Donald Trump and maga Republicans do nothing to push back on the inflationary impact of illegal Trump tariffs

Donald Trump insists he will never repeat Herbert Hoover's economic mistakes. 

In fact, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that he does not want to be remembered like Herbert Hoover, the president who took office right before the Great Depression. He has expressed this sentiment on several occasions, including a July 2026 CNBC interview where he emphasized, "I always said I don't want to be a president with a depression on his resume. I don't want to be Herbert Hoover". In fact, Donald Trump emphasized this again when he explained why he signed the surrender document called a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), for the purpose of engaging with Iran about opening the Strait of Hormuz. Iranians closed this free and open avenue of commerce when Donald Trump launched the illegal war against Iran.  Although Donald Trump said the reason for his illegal war was to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear bomb, the Memorandum of Understanding signed at the French Palace of Versailles, was agreed to because Trump wanted to open the Strait of Hormuz, and had nothing to do with preventing Iran's nuclear capabilities. Keeping the Strait closed, when it had been opened before February 28, 2026, was the only reason why Donald Trump surrendered.  He did not want to be responsible for a world wide Great Depression caused by his illegal war.

 

Is Trump unaware that he has already repeated one of President Hoover's mistakes❓ tariffs. Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Trump initiated and continues to expand a similar program of tariffs. Is Trump unaware that he has already repeated one of those mistakes: tariffs❗ Echo opinion letter published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and in Yahoo.com

Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Trump initiated and continues to expand a similar program of tariffs.

Trump's tariffs have contributed to inflation and increased everybody's cost of living. 

Were it not for that inflation, the Federal Reserve policy would likely favor lowering interest rates, which would lower the cost of living and promote economic expansion.

From Jim Rosenbaum, Whitefish Bay, in Wisconsin

Donald Trump snubs our European allies: Obviously no understanding about the successful Marshall Plan

Trump and Vance arrogant bullies. President Zelenskyy wronged.

Echo opinion letter published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper (below): 

"As a European, I just do not understand how on earth any of this is allowed to happen. This is truly nuts - just nuts. We, as humans, are better than this", @richardchalkscorriette2197

Dear Editor:  I watched President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and was disappointed, angered and embarrassed by the arrogant and bullying behavior of both Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

If anyone is deserving of an apology it is Zelenskyy.

I hardly recognize the Republican party any more. It is embarrassing to see the United States siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — distancing us from our long-term allies in Europe.

Following World War II, U.S. Secretary of State, George Marshall*, said, “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.”

There was no discussion of a quid pro quo or mineral rights. This is a sharp contrast to Trump’s “negotiations” over aid to Ukraine and the assault on USAID programs to combat poverty, hunger and disease in the developing world.

Trump and Vance’s behavior in the meeting with Zelenskyy was embarrassing and disgraceful. We are becoming increasingly isolated from our friends and allies. Hopefully, America can rise from the ashes.

From Charles Uphoff, in Fitchburg Wisconsin

*On April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. It became known as the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, who in 1947 proposed that the United States provide economic assistance to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe. (Maine Writer note:  In fact, the successful Marshall Plan could have rightfully been named "The Truman Plan", but President Truman made the decision to credit the former Secretary of State George Marshall (b.1880-d.1959) for the program.  Unfortunately many history challenged Americans have no idea who George Marshall was, or how this plan saved Europe from starvation and economic disaster.  

Donald Trump is an embarrassment to patriotic Americans along with JD Vance they owe an apology to President Zelenskyy

Never have I been so ashamed to be an American.

Echo opinion letters published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Watching with alarm while Donald Trump and JD Vance badgered and bullied Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I was stunned as my feelings moved from shock to fear and to anger — extreme anger.😡😰 From Rev. Alexander M. Jacobs, Milwaukee.

It's embarrassing to see the US siding with Putin's Russia. 

President Zelenskyy deserves the apology. |

Both our president and vice president claim to be Christians. After today, I am not convinced.

I am horrified and disgusted by the way President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance treated President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine on Feb. 28 in their Oval Office meeting.

