Donald Trump's race problem

The recent hurricanes and tornadoes in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico have resulted in great personal and economic damage to the United States, but they have also added to the perception that President Donald Trump is a racist. While Texas and Florida faced equally damaging loss of life and property as did Puerto Rico, it was only Puerto Ricans that were told that they were expecting too much from the federal government and that they needed to do more on their own, an oft repeated phrase from whites towards blacks in their struggle for civil rights during the 1960s.

Unwittingly, or not, the president’s remarks tend to underscore not simply that his sentiments, were not just symptomatic of a white man in his 70’s,  but that he seemed to dismiss the validity of their concerns and anxiety, and, in which, no shape or form, could they do by themselves.

It also gave the president the unenviable position that he was painting himself into a corner. This also had some critics wondering if he even knew that Puerto Rico is a U.S. Possession, and not a foreign country; notwithstanding that they are people of color.

Not helping were the optics that reflected badly on Trump as he threw paper towels to Puerto Ricans in a relief center, as if the master of the plantation had come to throw out - the emphasis on throwing out -- supplies. Even in the minds of the less literally minded American, it seemed that the mythic Southern plantation master would have at least handed out provisions to the slaves.

Lending further damage was his defense: “They had these beautiful, soft towels. Very good towels,” Trump told Mike Huckabee during an interview Saturday with Christian network Trinity Broadcasting.

“And I came in and there was a crowd of a lot of people. And they were screaming and they were loving everything. I was having fun, they were having fun,” he added. “They said, 'Throw 'em to me! Throw 'em to me Mr. President!”

If this were not bad enough, or as the old adage advised, “leave well enough alone,” he further said, “And so, I'm doing some of this,” Trump added, making a throwing motion, “So, the next day they said, 'Oh, it was so disrespectful to the people.' It was just a made-up thing. And also when I walked in the cheering was incredible.”

The only thing that he did not say, or do, was to use the phrase, “You people,” which raises both the ire, and anger, of people of color.

The race optics became even worse with his condemnation of the NFL players protesting the ill-treatment of black men, by some of the nation’s police and by mostly black players, joined with his verbal recommendation to “get that son of a bitch off the field,” if he did not stand for the national anthem.

Circling back to Charlottesville, we get the lion’s share of remarks when he said that there was blame on both sides, as hundreds of white supremacists marched towards a group or bedraggled, mostly University of Virginia undergraduates, protesters, angry about the invasion of their town to support an untenable position.

As National Public Radio reported, “When he was chastised, by member of his staff, and fellow Republicans he backtracked, only later when scheduled to discuss infrastructure, to reverse direction, and return to his original remarks . . . "I think especially in light of the advent of antifa, if you look at what's going on there, you know, you have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also. And essentially that's what I said."

"Now because of what's happened since then, with antifa, [anti-fascist groups] you look at, you know, really what's happened since Charlottesville — a lot of people are saying — in fact, a lot of people have actually written, 'Gee, Trump might have a point,' " the president said. "I said, 'You got some very bad people on the other side also,' which is true."

In response to Trump's new remarks, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C) office put out a statement that said in part: "Rome wasn't built in a day and to expect the President's rhetoric to change based on one 30 minute conversation is unrealistic. Antifa is bad and should be condemned, yes, but white supremacists have been killing and tormenting black Americans for centuries. There is no realistic comparison. Period."

The support, near hero worshipping, that he has gained from white supremacists adds further to the racist label. Even more disturbing were the damaging pictures of the Charlottesville marchers wearing his trademark informal uniform of khaki pants, white golf shirts and red caps emblazoned with the tagline, of his own campaign, “Make America Great Again.”

Matters came to a head when the president fumbled this past week to remember the name of Sgt. La David Johnson, who was killed in a mission in Niger, in a condolence call with his widow, Myeshia Johnson, where he amazingly said, “he knew what he was getting into,” and to make it worse, referred to Johnson, not as her husband, but “your guy,” implying that black couples don’t marry, but simply cohabitate.

Mrs. Johnson

As if this was not enough, when Mrs. Johnson’s Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson, called him out, on these remarks, he sent retired Marine General, and now Chief of Staff, John Kelly, out to shield him from the media attacks. Kelly not only called her liar, but said that Wilson got $20 million dollars for a new FBI building in South Florida; but that event happened when she was not in Congress.

