Trump's travel ban is his first volley to rally his base

President Donald Trump swung into action this weekend with his temporary ban on refugees entering the United States, fulfilling a campaign promise to prevent terrorism in the nation, by barring refugees and nationals of seven Muslim-majority nations. His executive order  provoked anger and confusion on the parts of those affected and their relatives; particularly for those who waited for them at U.S. airports. At least 50 people were held for questioning at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

While many are questioning the legality of the president's actions, other especially civil rights groups demonstrated en masse across the country at airports as far flung as New York and Los Angeles. The reaction from many in Europe was dismay, and even horror.

For the newly elected president, this was his moment, one where he not only kept his promise from the campaign trail, but also one where stagecraft upended statecraft, and in while the action might later might be revised, it was, politically speaking, a brilliant opening move; one that defined both his will, and his desire to support his base of supporters.

Adding to the calculated action, and nearly on cue was the temporary stay by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly who  “ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained,” at JFK International. Even that act alone is bound to elicit a response that activist judges are preventing from keeping the country safe, thus playing directly into the hands of his supporters, who felt that liberals, like former president Obama, could not keep the country secure in the face of increasing  terrorism..

If this all seems Machiavellian, then it is meant to be as the team at the White House plans, plots and counterplots moves that are not only calculated, but strike at the fears of many in the country, be they liberal or conservative.

Steve Bannon

The memories of the Paris terrorist  attacks are still fresh for many, and questions about whether they could could happen in the U.S. for many are a major concern. Going even further back to the 2005 London bombing attacks, they showed many that perhaps equally dangerous is the threat from within, with homegrown terrorists, was just as great as that from ISIS.

Despite the inconsistency of some countries that were omitted from the list - Saudi Arabia (which was the home of the 9/11 terrorists), the move, which could easily be a trial balloon for even stronger actions in the future, this opening salvo is just the beginning of more from the man who upset the political applecart by defeating a 30 year political veteran, Hillary Clinton this past fall.

Trump’s “get tough” stance is one that he has consistently portrayed, and in case, no one believed him, the proof was played out this weekend across the country, as he and his advisers stood tall on the parapet watching the confusion below. Indeed the Chicago Tribune reported Monday that Steve Bannon, “the former head of the far-right website Breitbart News, once said his goal was to ‘bring down everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.’” It looks as if he and Trump, through his moves, might just “upend government policy on various issues,” as he begins his administration..

As a businessman he knows that it’s important when making changes by labelling them “temporary” it is a none-too subtle move to make them permanent, in one form or another. Aided by Stephen Miller, another aide, his strict interpretation of immigration laws and its implementation by Homeland Security, which while rushed through, flexes muscle.

Underlying this order is the anti-Muslim sentiment that he has played on not only during the campaign, but even before with his accusations that Obama was not born in the U.S. with the implication that he was a “secret Muslim.” It is also one that some of the public, even now, stick to with statements such as “You know what Obama’s middle name is, don’t you?” It is Hussein, and a confirmation for many that he is a Muslim, not a Christian, and not to be trusted.

Recall the cover of the now infamous New Yorker magazine, where Obama was caricatured in Muslim garb, and the die is cast. Now fast forward to the acceptance of Christian Syrians, but not others, and the divisions, and fears, that he so skilfully plays come into even sharper focus.

In an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network he said: "They've been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."

As we have seen, the president plays loose and free with the facts, and this assertion is is not true.  The fact checkers at NPR state that In fact, the number of Christian refugees to the U.S. in 2016 was almost equal to that of Muslim refugees — 37,521 to 38,901, according to the Pew Research Center, which is basing its numbers on figures from the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services.”

Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell said on ABC “I don't want to criticize them for improving vetting. I think we need to be careful; we don't have religious tests in this country.”

Noting that key advisers for Trump, like Bannon, “are all people who have expressed anti-Muslim sentiment. . . .[are on] on an institutional level, very frightening,” remarked Hoda Katebi, communications coordinator for the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in an interview with the Chicago Reader.