Most of all, I am overwhelmed with shame. The meeting was filled with the pure bullying we have grown too used to hearing from the highest officials of our nation. Is this really what America stands for now?

Some of our elected officials seem to have forgotten this recent history. Instead, they are giving in to the un-American characteristics of commitment-breaking and intentional disorder coming from the White House. Where is their courage? Where is their own commitment to honor and serve all that is best in the United Sates of America?

Their loss of integrity is hardly “Making American Great Again.”

For generations, many of my family members, including my father and my son, have served in combat in our country's armed forces. My father's tiny destroyer escort plied the North Atlantic on submarine duty all through World War II. 

After the war, my father was called to be command historian with the United States European Command in France at the height of the Cold War.

Some of our Republican elected officials have forgotten this recent history. Instead, they are giving in to the un-American characteristics of commitment-breaking and intentional disorder coming from the Trump White House. Where is their courage? 

Where is their own commitment to honor and serve all that is best in the United Sates of America?

Their loss of integrity is hardly “Making American Great Again".

From Mary Henderson Eagan, Thiensville, Wisconsin 

Manhattan jury did their civic duty finding Donald Trump guilty for 34 felony convictions

Fake Republican Wisconsin elector admits fear from Trumpists

Echo report published in the Wisconsin Morning Sentinel:

MADISON, Wisconsin - The former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party, in a new interview, claims he sent to the Congress the paperwork he signed, posing as an elector for Donald Trump following the former president's 2020, election loss, out of fear for his safety from the candidate's supporters.

Andrew Hitt, who was chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin during the 2020, election, offered the explanation for his participation in a scheme designed by Trump and his allies to stay in power after losing reelection during an episode of CBS' "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday evening.

In a clip provided to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by "60 Minutes," Hitt says he was scared of what Trump supporters would do to him or his family if he did not sign the paperwork and courts later overturned President Joe Biden's victory in Wisconsin.

"... If I didn't do that, and the court did throw out those votes, it would have been solely my fault that Trump wouldn't have won Wisconsin," Hitt told "60 Minutes" correspondent Anderson Cooper. "Can you imagine the repercussions on myself, my family if it was me, Andrew Hitt, who prevented Donald Trump from winning Wisconsin?"

But by the time Hitt and nine other Republicans met in the state Capitol to sign the paperwork claiming to be electors for Trump, the state Supreme Court had already confirmed Biden's win and federal judges had tossed lawsuits seeking to overturn Trump's loss. An appeal of one of the federal rulings was filed the morning of the day the Republicans met in the state Capitol to sign the false paperwork but the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago later upheld the decision to toss Trump's lawsuit, according to federal court records. An appeal of that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court was later rejected by the justices in March 2021.

Biden beat Trump by about 21,000 votes in Wisconsin. Trump sought recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties, which confirmed Biden's win. Trump sued and the state Supreme Court upheld the results on a 4-3 vote on December 14, 2020.

At the same time, the fake Trump electors gathered in another part of the Capitol to fill out the paperwork claiming Trump had won. They submitted their filings to Congress, the National Archives, a federal judge and then-Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette.

Less than an hour later, Democrats met in the state Capitol to cast the state's 10 electoral votes for Biden.

At the time, the fake electors said they held the meeting to ensure the state's electoral votes were cast for Trump if a court later determined he was the true winner of the state.

Andrew Hitt tells Anderson Cooper 'it was not a safe time'

When asked by Cooper if he was scared of Trump supporters in Wisconsin, Hitt said "it was not a safe time."

"If my lawyer is right, and the whole reason Trump loses Wisconsin is because of me, I would be scared to death," Hitt said.

During a February 2022 deposition with the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Hitt testified he was concerned about his physical safety while signing the paperwork.

"There was just a general concern about — about safety. And ... how we were going to keep everybody safe if somebody wanted to disrupt something or if there was a protest that would occur," Hitt said, according to the deposition transcript.