Then he uttered the, by now, infamous “empty barrel” remark about the congresswoman, that demeaned her as a black woman, in power.

There seems to be a long list of those that Trump seems to have a problem with, such as journalist April Ryan, Rep. Maxine Waters, former Ambassador Susan Rice, and television anchor Jemele Harris.

While some like Washington Post reporter Ashley Parker, skirt the issue of race,and focuses on the importance of getting names right, the damage is done, with black and brown people of the United States.

As Salon.com noted, this is not merely one of his more brutish swipes, but an assault, on black women, aided and abetted by Kelly, that coupled with his earlier statements, adds to Trump being labelled a racist.

The only way that the president can go from here, is up, and that seems unlikely as he has not listened to the advice of many, on a variety of subjects; including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, his own team of advisers, or even ranking members of his own party.

Can Alexander-Murray proposal survive Trump ?

In the none too distant past, it was assumed that the Affordable Care Act was doomed, then it seemed to get a life support, of sorts, from the defeat of the Graham-Cassidy bill, and then with the near certain defeat of the proposal by Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray that wanted to provide continued subsidies for insurers with low-income beneficiaries, it was anyone’s guess to what the future held. Then lo and behold, out of the ashes, on Tuesday, appeared a victory for an agreement to do just that, and then nearly a day later news reports from Washington, said that the latter had the support of 24 senators, 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans.

That took some surprise from political pundits, on both sides, quickly followed by condemnation from President Trump who exclaimed loudly that the deal was done, and over with - finito, dead. But, in a blink of an eye, after encouraging the pair he denounced it again, as did other who called it a bailout for the insurance industry -- a full loaded term across the nation, used to condemn school systems in the urban midwest, and in recession America, for car companies, gasping for air.

“President Trump's mixed messaging is increasingly throwing a curveball into negotiations on Capitol Hill, leaving lawmakers struggling to keep up with his changing opinions,” reported The Hill.

They also noted, that “It was just the latest example in what’s become a familiar cycle on Capitol Hill: Senators believe they and Trump are on the same page, only to find out — sometimes hours later and frequently through tweets — that the president has changed his mind.”

Defeating President Obama’s signature legislation became an almost mythic mating call for the GOP and the repeated failures have left Congress and the Trump base in a headlock, of sorts, as no one can see which direction the wind may blow, and how often the president tweets in the wee hours, to add spice, some say madness, to the whole affair of governing.

The Alexander-Murray proposal is to give two years worth of subsidies to insurance companies for their low income beneficiaries to help pay for deductibles, co-pays and other out of pocket costs, and to defray the cost of insuring them.

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), respectively the chairman and the top ranking Democrat of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also against hard opposition, feel that, as the pressure mounts they can pass it by the end of the year, while others are not so optimistic.

Critics note that the proposal, even it becomes law may not undo the damage already done to the the ACA, colloquially known as Obamacare, especially in the light of reduction in advertising by 90 percent, and neighborhood navigators, by nearly one-half; these are trained personnel to help signup new enrollees in public access venues, such as libraries.

“From what I’m hearing on the Alexander-Murray deal, it is good news for insurers and consumers and could mitigate some of the damage done by the Trump administration,” said Emily Gee, a health economist at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in D.C.

“However, this open enrollment still remains an uphill battle. Recent polling reveals there’s a great deal of confusion about the marketplace among current enrollees and potential consumers, much of which has been stirred up by the administration’s campaign against the ACA, and any deal can’t change that overnight,” she said.

That is a huge problem for those responsible for educating the public and for consumers, both new, and former, enrollees to know that they can get health coverage.

In a media briefing on Wednesday, the Kaiser Family Foundation gave the not-so- encouraging results of a poll that showed only 33 percent of potential enrollees in individual market know that open enrollment begins Nov.1, and perhaps the most shocking result, that 30 percent of those polled thought that the individual mandate was not in effect, or did not know that it was.

Of utmost importance for consumers is that insurers are still required to provide

reduced deductibles, and copays for low-income marketplace enrollees; and secondly that while insurers are increasing premiums to offset the loss of payments from the federal government, consumers will mostly be held harmless.