While the White House has praised Bannon for his “tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now,” in one sense the order might not make the nation any safer. This is especially seen with the absence of the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, unless needed. It all proves to be the portent of things to come, where perception is nine tenths of the law.

There are also a number of supporting factors that will allow Trump in these first 100 days to get mostly what he wants, and what his base wants of him, and they are: party loyalty from fellow Republicans who have 8 years of pent up frustration, that they want to move on; a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, and the theme of the campaign that America needs a strong leader again --- not the perceived liberal milquetoasts of the past. If all this seems familiar to students of world history, then so be it, it is intentional.

To get to the traditional 100 day agenda, for issues like the repeal of Obamacare will require, as Dick SImpson, associate professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago noted, “would require some moderate Republicans to join with the Democrats,” but he also has said that while, “There will be broad resistance to to those Trump policies but by executive orders and the momentum of the first hundred.days of his presidency in Congress, he will get his way in changing the country’s direction in the beginning.”

One possible fly in the ointment may be Trump’s  lack of political experience, and even his lack of interest in policy details, in contrast to many of his cabinet appointees who do have them, plus the experience and knowledge of how Washington works. And, in  another twist, the new normal of this administration, also shows in a recent Pew Research poll, that 4 in 10 Americans, during the transition to the Oval Office, approved of Trump’s explanation in explaining his policies.

The same has held for those Cabinet nominees, “only 4 in 10 American, another low for a president-elect during the transition,” noted the Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau in their report last month.  This could lead to dissension in the ranks for those looking for “clear guidance, they may interpret their selection as a mandate to pursue their own agendas. That could lead to conflict if those policies prove unpopular or at odds with Trump’s desires,” they also remarked.

Monday proved to show some of this internal angst when the Republican establishment found themselves at odds after a dizzying “week of President Donald Trump bulldozing through the norms of policy and protocol - dashing off executive orders without warning,” .with the policy towards Mexico and the border wall and the travel ban.

They have been either not consulted, or under consulted on matters of policy and polity, and felt as the Tribune reported, “failing to fully engage on drafting tough legislative packages. Like tax reform and health care, and bypassing Congress.” Indeed some have found the new refugee and visa policy to be “too much, signaling the first  major rift in their already fraught partnership.”

Forging his own path, Trump risks alienating the GOP establishment as they struggle to maintain parity with their roles. And, even party stalwarts such as Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona have said, “it’s unacceptable,” of Trump’s recent actions, and Congress was even forced to acquiesce to his plans to support his assertion that Mexico would pay for the border wall.

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who the president has said is “writing his heart out,” may be wondering in what direction can the president and his closest advisors be reigned in to avoid the fallout from the travel ban. Even before the election, Ryan wondered aloud, said many, if his agenda of free trade and low taxes, “combined with a focus on slowing the growth of the country’s debt by remaking entitlement programs like Medicare and repealing the Affordable Care Act, could be actionable, reported The Wall Street Journal..

In the new normal that, is now Washington, that  may be an even larger problem.

DeVos fumbles before Senate confirmation commitee

Betsy DeVos

When Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Education Secretary appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Tuesday her appearance was more a victory for partisanship, and a boost for those advocating school choice, using vouchers, than a significant part of the vetting process. Like many features of the now familiar Republican playbook, privatization, ranks high, and the selection of DeVos represents a strong move in that direction

For the 59-year-old Michigan philanthropist, the role of school vouchers seems to represent the road not taken, in a decades old battle. And, by all accounts she has earnestly, some might say desperately, sought this, and made it her main endeavor; and who by all accounts, in her native Michigan, proved to be a thorn in the side of then Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, who championed for the preservation of neighborhood schools, over the zealots of charter schools.

With her vast wealth and influence, and marriage to Richard DeVos, the heir to the Amway Corporation fortune, and as the sister of Blackwater founder Erik Prince, she is not without the financial muscle to try and have things her way, or that of the far right wing of American politics.