"I also, throughout this time, got several phone calls to my office that my secretary relayed to me demanding to know my exact location ... I never verified, but I got a lot of threatening emails, quite frankly, from both sides of the political aisle. And so it was a volatile time, and our electors were worried, and so was I."

In text messages released as part of the final report from January 6 committee, Hitt relayed concerns about the fake elector plan to the party's executive director before the paperwork was signed.

“I am def concerned about their inquiry,” Hitt texted the state GOP's executive director Mark Jefferson when he learned of the plot that followed Trump's 2020 election loss. “I hope they are not planning on asking us to do anything like try and say we are only the proper electors.”

“These guys are up to no good and its (sic) gonna fail miserably,” he texted a colleague on Dec. 12, 2020, after receiving a message about discussing the fake elector plan with Trump attorney Rudy Guiliani.

In another exchange, Hitt said he would not side with Trump "if he goes after our guys," referring to Trump's criticism of Republican governors of Arizona and Georgia in the weeks following the 2020 presidential election.

Hitt also texted Jefferson, "Tomorrow is going to be wild," after discussing which of three rooms in the Capitol to hide in with Wisconsin Elections Commissioner Bob Spindell to avoid media scrutiny of the paperwork signing because both Hitt and Spindell were public figures.

Republicans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada also signed documents purporting to be electors. Republicans in New Mexico and Pennsylvania filled out paperwork saying they should be considered electors if courts found Trump had won their states.

Michigan’s attorney general filed felony charges in July against the 16 Republicans in that state who acted as fake electors for Trump, accusing them of submitting false certificates that confirmed they were legitimate electors, despite Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

Trump has been indicted over his actions leading up to the January 6, 2021, insurrection — charges that focus heavily on the fake elector strategy.

In Wisconsin, Attorney General Josh Kaul is reportedly investigating the fake Trump elector scheme but Kaul has not discussed the alleged probe nor confirmed its existence.

CNN reported in December that Kenneth Chesebro, a Wisconsin native and former campaign attorney for Trump, was helping investigators in at least four states, including Wisconsin, who are probing the scheme to overturn the 2020, election

Hitt and the other false electors also recently settled a civil lawsuit filed by Biden's real 2020, electors. As part of the settlement, the 10 Republicans acknowledged their actions were part of an attempt to overturn an election and agreed not to serve as electors for Trump in the future or participate in the transmission of such documents again, among other terms.

In the statement released by the false Trump electors, the Republicans wrote they met in the Wisconsin State Capitol to sign paperwork falsely claiming to be electors to be "in compliance with requests from the Trump campaign and Republican Party of Wisconsin."

"The Elector Defendants took the foregoing action because they were told that it was necessary to preserve their electoral votes in the event a court challenge may later change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin. That document was then used as part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results," the Republicans wrote.

Hitt also has said he believes the group of Republicans were tricked by the Trump campaign to participate in the scheme and pledged not to vote for Trump in 2024.

Lawrence Andrea of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to this report.

Molly Beck can be reached at molly.beck@jrn.com.

People who helped to create the American Dream must have access to living it....

Maine Writer:  Although my family benefits from the American dream, I am painfully aware about how the opportunities we enjoy, being access to food, clean water, housing and medical care, are not available to others. For example, my husband delivered a donated modest bag of food and personal hygiene supplies to our local food pantry, in Maine. Rather than donate to a food drive, he took the bag directly to the pantry. His brief donation visit caused him to became completely aware about food insecurity and economic inequities. The line waiting to enter the food pantry consisted of elderly who, obviously, lived day to day, on fixed incomes. Those standing in line are not benefiting from the prosperity shared by my family. Sometimes, I get the feeling from fine people I know that real money doesn't exist anymore, because those around us are buying houses with cash and without regard for appraised values. Others, who we don't see, are frozen out of their rentals because of the soaring costs of housing.  With so much spendable money infused in the American economy, it is incredible to me that this level of inequity exits. This following essay published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, written by three social scientists, offers a proven plan to improve life for those who are experiencing the nightmare of waiting in line at the food pantry, or who are forced to accept free food or forgo paying rent because they cannot afford to go to the supermarket; or not buying their medicine because they cannot afford to pay for health care. 

