Gonzales(R) Will Resign Their Seats In Congress - Good Riddance To Both!

 

Most Say Congress Doesn't Do Enough To Control Trump's Excesses

 

The chart above reflects the results of the CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between March 26th and 30th of a nationwide sample of 1,201 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Congressional Democrats Are Now More Popular Than Congressional Republicans

The chart above is from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between March 27th and 30th of a nationwide sample of 1,679 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.
 

The Misnamed "Save America Act" Is Actually Anti-Democratic

 The following is part of a post by Jennifer Rubin at The Contrarian:

Rather than address the cratering economy, undertake their constitutional responsibilities to end a reckless and illegal war, hold Donald Trump accountable for his financial corruption and pedophile racket cover-up, and/or reform rogue, widely loathed immigration shock troops, Republicans at the behest of Trump (who also insisted on the re-redistricting scheme that has backfired spectacularly), are debating the inappropriately-named SAVE America Act. . . .

The SAVE America Act is based on the “groundless assertions that U.S. elections were rife with fraud,” and the equally groundless notion that millions of people who are not legally permitted to vote are casting ballots. Each time this has been investigated, Republicans have identified — at most — a handful of suspected cases (and those may be clerical errors). The “solution” in search of a problem is actually Republicans’ thinly disguised plot to sow massive confusion and disenfranchise as many voters as needed to keep them in power. That’s their election strategy to counteract the public’s overwhelming disapproval of their MAGA agenda. They aren’t “saving” anything except their own political careers. . . .

The SAVE America Act is not about fraud or even about photo ID, which many states already require. The SAVE America Act would require voters to show a passport or birth certificate as proof of citizenship to register or re-register to vote. Roughly 21 million Americans don’t have ready access to those documents. About half do not even have a passport. Millions of women (approximately 7 million women in California, 5 million in Texas, and 4.7 million in Florida, according to the Voter Participation Center) whose married names are not on their birth certificates or passports would face barriers to registering. Election officials who make good-faith clerical errors would face civil and even criminal penalties.

Those registration requirements would go into effect immediately, creating chaos and preventing millions from voting. And to boot, the SAVE America Act would require voters to show their passport or birth certificate in-person to register (or each time they re-register when they move or change other information) — thereby eliminating registering by mail or online and severely hampering automatic voter registration. It would also hamper voting by mail by imposing a new requirement to send in a photocopy of the voter’s ID (something only one state currently requires).

This massive disenfranchisement push mimics Jim Crow legislation (e.g., requiring a passport, which can cost $165, is akin to a poll tax; obtaining a birth certificate may involve travel to the county clerk in one’s place of birth and paying a fee). It is blatantly unconstitutional, a gambit by the most lawless and corrupt regime in history (whose identity is rooted in election denial) to take over elections from the states. . . .

In short, there is no “saving” in the SAVE America Act, if one accepts that America is a democracy in which voters hold power. It seeks to eliminate voters, eliminate threats to White supremacy, eliminate MAGA control, eliminate the constitutional directive that states control elections, eliminate privacy (when the unredacted voter rolls go to the feds), and, most of all, eliminate democracy. If only a fraction of the eligible electorate gets to vote, we do not have majority rule by the “people”; instead, we have anti-democratic white nationalists cherry-picking the electorate to stay in power. . . .

The “SAVE America Act” makes a mockery of language, giving the false image of conserving voting when it instead aims to blow up the entire democratic election process. Democrats should call the bill what it is: The Jim Crow Act.

Most Believe Trump Should Have Asked Congress Before Using Military In Venezuela

The chart above reflects the results of the YouGov Poll -- done on January 3rd of a nationwide sample of 2,092 adults. 

Voters Would Prefer A Democratically-Controlled Congress After 2026 Elections

 

These charts reflects the results of the NBC News Poll -- done between October 24th and 28th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 registered voters, with a 3.1 point margin of error.