She also comes with a familial commitment to donating to conservative, some might say reactionary, organizations. As Mother Jones magazine reported: “The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation gave $275,000 to Focus on the Family from 1999 to 2001 but hasn’t donated since; it gave an additional $35,760 to the group’s Michigan and D.C. affiliates from 2001 to 2010. The Prince Foundation donated $5.2 million to Focus on the Family and $275,000 to its Michigan affiliate from 2001 to 2014.”

The foundation also gave “$6.1 million to the Family Research Council, which has fought against same-sex marriage and anti-bullying programs — and is listed as an “anti-LGBT hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The FRC used to be a division of Focus on the Family before it became an independent nonprofit, with Dobson serving on its board, in 1992.”

DeVos faced a lot of questions regarding these donations, by Democratic senators, in an attempt to determine how much they would affect her performance as secretary of education, should she be confirmed.  But, they lacked those documents (some say the hearing was rushed through by supporters) from the Office of Government Ethics who could make determinations where potential conflicts of interest might lie.

She was well prepared to answer these questions, however, but fudged when asked by Sen. Margaret Hassan about associations with her mother's foundational efforts to champion ultra conservative causes, and claimed, “she has nothing to do with the contributions made by her mother’s foundation, the Prince Foundation (formerly known as the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation). DeVos said that her immediate family — presumably meaning her husband and children — had nothing to do with the financing of anti-gay causes and groups and that she has never supported “conversion therapy” for gay people.”

DeVos claimed that she was not on the board of her mother’s foundation when these donations were made. Yet reporter Jeremy Scahill did some investigation, upon hearing this and said, “When I heard that, I pulled up the 990 tax documents of the Prince Foundation, which I investigated for my book “Blackwater.” Betsy DeVos was clearly listed as a vice president of the foundation’s board, along with her brother Erik, for many years, at least until 2014. DeVos was a vice president during the precise period Hassan was referring to. I then began a tweet storm about this lie.”

Despite this evidence, she claimed, disingenuously, “That was a clerical error. I can assure you I have never made decisions on my mother’s behalf on her foundation’s board.” Hearing that I I could not help feeling that maybe pigs could really fly..

By all accounts, her finances and donations aside, she was far less informed, on education issues, than many would have expected, even from someone who is not, nor has been, a professional educator. She stumbled on a question from Sen. Patty Murray regarding the federal statute for disabled students, and hit the wall when Sen. Al Franken asked about baseline measurements for the success of all schools, and attempted to regain from her fumble with an incoherent line regarding the measurement of school success.

For LGBT students she again, seemed to not understand the difference between equality and conversion therapy - now banned in several states, most recently in Illinois.But, all this aside, what is alarming is that a nominee for a cabinet level position,, has become emblematic of a political movement that wants to use publicly funded vouchers for private and charter schools. A move, as critics note, with the the eventual diminishment, some might even say disembowelment, of free public education, a hallmark of what has made the United States great, and what immigrants sought almost immediately upon their arrival.

It’s important to note that by the the middle of the 20th century public education had evolved from the early part of the century, where education was completed, for men, with eighth grade as the end point; till the 1940s and 50s when high school education had increased the average age of completion, and correspondingly an increase in social capital.

The politicization of schools is nothing new these last two decades but has taken on an urgency for many from the statehouse to the courthouse, and everything in between. DeVos’ organization, the American Federation for Children, published a recent poll, that it publicized as news, but even a casual inspection, showed that it was not an independent poll, but one of their own,  moving into the area of fake news.

"Parents no longer believe that a one-size-fits-all model of learning meets the needs of every child," she said. "And they know other options exist, whether magnet, virtual, charter, home, faith-based or any other combination,” DeVos noted as part of her three hour testimony.

As National Public Radio noted in their coverage: “The problem, say DeVos' critics, is her faith in the free market, and that she thinks parents should be able to use public-school dollars to pay for alternatives outside the system.” They quoted the following exchange, albeit humorous, in one manner.

Murray: "Can you commit to us tonight that you will not work to privatize public schools or cut a single penny from public education?"