Opinion echo, published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by 

David Feingold, Roger Feldman and Rongal Watson.

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”, Emma Lazarus. 

Unfortunately, Americans have come to accept poverty as a normal part of American life. We see it everywhere: uncounted homeless and destitute neighborhoods, food banks and shelters, in rural and urban communities.

Actually, this is not normal, and it is not necessary.

Although poverty affects people of every kind, the stark history of the Black community is notable. For generations, most Black Americans have been forced to live in segregated neighborhoods that lack decent housing, quality education, sufficient goods and services and adequate public health and safety measures. Mass incarceration for nonviolent crimes and acts of desperation has further destroyed the lives of millions of Black men and torn families apart.

The residents of minority neighborhoods perform society's hard, dirty and underpaid work. Now they are “essential workers” in a pandemic — exposed to COVID-19 at much higher rates than the affluent and very rich whom they serve. It has long been this way, and it remains so.

Brown and black people attaining middle-class life also experience racism. Any minority person may be arbitrarily stopped by police and face the risk of harm, even death. Far too often, they are seen as dangerous targets unworthy of equal respect or protection. Here, too, racism has taken root and found a home.

It is crucial that violent and excessively militarized policing be ended and disproportionate law enforcement funds moved to other community needs. Racist imprisonment must end. However, even effective police reform will still leave the underclass living in broken neighborhoods.

A new Marshall Plan

Americans who live in poverty are in need of a Marshall Plan, and the money to fund a plan is worth the investment because they and their ancestors helped to build the opportunity society called the "American Dream"... AKA, "Bring me your tired...your poor...".

Ending racism is a fundamental goal, but it will not be achieved without ending poverty for people of any color. A unified program must equally benefit all in need, in service to this greater goal. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan makes a significant down payment toward alleviating poverty — such as increasing unemployment aid and expanding the child care tax credit. But more is needed.

To end poverty, America needs a domestic Marshall Plan. 

The original Marshall Plan, implemented in 1948, invested billions of dollars to rebuild European nations devastated in World War II. Some of those nations did not deserve our country's massive expenditure to rebuild their lands. They had slaughtered entire communities and brutally killed American soldiers to impose false racial superiority and gain world domination. 

Nonetheless, Americans helped rebuild their shattered nations. This was a truly wise, generous and remarkable act.

While billions of dollars were sent to Europe, America’s impoverished continued to struggle within an unjust society. Soldiers who had served with distinction in segregated units were denied access to jobs and wealth when they returned from the war.

A new Marshall Plan would mobilize resources from all levels of government — federal, state and local — each level doing what it can to end poverty within its sphere. Some funds will come from militarized and excessive police budgets.

But government support is not sufficient. Most of the nation’s wealth is held in corporate and other private hands. This money was made through expenditures and hard work of all people — including minorities and the working poor. Such fortunes have skyrocketed, in part due to favorable taxation geared to increase their wealth.

Just taxation would provide a good portion of the necessary funds. In addition, the affluent and very rich must contribute a share of the funds for this historic effort. This possibility has been affirmed by corporate actions to address certain inequities, especially in response to protests seeking social justice.

Such a unified plan must do the following:

• Create decent housing for all, by restoring or constructing a sufficient supply of homes or units, without gentrification displacing the poor.

• Achieve equitable school funding, with quality teachers, spaces, supplies and essential services.

• Provide employment or a universal basic income sufficient for a decent standard of living.

• Conduct policing, and deliver all public services, with the same respect for persons and their dignity as in white neighborhoods. Enact and enforce laws to reduce gun violence.

• Ensure an adequate number of stores, offering affordable goods and services, regardless of neighborhood composition or condition.

• Provide health insurance and a clean environment for all.

• Assure full voting rights, and finally end segregation in every form.

• Establish diverse federal, state and local commissions to direct these programs, accountable to the people living in impoverished conditions.
There are precedents for this idea and post World War II devastation in Europe is evidence of it!