Cost sharing reductions (CSR) - subsidies - are available to eligible individuals in the marketplace with income 100 percent to 250 percent of the federal poverty level: $12,060-$30,150 for individuals in 2018, and  $24,600 to $61,500 for a family of four in 2018.

Nationwide, 57 percent of marketplace enrollees were eligible for CSR in 2017 and in states that did not expand Medicaid, on average two-thirds of marketplace enrollees had CSR in 2017.

Adding to another public misunderstanding is that open enrollment for 2018 will be shorter in most states from November 1 through December 15, 2017 in the Healthcare.gov states; and that it will be 6 weeks, compared to 12 weeks in prior years.

Equally important for consumers is to be aware that state run marketplaces have an option to extend dates, and many have.

Of course, the White House has used this lack of knowledge by the public to their advantage, and perhaps the biggest myth, or misinformation, they have promulgated is that insurers are getting rich on these subsidies, when in fact they are getting reimbursed for monies that they have already paid. Trump, in fact, inflated insurance company stock prices from 2010, and not when the provisions took place, in 2014.

“I am very concerned that the president’s actions have confused people, along with all of the conversation around the attempts to pass the two versions of Trump Care we saw earlier this year,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

Piggybacking onto that are further myths surrounding the exodus from the ACA on the exchanges, in shock and awe to show that the ACA was an abject failure, when in fact, it actually happened because many insurers set premiums too low in anticipation that there would be a much higher level of younger enrollees; subsequently it was mostly sick, or older enrollees that signed up.

The path for the Alexander-Murray bill to become law is paved with good intentions, but faces a perilous path of opposition from people such as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan who wants to obliterate Obamacare, to support from old time GOP leaders such as Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona, to Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who gave the thumbs down to the Graham-Cassidy bill. Of note is that they are now also on the list of co-sponsors .

Getting the bill to the floor is the last battle, and there are some that think that the best chance of success is to attach the proposal to a spending bill  But, for the 18 million Americans who get their health care on the individual market, time is of the essence.

Trump begins savage attack on Obamacare

In a move to shore up his sagging support from a shrinking base, not to mention his own party, President Donald Trump’s latest executive orders to cut subsidies and change the scope of Obamacare, comes as no real surprise to most observers.

Yet this move might just be the one to lend credence to popular wisdom’s most durable saying: the law of unintended consequences. By removing the subsidies for low-income insurees, he is bound to send insurance premiums sky high, and practically upend the market just when it needs stability.

During the early days of this administration, preceded by all of the various efforts to remove health coverage from more than 21 million Americans, it became clear that no matter what was said, or done, the GOP does not care about them, and Thursday’s announcement is no exception.

In a move that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called “sabotage” the order will end key payments for low-income to help pay for such things as co-pays and deductibles, among other out of pocket costs, to implode the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

The effect of skyrocketing premium costs would increase in more areas than previously seen, and while the average increase was 9 percent, at  the top and the bottom ends was Rhode Island with a 1.3 percent increase and a 71 percent for Oklahoma.

Thursdays move will almost certainly, unless there is a Congressional intervention, send these markets tumbling with many companies departing the exchange, as a result.

In 2014 the GOP sued to remove the subsidies, saying that Obama had no constitutional grounds to do so, but with no explicit action from Congress, the judge ruled in favor of the opposition, but the ruling was put on hold.

"Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare. In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments," the White House said in a statement late Thursday night.

Warming to the victory, staffers, most notably was press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who said, "The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system. Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people,"

Partisanship rules the day in Washington, and nowhere is this seem more than in healthcare, especially as Trump erases anything, and everything, that President Obama did, no matter how beneficial. And, what could be of more benefit than healthcare?

With over six years of opportunity the GOP could have worked in a nonpartisanship manner to fix the resulting issues with the ACA, but they refused; now with a president who wants to be more of a bystander, he fashions a base for support that has the potential to jeopardize the health of millions of Americans.

For nearly two years Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray attempted to fund these cost reducing measures with their bipartisan committee, but this effort was put on hold with the recent last ditch effort by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy to kill Obamacare, ended in defeat last month.

Most in Washington are predicting that Trump’s move could presage lawsuits, and in an era of suit, and countersuit, this is not entirely unexpected with this attempt to destabilize the law.