DeVos: "Senator, thanks for that question. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with you to talk about how we address the needs of all parents and all students. And we acknowledge today that not all schools are working for the students that are assigned to them. And I'm hopeful that we can work together to find common ground and ways that we can solve those issues and empower parents to make choices on behalf of their children that are right for them."

Murray: "I take that as not being willing to commit to not privatizing public schools or cutting money from education."

DeVos: "I guess I wouldn't characterize it in that way."

Murray: "Well," she said, laughing, "okay."

As the Dems raised substantial objections, and questioned her on some basic issues in modern public education, she stumbled even further. As CNN reported, “During a question and answer with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, DeVos declined to answer whether she believed in applying the same standards to public, charter and private schools.”

"I support accountability," DeVos said four times. When asked directly if she was declined to answer the question, DeVos simply said: "I support accountability."

DeVos who is a member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a church that believes that homosexuality is "a condition of disordered sexuality that reflects the brokenness of our sinful world.” With such ultra-conservative views on human sexuality, it’s hard to see how she would be able to support protections for legal remedies to protect those students, especially anti-bullying laws, and the above conversion therapy bans..

In a response to a question by Sen. Al Franken whether she still believed in conversion therapy she said, that she “believes in equality,” despite her role as vice-president on her mother’s board, that gave money in support of it.

She has support from the chair, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who hamstrung the Democrats by limiting questions to only five minutes, an effort some said was to avoid scrutiny, a move that anyone could see was purely a partisan block.

He asked DeVos if, as secretary, she would try to push them [vouchers] onto states despite their loss in the most recent bipartisan education law.. Her answer:? "No. I would hope I could convince you all of the merit of that in maybe some future legislation, but certainly not any kind of mandate from within the department." This coy exchange between she and Alexander raises all sorts of red flags for the future.

Another supporter is Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who said, since she is not part of the education establishment that makes her an ideal candidate: "Honestly, I believe that today that's one of the most important qualifications you could have for this job," he said.

Vouchers in and of themselves, over the last twenty-five years have shown far less than they promised both in test scores, where neighborhood scores far exceed those of charters and choice. In fact, "There's a common pattern," says Douglas Harris, a professor of economics at Tulane University who has long studied charters and choice in Louisiana and nationally. On Michigan's experiments, (80% of their schools are charters) he says, DeVos has advocated for ideas that have a poor record. "The best case scenario is that they don't work. And the worst case scenario is they're actually worse than the alternatives."

As he told NPR in December, “Detroit, where many charters have greatly under-performed. As an economist, Harris says he generally thinks choice and free markets are good things. But he says DeVos' advocacy record shows she prefers an unbridled approach to choice, with limited or no oversight. He calls such an approach a triumph "of ideology over evidence."

“On vouchers, Harris points to the data: A large study his research center conducted shows that students who got vouchers in Louisiana's statewide program saw their test scores drop 8 to 16 percentile points. Michigan doesn't have vouchers – despite efforts by DeVos to create them.”

In some cities charters and vouchers have shown some success but with regulation; which Michigan does not have, unlike Boston and New York.

Chicago’s teachers union president Karen Lewis is against DeVos as a nominee, and most teachers unions bemoan the loss of money to traditional schools that vouchers and charters can do; and this drain further erodes their efforts, and the schools themselves.

Some of these efforts have been in the form of Social Impact Bonds, a relatively new form of privatization, where big banks fund education and in turn get up to “double the money that the service costs to run. This is a shake-down scheme that is parading as ‘innovation’, ‘ethical investment’ and ‘accountability’. Rahm Emanuel has been an early adopter in Chicago.” notes Saltman.

Finally, with regard to test scores, local columnist Ben Joravsky wrote in 2013: “There are 541 elementary schools in Chicago. Based on the composite ISAT scores for 2011—the last full set available—none of the top ten are charters. None of the top 20, 30, or 40 either.”