A new Marshall Plan would be a sea change in our attitudes toward poverty and race. It has precedents in other social movements in this country. In the 20th century, there were three especially powerful eras when inequity and poverty were addressed.

During the Progressive Era, from about 1896 to 1920, progressive taxation, workers' compensation for injury, antitrust legislation, the right of women to vote and other reforms created a more equitable way of life.

President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression of the 1930s provided jobs for millions of the unemployed, built massive public works, established labor rights, Social Security benefits and more. Taken together, such reforms built the foundation for a broad middle class in our society.

The Civil Rights movement swept away legal segregation and required the opening of public and private institutions to more Americans regardless of race. This movement later came to include the belief that well-being should never be denied because of any attribute that sets one person apart from another, including faith or gender.

Such forward-looking policies have had profound and lasting effects on America. The labor movement brought workers far better pay and working conditions, the right to organize and governmental protection. Women’s movements established the right to vote and laws requiring equal treatment, regardless of gender. 

Moreover, the Civil Rights movement continues in many forms, including opposition to punitive voting restrictions.

Of course, much is undone. Native Americans, whose lands this nation now occupies, too often live a bare existence in the shadow of historic genocide and unending neglect. Nevertheless, a commitment to eliminate poverty and racism is not an impossible dream.

Some think that ending poverty and racism will require fundamental changes in our society and economy. Others believe it cannot be done at all. This piece suggests that poverty can be ended with great effort, but without sweeping changes to our system. We have argued that a plan to end poverty and overcome racism has roots in American history and the current struggles for racial justice.

Time will tell what is necessary to achieve economic and social justice, but failure to try is no longer tolerable. Let us raise the stakes by ending racism that for centuries has harmed people solely because of the color of their skin. Let us raise the stakes by ending poverty that persists in the richest nation on earth.

This American Plan stands on the shoulders of generations who have moved us forward. Continuing this effort will bring us closer to becoming the people we have always imagined.

David Feingold organized and took stands for justice in diverse communities and marched with Martin Luther King Jr. 

Roger Feldman is an internationally recognized economics professor, emeritus, at the University of Minnesota. 

Rongal Watson is co-founder of Black Lives Matter in Beloit and a professor at Beloit College, who teaches courses about racism in government and politics, as well as inequality in health. 

More than 30 people of diverse age, gender, occupation, and race and ethnicity contributed to this piece. For a complete list, go to: bit.ly/3dKJFej

Prediction for Wisconsin 2020: The Marquette voter poll should also include validating reliable voting machines!

What's overlooked in this report, published in the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel is "voting machines"!  Donald Trump's slim margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election in Wisconsin was compromised by voting machines that prevented recounts. 

Will the Wisconsin voting machines be fed paper ballots in the 2010 presidential election? 

This polling report does not mention "voting machines". Therefore, that's reason to worry about the assumption that Trump could win in 2020, in spite of his strong disapproval ratings. 

Marquette University, WI - Donald Trump faces an uphill climb in winning a second victory in Wisconsin, a battleground that will be at the epicenter of the next presidential campaign.

Here are three major takeaways from a statewide poll of 800 registered voters, released by the Marquette Law School, its first survey since the 2018 election:

High disapproval. Right now, Trump has a precarious path to victory in Wisconsin, a state he won by less than one point in 2016. His approval rating is 44 percent — higher than it is in most national polls, but lower than it was here last fall and weighted down by the unpopular government shutdown that just ended.

More importantly, polls throughout his presidency have consistently shown that close to half the potential electorate is dug in against him. In the Marquette survey taken Jan. 16-20, 52 percent disapprove of his job performance, 46 percent “strongly” disapprove and 49 percent say they will “definitely vote for someone else” in the next presidential election. 

His window for a potential victory is a very tight one (hopefully, the window holes will be plugged up, God willing!)

In 10 Marquette polls since Trump took office, his approval rating has never topped 47 percent. The share of voters who disapprove of him has equaled or exceeded 50 percent in the past nine polls dating back to June 2017.