We Are Governed By The Rich Who Make Laws That Benefit Only Themselves

The last big bill passed by Congress, and signed by the president was the "big beautiful bill". That bill made permanent the tax cuts passed in the last Trump term, most of which went to the rich and ultra-rich. It also cuts millions from the SNAP (food stamp) program and will result in millions more losing their health insurance (from both Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act).

The rich didn't need those tax cuts. Thanks to the economy tilted in their favor, they are making more money than ever. But the poor needed those food benefits. And the poor, working class, and many in the middle class needed that health care. Because of the cuts, many will now struggle to feed themselves (and their children), and many will not receive the preventative care they need to save their lives.

How could such a thing happen in a democracy? How can a supposedly representative government give more to the rich while taking desperately needed help from millions? 

This excerpt from a 2024 article in The Washington Post by Dustin Guastella can give you a clue:

The United States has long been governed by millionaires. In 2020, more than half of all members of Congress were millionaires, including nearly two-thirds of senators. It’s also true for more than 80 percent of those who have served as president, after adjusting for inflation.

 If members of the working class were proportionally represented in Congress, they would make up 60 to 70 percent of lawmakers, instead of the 2 percent to 5 percent that have historically won seats.

Our government is in the hands of the rich. While this has been true historically, it has gotten much worse. Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the rich can flood campaigns with big dollars - supporting other rich people running for office, and making candidates not rich beholding to them.

The result is an oligarchy. We are being ruled by the rich. And those rich make sure the laws being passed benefit them, regardless of what those laws might do to everyone else.

This is not going to change until we restore our democracy by getting more working classes and middle class people in Congress.

Democrats Maintain A Lead On Voter Intentions For 2026

 The chart above reflects the results of the CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between August 21st and September 1st of a nationwide sample of 2,077 adults, with a 2.7 point margin of error.

Democrats Hold An Edge In Generic Congressional Ballot

The chart shows the results of the latest weekly poll by the YouGov Poll.
 

Is It Time For Elderly Democrats To Step Aside For A Younger Generation?

The retirement age for Social Security is 66 years old, and most Americans retire before the age of 70. But in the United States Congress, that is not true. The average age of a senator is 65/66 (and 57 for House members). Some members in safe districts will serve for many years past those numbers. Meanwhile, the average age of the U.S. population is about 38.

This has resulted in a discussion among Democrats about whether some aging members of Congress should step aside for a younger generation. 

The budget bill in the House just passed by one vote (215 to 214). If Democrats had one more vote, it would not have passed - and Democrats are short by 3 of their elected members. Three House Democrats have died this year - Gerry Connolly (75), Raul Grijalva (77), and Sylvester Turner (70). If these three had not run in the last election and been replaced by younger Democrats, the GOP bill would not have passed.

While it is true that some people over 75 maintain their mental acuity and physical health, it is not true of most people - and while most senior members of Congress would likely deny it, it is also true of them.

One argument used to justify the repeated election of older members is that doing otherwise would result in a loss of expertise. I don't buy that argument. Expertise can quickly be realized by younger and newer members - and no one is so important they cannot be replaced.

Currently, there are 30 Democrats in the House that are 75 or older. Only two of them have said they will not run for re-election in 2026. Most of them have already announced they are running for re-election. I think all of them have served honorably and with distinction, but to run again is a mistake. It's time for them to step aside and make room for a new generation of Democrats.

I'm not alone in this belief. A 2023 poll of Americans by the Pew Research Center showed that 79% of adults would like to see an age limit on elected officials (including 76% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans). 

It is unlikely that Congress will address this issue. Too many members are at or near the age of 75, and too many others dream of serving past that age (in both parties). If this is to be addressed, it will be up to the voters.

There is talk currently of primary opponents for many senior Democrats. I hope that happens. The voters deserve a choice. Just because someone has held a seat for many years doesn't mean they are entitled to hold it until their death.

NOTE - In the interest of full disclosure, I am over 75 years old.