University of Massachusetts professor Ken Saltman says that the push towards charters results in “rich investors and businessmen skimming  resources out of the schools”, as De Vos and her family have done. But, he also points out that it is not vouchers alone, but also for-profit schools to scholarship tax credits that are the problem. The results are “educational inequality benefitting the rich and punishing everyone else.”

Repeal Obamacare without a plan? Not so fast, say some in the GOP

 President-elect Donald J. Trump is learning one important thing about presidential governance, even before his inauguration this Friday: it is vastly different than campaigning. And, when it comes to keeping his campaign promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, he is learning that there is no easy path, despite telling the Washington Post, late Saturday night, that he has a plan that is “all but finished” and that he wants “insurance for everybody.”

Anxious GOP Senators such as Susan Collins are urging a “go slow” approach to ensure that the party does not get blamed for any failings. She has said, “"We just want to make sure that we get it right.” Of course, the big debate after a nearly 60 year old attempt by several presidents, to come even this close to health coverage, (universal coverage aside), is in and of itself a big question. Critics say Republicans had six years to work with the Obama administration, and refused, so why now the rush?

It would be far better to have a detailed framework of what replacement is going to include as we are moving toward repealing;” Collins says, and that “one of the problems with Obamacare is that it was rushed through without input from Republicans for the most part, and we realize that insurance markets are complicated. And we don't want people to fall through the cracks.”

Along with four other senators, .when “asked whether the amendment signaled that Republicans were increasingly less concerned about overhauling Obamacare on the most expedient timeline, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, another author of the amendment, pushed back,” reported CNN.

"My gosh. If you're going to say we're going to fly to the moon but we're going to do it in March instead of next week, would you still feel it's pretty urgent?" Cassidy said. "You'd say, oh my gosh, we've got to get to work!"

Despite the cautious optimism, Trump intends to push it through, and in his usual bellicose way, just short of his normal platitudes of “amazing,” has told the Post, “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon.”

“The Congress can’t get cold feet because the people will not let that happen,” Trump said during his interview with The Post.

What is missing from this non politician, now president, is how he plans on getting the votes and courting any Democrats to come along with the defeat of President Obama’s signature legacy. “I think we will get approval. I won’t tell you how, but we will get approval. You see what’s happened in the House in recent weeks,” Trump said

When the new Congress was sworn in last week, two things were done: the repeal with the Senate and House approval and, secondly, a budget resolution to remove the funding mandates, this gutting the legislation. Some Democratic lawmakers have said they have never seen the Republican controlled Congress move this fast, on anything.

Of the deepest concern are what happens to the 20 million people that have received coverage and what plan can replace it? Even more, vexing, are holding the more popular parts of the legislation, no lack of coverage for preexisting conditions,and an extension of coverage - till the age of 26 - for young people on their parents policies.

If Trump conceives a plan of his own without Congressional input, new challenges will be had, along with some sleepless nights, for House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell who are under pressure to knit a coalition of divergent views from other party members.

Ryan has said, “We don’t want to pull the rug out from anybody, we don’t want people to be caught with nothing.”

Meanwhile Vice-president elect Mike Pence, has said, that anything from Trump would “ensure that there is an orderly transition during the period after we repeal Obamacare to a market-based health care economy in America.”

Trump has said that drug prices would be negotiated with manufacturers to ensure fiscal affordability, yet with no details, one wonders how he could instantaneously achieve this without congressional input, on a matter that has been debated for over thirty years. Of course, it is not impossible, our neighbors to the north, in Canada, have done it for decades. But, in America it has been anathema and seen, by many, as the path to  pure socialism.

Nothing will be done, or announced, until the confirmation of the nominee for the Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price, although it is not clear why the wait, and what his role will be. “It's all about the confirmation," and. "Nobody's looking past that date,” said a Trump transition official to CNN.

Keeping to a timetable will be paramount as Trump plays to his base supporters who are expecting to see some action, not only on healthcare, but also the border wall with Mexico.

Remembering that Obama’s “law took more than 14 months of debate and hundreds of hearings. To urge lawmakers on, Trump plans to attend a congressional Republican retreat in Philadelphia this month,” according to CNN.