Democrats more unified than Republicans. In a polarized age, a politically successful president needs a unified partisan base because he or she is likely to have a unified partisan opposition. But Democratic voters have been much more united against Trump than Republicans have been in support of him.

Consider how Wisconsin voters in each party answered this question: “If the 2020 presidential election were held today, would you definitely vote to re-elect Donald Trump, probably vote to re-elect Trump, probably vote for someone else, or definitely vote for someone else?”

Among Republicans:

• 58 percent said they would definitely vote for Trump 
• 22 percent said they would probably vote for Trump,
•  6 percent said they would probably vote for someone else and 
• 10 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else
• = 37 percent will more than likely not vote for Trump

That is a party with a few cracks in it. Fewer than six in 10 GOP voters say they are certain they would support the Trump in the next election.

Among Democrats, there isn’t much doubt: 

• None said they would definitely vote for Trump
• 1 percent said they would probably vote for Trump
• 4 percent said they would probably vote for someone else, and 
• 95 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else.

You see a similar pattern when you look at Trump’s approval ratings. Democratic voters are almost all deeply negative, while GOP voters are not monolithically supportive. 

Among Republicans, 60 percent strongly approve of the president, 23 percent somewhat approve, 6 percent somewhat disapprove and 8 percent strongly disapprove. 

Among Democrats:

• 1 percent strongly approve
• 2 percent somewhat approve
• 6 percent somewhat disapprove, and 
• 89 percent strongly disapprove

Opposition more intense than support. The intensity of public opinion matters a lot in politics and it is not on Trump’s side: 

• 30 percent of Wisconsin voters “strongly” approve of him, and 
• 46 percent “strongly” disapprove.

These people (three-quarters of the electorate) are pretty locked in, to Trump’s disadvantage.

Nevertheless, the other quarter of the electorate is soft in its opinion: 14 percent of voters “somewhat” approve, 7 percent “somewhat” disapprove and 4 percent don’t know.

If you do the math, you see that as things stand now, Trump has to win an overwhelming share of these “soft” voters (whether they are pro-Trump or anti-Trump) to have a chance at carrying Wisconsin.

But the Marquette poll illustrates why this is a challenge.

Start with Trump’s base: the “strong” approvers. 

Again, that’s 30 percent of registered voters in this poll. 

Close to 80 percent of this group say they would “definitely” vote for Trump in 2020 and most of the others say they would “probably” vote for him, according to data from the survey provided by Marquette pollster Charles Franklin.

But because Trump’s core base of support isn’t nearly big enough by itself to get him re-elected, he needs the votes of the next tier in the electorate: the voters who only “somewhat” approve of him. Many of these voters have qualms about Trump’s honesty or performance as president or the direction he’s taken the Republican Party.

This second group comprises 14 percent of the voters in Marquette’s poll. But they are dramatically less certain to vote for Trump, according to the poll. Only 25 percent of these soft Trump approvers say they would definitely vote for Trump (compared to 76 percent of the "strong" approvers); another 45 percent say they would probably vote for him, while 30 percent either don’t know or say they’re likely to vote against him.

“I think what we see here is that within that 44 percent who approve of Trump overall, there is a large group who strongly approve and are very loyal for the 2020 vote,” said Franklin. 

“But when we go to those (soft approvers) who have some reservations, that voting loyalty drops off precipitously. That reflects a potential fragility of his coalition.”

Even if they unite behind Trump in the next election, these soft Trump supporters aren’t really numerous enough to put him over the top. (He would probably still have to convert some people who currently disapprove of the job he's doing.) But if these soft supporters don’t unite behind him, that would kill his hopes of winning the state. And at this moment, many of them appear to be in play.

The caveats in this analysis are familiar ones. No single survey is gospel. While Trump’s job ratings have been pretty consistent in Wisconsin, these numbers will bounce around a bit from poll to poll. Moreover, Trump will be running in 2020 against an actual Democrat with his or her own negatives, not the unnamed opponent he is being measured against in today’s polls. The fight for the Democratic nomination could prove divisive, leaving that party less unified that it looks right now.