The Congressional Budget Office said in August that “about 1 million additional people would be uninsured in 2018 and insurance companies would raise premium prices by about 20 percent for ObamaCare plans if the payments were cut off,” reported The Hill.

They also noted that “halting the payments would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion through 2026, largely because federal assistance to buy ObamaCare plans rises when premiums do.”

In a related move, Trump also signed an order directing the federal government to move people towards health care pools that he says will help small business compete with large corporations in ensuring that their employees have adequate health care.

Advocating for lower cost, in his eyes, also means for most, the opportunity to have skimpier plans that offer less, such as maternal and mental health care. And, “Because both of these types of plans do not have to follow the same ObamaCare rules, such as minimum benefits standards, experts warn that healthier people could join these cheaper plans and leave only sicker people in ObamaCare plans. That could lead to a spike in premiums for ObamaCare plans or insurers simply dropping out of the market.”

Curiously, the order does not say whether people can join these plans, but it does note that it “will also allow people to use tax-advantaged accounts known as health reimbursement accounts to pay for their premiums.”

“New York's top insurance regulator, Maria Vullo, said Thursday that President Donald Trump's executive order unwinding certain Obamacare regulations would destabilize New York's insurance marketplace,” according to Crain’s New York Business.

“Trump's order, signed Thursday morning, directs federal agencies to consider options to make cheaper, less comprehensive health plans available to more Americans. It offers association health plans as one way to accomplish that goal. The agencies have 60 days to consider proposing regulations, followed by a public comment period, so any changes are not expected to take effect until next year,” they also noted.

Notably, these “plans also are not required to pay for a certain percentage of the total cost of coverage, unlike the products sold to individuals on the marketplaces. These employers are regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and are not subject to many Department of Financial Services’ rules.”

Karen Ignagni, chief executive of EmblemHealth, said while the order could lower prices for younger, healthier consumers, the overall impact on the state’s individual insurance market could be “devastating,” adding that, “If you create an incentive to remove low-risk individuals from pools, it will make costs soar for those who remain.”

There is definitely a tsunami, of sorts, brewing and this effort by Trump to win partisan points will prove to be one more item in what has been, so far, a disastrous presidency.

September Jobs Report shows wage increase

The September Jobs Report offered little to surprise those that expected a job loss due to hurricanes, Maria, Harvey and Irma, but what has given many observers hope is that wages which inched up a bit, may offer more to U.S. paychecks, than has been seen before, to boost the buying power of Americans as they face increasing costs for basic fixed expenses. And, retailers are hoping that the upcoming holiday season, may show a boost, even with online shopping reaching a zenith.

Attributable to the storms, in Florida and Texas, especially, was a 33 percent job loss, mostly in the leisure and hospitality business; but with a steady unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, giving a temporary upset to 83 months of steady job gains.

Mark Hamrick, Bankrate.com senior economic analyst, said “The Wizard of Oz” comes to mind when examining the latest report, specifically the “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” line,” and also  that “Because of the impacts from hurricanes and flooding, the decline reported in September payrolls doesn’t carry weight this time around,” reported The Hill.

If hope springs eternal, then the average hourly growth in wages, of 0.45 percent, with a year on year increase of 2.9 percent, from 2.5 percent, is it. Yet, median wages are still far below those in 2000. But, some economists say that the 0.5 percent increase may stick.

As the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Report noted: “Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.9 percent) and Blacks (7.0 percent) declined in September, but this to could be attributable to the storms.

Labor participation is still low, mostly attributable to baby boomer retirement, and those with disabilities, which prevent them from working; but as in prior months employers on the high end, especially in technical fields feel the pinch due to a loss of qualified workers, while those at the lower end are luring job seekers with incentives. The drawback is that these offer, few, if any, benefits, making them less attractive to those seeking full-time employment, with at least some benefits.

Many millennials are staying in school to get more skills rather than enter into a risky job market, say some market professionals. But, what is worrisome to many, is that those in their peak working years from 25 to 45 years old are not participating. And, nowhere is this more true than for those whose education ended with a high school diploma.

Meanwhile the Feds are seeing an economy that is still heating up, as inflation lurks in the background (preferably at the much sought after 2 percent rate) and comments from Fed Chair Janet Yellen suggest that there may be a December interest rate hike.