Leading medical groups, and even many conservative health policy experts and leading physician groups, including the American Medical Association, are also asking the GOP to not roll back the law without first developing an alternative.

While much misinformation on the ACA has been promulgated, primarily by GOP critics, the benefits that nearly 20 million people have received have too often been ignored, or distorted by its critics. One claim even had physicians making less than $4.00 per hour, due to premium increases.

Sen. Collins

“Some states have over a hundred percent increase.” in premiums, said Trump in his first news conference last week. That statement, however, was an exaggeration, and reflects a misunderstanding of a fundamental part of the ACA. In truth, state-by-state datum show a weighted average increases in range from 1.3 percent in Rhode Island to a high of 71 percent in Oklahoma. The most common plans on the health exchanges will see an average increase of 9 percent, before repeal,according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In an interview with The Detroit News, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who was among the first Republican governors to expand Medicaid coverage through the law said his state was a national model of what could have been achieved.

If all else fails then the marching order from Trump are to blame the Democrats so that the law will “fall of its own weight.”

Democrats, in turn, have responded that Republicans “seek to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans -- creating chaos for our entire community, said a warning Charles Schumer, the senate majority leader (D-N.Y.).

On Tuesday, Huffington Report  showed that “The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report on the likely effects of a Republican effort to repeal Obamacare immediately but keep some elements of the coverage expansion in place for two years”

They note that “The numbers are staggering and suggest the GOP will find it difficult to keep its promise of an “orderly transition,” unless they deviate significantly from a prototype repeal bill they passed last year.”

The plan is for Republicans to stick closely to the repeal legislation that they crafted in 2015 and sent to President Obama, a year ago, which he, in turn vetoed. That bill deleted the unpopular insurance mandate that required Americans to have health insurance to pay a fine. It also “rolled back federal aid for Medicaid; scrapped federal insurance subsidies for low-and moderate-income consumers; and eliminated a Medicare surtax on high income households and other taxes on medical device makers and health insurance companies that dfo toward funding the law,” said The Chicago Tribune.

“Within the first year, the CBO predicts, 18 million people would lose insurance. In addition, premiums for people buying coverage on their own would increase, on average, by 20 to 25 percent relative to what they would be if the Affordable Care Act remained in place,” said Huff Po.

Speaker Ryan

Response from the GOP leadership was swift and condemning: “This projection is meaningless, as it takes into account no measures to replace the law nor actions that the incoming administration will take to revitalize the individual market that has been decimated by Obamacare,” AshLee Strong, spokesperson for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), said on Tuesday.”

Additionally, 32 million more Americans would be without health insurance, and even more so without the mandates and the federal subsidies, were delays to be held. Also, if repeal and delay is seen, “the COB estimates that premiums would eventually increase by 50 percent. But that’s only in the first year. By 2026, the CBO predicts, premiums would double, clarified Huff Po from their previous report.

The war of words and campaign rhetoric are making life uncomfortable for the GOP when Candidate Trump promised “something terrific,”:to replace Obama’s signature legislation. But, there will be even more words if “repeal and delay” is their move. One of them might be impeachment.

President Trump: U.S. liberals ask, "Will he or won't he?"

Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions

In less than two weeks Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, and the fears and concerns of progressives and liberals has come bobbing to the surface, no longer the post-mortem of the election, but instead a new mantra of what will Trump do, and when will he do it?

Across the country many have expressed these fears in political meetings, especially by Democratic lawmakers, both state and federal; and a recent meeting in Chicago gave verbal assent to a determination that the things that matter most, some might call them the marquee objections, immigration, women’s rights, LGBT rights, social security, and healthcare would remain unchanged,and fought for.