And, of course, Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 despite high negatives — precisely because he won the votes of many voters who had qualms about him.

But he also won it by the slimmest of margins. Now that he is (an unqualified) president, he has fiercely mobilized the opposition.

What all the Trump polling shows is not that he can’t possibly eke out another victory in Wisconsin, but that his path to victory here appears to be both steep and narrow (and treacherous!).

Wisconsin - opinion about teaching civics

Students need a civics education now more than ever

(MaineWriter would expand to add that Trumpzi supporters have never had a civics class and neither has Donald Trump!)

Echo opinion published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by Christian Schneider 

 

For any incoming college freshman, stumbling onto campus the first day has to be a disorienting experience. 

There’s so much you don’t know, ranging from where to eat to where your classes are to why your roommate insists on only changing his socks every three days.

But there are certain things the university requires you to know. The University of Wisconsin-Madison requires three orientation programs for all new students; an alcohol awareness seminar, a violence prevention program, and a diversity-inclusion program.

Of course, “diversity” on campus rarely includes tolerance of conservative viewpoints. That is why, in addition to these three seminars, new students should be required to attend a program explaining both the First Amendment and the tolerance for viewpoint diversity.

Frankly, it should be mandatory for students to take courses relating to civic education and the U.S. Constitution. 

According to a recent study, only 18% of American colleges and universities require their graduates to take a foundational course in U.S. history or U.S. government, and at UW-Madison, history majors are not required to take a single class on American History.

This de-emphasis of education in government and history has led to a collapse in general civic knowledge in America. According to a recent poll by the Annenberg 

Public Policy Center, nearly 40% of Americans could not name any of the rights protected under the First Amendment.

A 2016 study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that half of all college graduates couldn’t name the term length for either members of Congress or senators, and only slightly more than 20% could name James Madison as the primary author of the Constitution. 

!Most preposterously, 10% of college graduates believed television jurist “Judge Judy” sat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

This corrosion of civic education is manifesting itself in the types of leaders Americans are choosing and in what citizens expect of those leaders once they take office. It is no wonder voters flock to a strongman promising only he can change America’s laws for the better; ignorance of the proper role of Congress and the separation of powers makes this possible.

The University of Wisconsin recognizes the need to make students more well-rounded by requiring them to take courses outside of their majors. That is why students must take three credits of ethnic studies in order to graduate. Such courses expose young people to experiences they might not get elsewhere.

But civic education should accompany these other mandatory courses. By the time they’ve graduated, all college students should have analyzed the text and history of the Constitution. They should have read the Federalist papers, Alexis de Tocqueville’s "Democracy in America," and other important foundational documents: It’s a matter of empowering our citizens by teaching them their rights and responsibilities.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance,” said James Madison, “and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” We are failing to educate our students about American institutions and self-government. And this failure, if uncorrected, will lead to greater political ignorance, greater political polarization, and a greater disconnect between those with power and those without.

And as long as we fail to provide young people with a civics education, we are what we teach.

Christian Schneider is a Journal Sentinel columnist and blogger. Email christian.schneider@jrn.com. Twitter: @Schneider_CM

Republican bait and switch tax cuts for the rich

But, "Let's do it!", the GOP says. ~ Emily Mills, Madison WI

"We do have piles of evidence to show that trickle-down economics doesn’t work."

Echo opinion *~ from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Up is down, left is right, and the deficit hawks have not so much laid down with the doves as they have set fire to their nests.

The GOP voted in the largest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in decades, and President Donald Trump happily signed whatever went to his desk, relieved to have finally passed something big nearly a year into his administration.

Of course, this is cause for celebration for Trump, whose own family stands to gain enormously. How enormously? That’s difficult to say, given that he has still refused to release his tax returns. 

But best estimates put Trump family savings at around $1 billion. Between this and all of the taxpayer money he’s earned through charging money for holding government functions at his properties, if he didn’t enter the White House as a billionaire, he may well leave as one.