To lure those, on the lower end some employers like retail giant Target are offering increases to $11.00 an hour, often topping minimum wage, in certain markets. And, others are offering paid internship as apprenticeships to lure workers, and even referral bonuses to employees that refer friends.

Of major importance are big box retailers, looking to increase sales staff at the holidays, and are willing to offer higher wages, 20 to 40 percent higher, in some cases, to cover the peak holiday season which is less than 90 days away; such as Amazon which will offer $12.00 to $16.00 an hour for temporary help.

Just behind Amazon is Radial an e-commerce company, that has plans to bump its payroll, this holiday season, in all 25 of its warehouses, “We’re hiring 35 percent, or 7,000 more people than we did last year,” says Stefan Weitz, executive corporate vice-president for technical services.  But, again these are on the lower pay scale, providing only temporary relief to rank and file workers.

There is some variance in the numbers from the household survey, especially those from employer reports, with the former stating that there have been 906,000 last month, pushing down the jobless rate to the lowest level seen since February 2001.

Caution should be exerted since this is done with employed people, and not from total job figures, and covers those who would not be seen on national payrolls, such as the self-employed.

While the Great Recession is over, the U.S. economy is still seeking a rebound to pre-recession levels, and while there has been significant growth in the jobs market, it is hamstrung by low end job, mostly part-time, or temporary positions.  And, with high end, or technical, employers still seeking skilled professionals, the results are mixed at best, as has been the case much of this year.

GOP fears deficit holes in Trump tax plan

Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin

Less than two weeks after the release of the proposed tax reform proposal by the Trump administration, there are concerns about its contribution to the deficit, and not by the minority party, but by majority Republicans such as Rep. David Schweikert, of Arizona, the soon to be retired Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina; all of whom seem to see less light, than darkness, on the horizon with what has been proposed.

“The numbers are really uglier than almost anybody around this place seems to have digested,” said Schweikert . . . a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

The Hill, the ultimate inside the beltway publication, reported on Thursday that “The tax plan could cost the government $1.5 trillion in revenue over the next decade, but advocates argue that would be made up for through economic growth unleashed by the corporate and individual tax cuts included in the plan.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said that the tax plan would bring in $2 trillion because of economic growth, which would be enough to actually lower the deficit.

“The running joke in our office is we work in a math-free zone,” said Schweikert, in opposition to that statement.

Moving even closer to the target was Corker, who, has warned he’ll oppose the tax plan if it adds to the deficit. With his soon to be emeritus status, his cautious reprove is not to be taken lightly.

Sanford says he has concerns about economic assumptions underlying the tax plan, and he was quoted as saying:  “Not only are we in the third-longest economic expansion, but you’re presuming we’re going to go the next 10 years without an economic downturn,” he said. “How many people would bet their house or kid’s educational account or whatever else on that? Is that a valid economic projection on which to project a budget?”

Historically, wide sweeping tax reform, especially for the much sought reduction in the corporate tax rate has not been done since the Kennedy administration, although Reagan's 1986 bill did help move the dial, and provided some relief to certain taxpayers.

Under Trump, with the assertions by Mnuchin aside, there are also valid concerns that this is yet another wealth transfer bill, designed to bolster high-earning taxpayers, at the expense of those on the bottom rungs.

Supporting that view is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who commented that the plan “gives away the store to the wealthy while sticking the middle class with the bill.”

The soft underbelly of the plan, for some critics, is the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, but that “change isn't as dramatic as it might seem because due to loopholes and other maneuvers, big U.S. corporations currently pay an effective tax rate of only 18.6%, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

That, however, is only the headline grabber, for liberal progressives, and those to the far left. The other major issue is the removal of the state and local income tax deductions that just happen to not only hit those who itemize, but those on their returns, but also hits cities as well as states that have large Democratic majorities, as well as those that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

The Empire state, and its queen city New York, is an example of how to raise the ire of those long used to something, to only have it taken away.  The benefit allows the average New Yorker to deduct roughly $20,500 annually from his or her federal taxable income, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.”

“The Independent Budget Office has estimated that doing away with the deduction would increase New York City residents' taxable income by $28 billion, causing their collective federal tax bill to rise by $8 billion a year. The state and local deduction especially benefits people with incomes of $100,000 or more who live in places like New York, New Jersey and California, where state, local and property-tax bills are high,” says Crain's New York.”