At this meeting, more of a pep rally, where a mostly white, standing room only, crowd gathered, on a friigd day, the mood was cheerfully aggresive, determined.to not see an “undercut in democracy” happen with Donald Trump as president.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, (D-Chicago), in her address, listed not only the major concerns, but, also assured those concerned, that marriage equality is “OK in Illinois,” and that there would be a continued commitment to human rights as seen in the recent legislative ban on conversion therapy for gays and lesbains, as well as the successful attempt that the specter of “those horrific bathrooms bills,” died a legislative death.

Continuing in the vein of LGBTQ rights, she also noted that access to identity documentation for transgender people was, and would be essential, as she summarily reassured those in the gay community fearing a reversal of their legislative gains by Trump, and his cabinet.

Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) reminded those present that the old maxim “all politics is local” is still  true now, more than ever, and that local efforts to both supply and enforce efforts from the Republican playbook are well at hand. She warned of the danger of such seemingly innocuous organizations such as the Illinois Policy Institute that received funding from the notoriously conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

“Republicans will hold 33 governors’ offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislatures in 25 states - their most since 1952”, according to the Associated Press. This new GOP dominance is being exhibited in ways that are well financed, and after years of pent up fury, Republicans, finally see daylight, with Trump’s election, to move their agenda to the legislative forefront,especially in the first 100 days of his administration.

With their control of Congress as well as the White House, the GOP is set “to reshape state law affecting workplaces, classrooms, courtrooms and more during 2017.” The key components’ limiting abortions, lawsuits, trade unions, cuts to business taxes and regulations, and expanding government rights and school choice.”

On the near horizon are right-to-work laws, where Missouri is poised to become the 27th state to prohibit mandatory union dues.  “The move, of course, is a deliberate and concerted attempt to undercut the financial muscle of the unions, and defund the support that unions have given to the Democrats.

“Really, the sky's kind of the limit,” said Sean Lansing, chief operating officer at Americans for Prosperity, the conservative group bankrolled partly by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. “It's really the best opportunity in quite some time to accomplish a lot of big ticket items — not just in one or two states, but in five, 10 or 15,” noted the report.

Despite the demise of the Clinton presidency, Democrats did make some gains, especially with the defeat of Republican North Carolina Gov. Pat. McCrory, plus wins in both Nevada and New Mexico; but in all three states the GOP still controls at least one branch of government. And, while the Democrats in such strongholds as California and New York made a vigorous vow to fight the Trump juggernaut, there is also resignation by some.

“Oh, it's going to happen,” said Senate Minority Leader Gina Walsh, a retired union laborer who is president of the Missouri State Building and Construction Trades Council. “I'm not willing to lay down on it yet, but I'm also a realist.”  Walsh is responding to the situation in Missouri, where “term-limited Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon previously vetoed a right-to-work measure passed by the Republican-led Legislature. But he's being replaced Jan. 9 by Republican Gov.-elect Eric Greitens, who promised to sign a right-to-work law.”

One agenda item absent from the Chicago meeting was school choice, especially in a city whose public school system faces a $1 billion shortfall, and is dependent on a recalcitrant Republican governor who won’t work with the Democratically controlled legislature to pass a budget, unless his “turnaround agenda” (consisting of union busting measures), is agreed upon; which has resulted in Illinois not having a budget for 18 months.

While Steans made mention of the financial challenges that state universities face, she missed the growing threat to public schools, and the growing power of school choice advocates. They support the use of public tax dollars to pay for private school tuition, plus the expansion of charter and magnet schools.

Critics like Ken Salman, of the University of Massachusetts, and formerly a professor at Chicago’s DePaul University, feels that this is a lead towards privatization that “results in rich investors skimming resource out of the schools. This takes a number of forms from non-profit charter schools to vouchers, to scholarship tax credits,” he said in an interview with Chicago News. He also claims that ultimately privatization is an “aim to destroy free universal public education.”

Trump pledged during the campaign to spend $20 billion during his first year in office to help states expand school choice programs, and he now wants states to divert an additional $110 billion of their own education budgets toward the cause. His pick for education secretary is Betsy DeVos, chairwoman of the school choice advocacy group American Federation for Children, whose near rabid championship of vouchers made her a sustained, and vocal, critic of Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, when she was in office.