Meanwhile, all those alleged deficit hardliners in the Republican Party have fudged on their principles in the name of throwing money at the wealthiest Americans (and themselves). 

When deficits go up due to spending on social welfare programs for the most vulnerable members of society, that’s unconscionable. 

Ballooning the deficit by $1.4 trillion by 2027 in the name of giving massive tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy? 

The Republican argument: By slashing taxes for the largest corporations and richest Americans, savings will be passed along in the form of increased hiring and wages for regular working folks. Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned about the ultra-wealthy, it’s that they have the greater good in mind. Or not.

We do have piles of evidence to show that trickle-down economics doesn’t work. We have the words of the company owners themselves that savings will be passed on to shareholders, not to boost wages or hiring.

The biggest bait-and-switch of the plan: 

Tax cuts for the wealthy are permanent, while the modest tax savings for middle-income folks will disappear after 10 years.

The claim is that throwing so much money at the wealthy will boost economic growth (though even in the plan itself it’s not nearly enough to make up for the lost revenue). 

Again, this flies in the face of reality. If you want to boost an economy, lift the working class. We’re the people who put money back into the economy through spending, as opposed to saving our money through investments and tax breaks.

Given the overwhelming unpopularity of the bill and the very real ways it will harm most Americans (who will be paying much more for health care as a result of increasing premiums), the only silver lining is that this might be the final push needed to galvanize voters against the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

How many examples of greed will it take for people to turn away?

All we can do is commit to rebuilding the nests to be big enough to support everyone. And maybe put up spikes to keep the hawks away for good.

Emily Mills is a freelance writer who lives in Madison. Twitter: @millbot; Email: emily.mills@outlook.com

* Echo opinions are blogged by Maine Writer as they are randomly found while cruising  the nation's various newspapers.

Speaker Paul Ryan is walking on political eggs in Wisconsin

Although Speaker Paul Ryan has political leadership influence with Republican Congressional colleagues, the fact is, he is just one elected official in a legislative body.  In other words, Ryan is among 435 other elected representatives who represent 50 United States.  It's Wisconsin's voters that decide whether or not Speaker Ryan remains in Congress

Speaker of the House of Representative Republican Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin

Constituents more polarized over Paul Ryan than ever, reflecting Trump effect in Wisconsin~ by Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee WI- Ryan's Wisconsin constituents are polarized about him. His speakership and his support for Trump have eroded the likability he long enjoyed among voters outside the Republican base, including many Democrats, liberals and moderates. Ryan has carried Democratic cities such as Kenosha and Janesville (his hometown) in many of his campaigns. That is very unlikely to happen next year.

The Ryan 2018 Wisconsin race is a test of the speaker’s ability to withstand what could be powerful national headwinds: the unpopularity of Trump, the poor image of Congress, the frictions in his party and public skepticism toward GOP plans on health care (which failed to pass) and taxes (which Republicans hope to enact in the coming weeks).

It is also a unique window into the Trump effect in Wisconsin, a state Trump narrowly won last year, but where Republican leaders and voters have sent mixed signals about him.

Assessing the “Trump effect” on Ryan is especially complicated because their relationship — and public perceptions of it — have shifted back and forth.  (Speaker Ryan is unsure about his relationship with Donald Trump and the voters see this. Clearly, Trump/Ryan relationship is not like the Reagan/O'Neil relationship.) “I know that Ryan is in a tough place,” said Ann Heide of Mount Pleasant, WI, but “Paul Ryan is never getting my vote, ever again.” Some take it as a given that Ryan disapproves of Trump — “He clearly does not like the guy,” said one — but consistently supports him now because his party demands it and he’s got to 'play the game'.”

MaineWriter's advice to Speaker Ryan: My take away from the Craig Gilbert article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is this:  Your political relationship with Donald Trump defines who you are and the constituents interviewed by the journalist Gilbert are not totally secure about voting for you again.

In fact, Speaker Paul Ryan is about to get Trump eggs on his face by walking on "thin political eggs".