According to the Tax Foundation only 28 percent of taxpayers take advantage of this specific foundation, most Americans don’t, yet the opposition has rallied.

"There has been a big campaign by municipalities to save the deduction because they don't want folks to realize how large their tax burdens really are," said Nicole Kaeding, an economist at the Tax Foundation. She also said it isn't yet clear if repealing the state and local deduction would result in higher tax burdens for New Yorkers who claim the benefit. It is possible the overall lower rates or the higher standard deduction proposed by the administration could make up for the loss of the deduction. But Kaeding said the Trump tax plan is still too vague to know for sure.”

Much like April’s release, but without the one page memo, the administration's proposals are still short on details, yet a possible taxable income increase is still a bone of contention for higher income filers; maybe not exactly in the 1 percent class, but enough to make it an issue.

Tax Policy Center senior fellow Frank Sammartino estimates the state and local deduction costs the government about $100 billion in annual revenue, so repealing it could help pay for the tax cuts Trump is proposing for businesses.

Many people may fasten on the reduction of seven tax brackets to three, and that simplification may be attractive, especially as it goes from 12, to 25, to 35 percent, and, if tied to inflation, might seem attractive.

Despite some earlier predictions, in January, that the president might delete the mortgage interest deduction, this has been retained.

There are also calls for preserving tax deductions for work and higher education, this might be a nod to the earned income credit, and also the American opportunity tax credit, but again, this is yet to be seen.

Adding further criticism is the move on international taxation that, according to the Tax Foundation “in which foreign-source profits of U.S. companies are not generally subject to U.S. tax upon repatriation. [It] Calls for, but does not specify, a global minimum tax intended to protect the U.S. tax base from cross-border income shifting.”

Easing on down the road is the elimination of capital gains taxes, and preservation of the benefits of 401(k) plans and other defined benefits plans. Trump’s attack on capital gains taxes, specifically its elimination “on estates worth more than $5.4 million . ..  could also represent a significant savings for the president who has claimed his fortune is more than $10 billion,” yet the  latter is hard to prove because he has never released his tax returns.

As has been often stated the elimination of the alternative minimum tax could also help Trump pay less taxes. This tax was created in the 1970s to ”ensure that wealthy Americans pay income taxes regardless of various loopholes or write-offs. He paid more than $31 million in AMT in 2005, according to a copy of a portion of that year's tax return that leaked in March.”

If one carefully traces the pattern of these deductions, then the benefit to the wealthy, and the transfer of tax burdens from low to high, is apparent. And, that is a chief  concern of the Trump proposal, despite the revenue neutral stance that was claimed by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

If the plan, any plan, was to be revenue neutral then it would reduce tax rates and pay for tax reductions by raising revenue in other ways, claims the left-leaning Center for American  Progress, and subsequently scale back tax preferences. But this was not seen in the plan released last month, which is not revenue neutral and has, as we have seen, has the potential to increase the deficit.  

What we have are mostly regressive actions that give benefits to the highest income households, as Pelosi countered.

Added to that are remarks by the CAP who said that, “Those tax cuts could be paired with cuts to programs for working families in the same legislation. Or the resulting budget deficits could be used as leverage to cut those same programs later. The bottom line is that if Congress passes a tax cut for the rich financed by either budget deficits or spending cuts—or uses both pathways for even larger tax cuts—the American people will be left holding the bag.”

Las Vegas: America's latest killing field

It seems almost a regular occurrence, one that it rears its ugly head at least once, even twice a year. Just less than a year ago we witnessed the horror of a massacre of revellers in an Orlando nightclub where partygoers at nightclub were gunned down by a homophobic gunman.

Now, it’s Las Vegas, where the sun seems to never set, and where country music fans were enjoying a fun evening, with friends, and family members, and then the ominous popping sound, and then the screams, the terrified concertgoers fleeing into the night that had earlier held so much promise, a delay until the next workday beckoned them back to their labors.

At first light, “59 people killed, police said, and 527 injured, either by gunfire or in the flight to safety,” as a “A lone gunman perched on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino had smashed the windows of his suite with a hammer, taken aim at a crowd of 22,000 people, and committed one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history. Late Monday, law enforcement officials said they still had no idea what the motive was,” reported the Boston Globe.