Predictions for the workplace show that change is ripe, including the expansion of E-verify to avoid American firms from hiring those without legal permission to work in the United states. And, while there has been some blowback from employers saying that they are already meeting reporting standards, the pressure to do more will be there.

Another union busting measure is to have the National Labor Relations Board rescind the 2014 rule that shortens the time between when a union files for election, from the time when it is actually held. Currently, the objection is that it “makes it easier for unions to organize because employers have less time to present their arguments against union representation.”

Going even further is the the expansion of the definition of joint employer to insure that these companies be held liable for labor law violations by their subcontractors, and they be brought to the bargaining table, should these subcontractors unionize. The 2015 Browning-Ferris decision said that a company could be a joint employer it it exerts ‘indirect control over workers or “reverses” control even if it does not exercise it. Currently under appeal in the D.C Circuit court, it could be walkbacked by Trump with the stroke of his pen.

Much of these changes are coming as the result of the Clinton defeat, but it’s also necessary to also see how, (Putin’s spying and lack of concerted attention on rust belts states aside) how the Democrats are now in a defensive posture. The political reality is that while they have won the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections, since 2010, they have lost thousands of the so called “down-ballot” races; “congressional seats, governor’s mansions, state legislative districts and local offices that from a kind of bench for a political party,” reported USA Today.

At the Chicago meeting Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, had the crowd whipped into a partisan frenzy of applause, and amens, as she thundered the liberal gospel, especially when she as a “nasty woman” (Trump’s label of Hillary as she beat him in debate after debate) rhetorically told him, “Don’t make America sick again!”

Trump, like others on the campaign trail, said that dismantling “brick by brick” Obamacare was a day one priority and yet despite the headlines and the legions of Republicans marching in the Capitol to meetings, to do just so, have been met with the challenge that they have nothing to replace it with, now facing the wrath of 20 million people who have benefited from the often misunderstood law that mandated health care for all Americans.

While the exchanges and subsidies have gained insurees, there have been fallbacks from some insurers trimming benefits, in the face of competition. Yet, the numbers of enrollees keep growing.

“More than 2.1 million Americans — including 68,192 Illinoisans — selected health insurance plans through the Obamacare exchange since open enrollment began Nov. 1, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced,” last month.

“In Illinois, that's up nearly 1,400 over the same time last year, and nationally, that's about 97,000 more compared with November 2015”, reported the Chicago Tribune.

While Illinois residents get health coverage through their employers or government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but in 2015, “more than 300,000 bought insurance through the Obamacare exchange, and about three-fourths of them received federal tax credits to help offset the cost of premiums,” noted the Tribune.

Nationwide most of the recipients are many of the people who voted for Trump, and low-income whites have been the chief beneficiaries. Yet, neither the President-elect nor the Vice President-elect Mike Pence have offered any details about the repeal plan, a campaign promise that might have them falling on their own sword, say their Democratic critics.

Recently, Reince Priebus has said that Trump does not plan to cut Social Security or Medicare: "I don't think President-elect Trump wants to meddle with Medicare or Social Security," Priebus said on CBS's "Face The Nation."  And, last year,  candidate Trump said, “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” Trump told the Daily Signal last year.

What might be at stake is a change in Medicaid structure changing it from the current open plan to one of block grants. Former National Economic Council director Gene B. Sperling wrote Sunday in a New York Times op-ed, "if Democrats focus too much of their attention on Medicare, they may inadvertently assist the quieter war on Medicaid—one that could deny health benefits to millions of children, seniors, working families, and people with disabilities."

"Neither Mr. Trump nor Senate Republicans may have the stomach to fully own the political risks of Medicare privatization," he continued. "But not only have Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Tom Price, Mr. Trump's choice for secretary of health and human services, made proposals to deeply cut Medicaid through arbitrary block grants or 'per capita caps,' during the campaign, Mr. Trump has also proposed block grants."

With an uncertain future, progressive liberals and their supporters will have more to fight than they thought.