According to local police, they found 23 firearms in his suite, in 10 suitcases. Later a search of the shooter’s house, “they discovered an additional 19 firearms and, according to Sheriff Joseph Lombardo of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, “some explosives, and several thousand rounds of ammo.” He added that they also found ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer sometimes used in making bombs, in the gunman’s car.”

This veritable arsenal of guns, easy to obtain, by the shooter a 64-year-old retiree named Stephen Paddock, reveals both intent from a damaged mind, rent by mental illness, and perhaps anger? But, all is conjecture, at this point until more is discovered.

As I noted last July, “The Leviathan seems to be the National Rifle Association, and its powerful lobbyists are ruling the day, but are losing the care that we must embrace as a nation. Many wondered at the deaths of grammar school children at Sandy Hook Elementary, if there would be a change, yet their hearts remained hardened.

On Monday, the NRA website was dark, no comment, no news, an attack on former President Obama, par for the course, and no responses to calls or emails.

President Trump tells us that now is not the time to discuss gun laws, yet that is what me must do, for while the old defense, of “people kill people, not guns,” still holds for many, yet keeping guns out of the hands of those that might kill, and restricting those that don't, seems to be the least thought of, until the next killing.

One unfortunate note: mass murders, while less than general homicide, has increased from 1983 to 2011, from 200 days, to 64 days, now. Even now, as of this writing there is one that is probably being planned.

Acknowledging this American crisis of mass killings, and that gun control, tighter gun laws, and gun show limits are needed, House mInority Leader Nancy Pelosi has sent a letter to Majority Leader Paul Ryan asking him to create a dedicated committee on gun violence to “study and report back common sense legislation to help end this crisis.”

Trump has previously suggested that people have more access to guns to fight back against this type of mass killings, yet his press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders had this to say: “there will be, certainly, time for that policy discussion to take place, but that’s not the place that we’re in at this moment.”

“I think one of the things that we don’t want to do is try to create laws that won’t stop these types of things from happening,” she later added.

Looking at the mental state of the shooter, for many people, it seems that mental health is the stuff of movies and late night television, and not the stuff that reality is made of. In other words, crazy people scripted for the camera, and not real life; as easy to dismiss as leaving a darkened movie theater. But, mental illness is as real, and as palpable, as the days are long, yet we fail to grasp the enormity of these unaddressed problems, and how they can be dealt with.

In a discussion with some of my cohorts, one ventured to say, “Oh, mental illness is too broad of a category to use here, he was just not raised right,” in one incredulous moment, as the TV screen blazed, and the banner crawl gave the latest tally of injuries, and death.

Of course, platitudes are easy to utter, and the earlier mantra, as hackneyed, and as cynical as it sounds, could also be extended to those who insist that any infringement on the right to own arsenal style weapons is also an infringement on the Second Amendment of our Constitution

Rand Richards Cooper, writing for Commonweal said, “And to those who insist that any attempt to limit the types of weapons Americans can carry is an infringement on their constitutional rights, I’d ask, well, then how about a shoulder-fired rocket launcher? How about a bazooka?”

After the memorials are gone, and the headlines changed, we move on as a society, yet the failure to address in a systemic manner that results in carnage, whether it is Omar Mateen, or Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh costs the nation, our moral courage.

The problem before us demands our immediate attention, and despite the NRA’s victories, and their support for the election of Trump, the task ahead to decrease mass killings, or even, on a distant horizon, none at all is imperative, especially in Nevada where no license, no registration and no limits on the purchase of guns, even assault weapons, is allowed.

America has lost a huge part of its moral responsivity on failing to gain an adequate response to address these mass killings, stretching all the way back to Charles Whitman, in 1966, shooting from the clock tower at the University of Texas, to Adam Lanza’s assault on the grammar school at Sandy Hook five years ago.

We need a full-throated approach, not thoughts and prayers, those almost meaningless words that come from public officials to solve this uniquely American dilemma - and one  that encompasses all citizens in a quest for that long sought ideal of the new Jerusalem, the city on the hill.

In the upcoming days we may learn more about  Paddock, we may even find that there was a sudden departure from his general temperament, and personality, that no one could determine, or even imagine.

As I noted last year, If the road ahead, is the one less travelled, then new ideas must be brought to stem the tide, to bear on the challenge that faces America.