Complex Problems: Part 4 – News Versus Propaganda

I regret to inform you that you are being misinformed on a daily basis.

For many years, Americans depended on TV networks, newspapers and radio to bring them the news in an unbiased manner. The news gatherers were mostly graduates of journalism schools that instilled in their students the need to be thorough, objective, and professional. It was during this time that we came to rely upon such journalistic giants as Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley and many more. These people were among the most trusted in the nation.

Even local radio and TV stations were to be trusted as they were bound by the Fairness Doctrine which demanded that, since the stations were operating on public airwaves, they had to operate in the public interest. That meant they needed to tell the truth and clearly separate news from opinion. A failure to do so would result in the suspension of their broadcast license.

Then along came cable TV. Since cable didn’t rely on public airwaves, it was argued that the Fairness Doctrine could not be applied to them. And, at the urging of conservatives and President Reagan, the Federal Communications Commission rescinded the doctrine altogether. That paved the way for Fox News Channel and rightwing radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. They began with news stories with a biased conservative slant. But, over time, they filled their schedules with anti-government lies and rightwing propaganda that evolved into conspiracy theories and fantasies completely untethered to the truth. By contrast, liberal shows never gained traction because they tended to be less hateful, less emotional and focused on presenting the unexciting, often boring, truth.

A couple of decades after the repeal, social media added to the cacophony of lies and deceit to which anyone with a political agenda could add their voice. Indeed, more people now get their news from social media than legacy media. You know, the networks, newspapers and magazines that are, for the most part, staffed by real journalists – the journalists who often risk their lives in war zones to inform you about current events.

Unfortunately, MAGA loyalists spearheaded by Donald J. Trump deemed the journalists’ reports to be fake news. They would have you believe that only partisan pundits, anti-regulation billionaires, couch potatoes and conspiracy theorists can give you the “truth.”

As if that’s not bad enough, most of the legacy media are now owned by 6 corporations managed by multimillionaires and billionaires whose personal greed outweighs the public interest. They continue to slash budgets for their news departments and intercede in editorial decisions, sometimes causing staff to resign in disgust. (The departures of Ann Telnaes and Jennifer Rubin from The Washington Post and Jim Acosta from CNN are the most recent examples of the trend.)

Given the rise of propaganda combined with the ongoing destruction of legacy media, is it any wonder that our population is so misinformed and divided? Indeed, many Americans have tuned out news altogether. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many voters make their choices based almost entirely on emotions and gut feelings rather than facts and evidence.

It certainly does not bode well for our nation’s future that the most frequent questions for search engines following the 2024 presidential election were: Why wasn’t Biden on the ballot? And what is a tariff?

Our nation’s founders believed that an informed citizenry is necessary for our democracy. But given the complexity of today’s society, it’s unlikely to expect most Americans to seek out the truth, to search for trustworthy and reliable news sources. Far too many Americans are more interested in who their favorite celebrity is dating than who is running for office…more interested in a major leaguer’s batting average than in the nation’s latest unemployment statistics.

Finding a potential solution for this problem is daunting.

Our populace is so divided and entrenched in their beliefs, almost certainly there can be no agreement as to which sources to believe and what constitutes the truth. Further, the Republican Party, in particular, has long depended on telling lies, distorting the truth and creating scapegoats to gain power.

One possible solution is for the news industry to police itself. After all, the mass of misinformation and disinformation has not only destroyed media credibility. It is dragging down readership and ratings.

Perhaps all of the major news outlets could agree to clearly identify which stories are factual news and which are opinion. Maybe they could even agree to hold themselves to the long-held journalistic standard of reporting, requiring a news story to be based on multiple credible sources. (It happened before, in the early 1900s, after attention-grabbing headlines and sensational stories were blamed for the beginning of the Spanish-American War.) Or the maybe the major news media could create an elected board of news editors given the power to hold all news outlets accountable.

Failing that, the only other possible way out of this conundrum is some form of government regulation – to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and enforce it against all news platforms. Of course, that or any other attempt by the government to hold media accountable for telling the truth will immediately be labeled censorship. But there must be a way for the leaders of both political parties to come to terms. If not, I fear that our nearly 250-year-old experiment with democracy will almost certainly fail.

Autocracy? Plutocracy? Corporatocracy? Kleptocracy? Kakistocracy? Or Idiocracy?

Since the Felon-in-Chief took office, we’ve seen all of these words used to describe his new administration. So which one fits?

In fact, they all do.

To wit: An autocracy is defined as a country governed by one person with absolute power. By his own count, Trump has issued more than 300 executive orders (several of them in direct conflict with the Constitution and congressional authority). In doing so, Trump has signaled that he intends to consolidate power in the executive branch. Those orders, if they are allowed to stand, combined with his intent to replace more than ten thousand nonpartisan civil servants with Trump loyalists and last year’s SCOTUS decision giving him immunity for most executive actions, will clearly allow Trump to operate as an autocrat – a king.

A plutocracy is a government ruled by or controlled by the wealthy. Although the description of the United States as a plutocracy is nothing new (scholars have determined that the US could best be described as a plutocracy since 2014), the Trump regime seems determined to expand the power and influence of the wealthy. Trump himself claims to be a billionaire and many of his nominees and appointees are billionaires. Moreover, three of the world’s richest men were front and center at his inauguration. And, he has already created a new department (DOGE) for the world’s richest man. Of course, Trump has clearly stated that he intends to give these people further tax cuts.

A corporatocracy is a government controlled or influenced by business. Certainly, the consolidation of control over entire industries by a few corporations has been underway since the Reagan era. For example, the grain industry is controlled by 4 multinationals. The meat industry is controlled by 4 giant corporations. The packaged food industry is controlled by 10. The pharmaceutical industry is controlled by 3. And the news and entertainment media are controlled by just 6 corporations, most of which have already shown a willingness to ignore Trump’s lies and bow to his wishes. Many of these corporations supported and funded Trump’s campaign. What do they expect in return? Trump has promised to reduce or eliminate many of the corporate regulations intended to protect our citizens and our environment. (Incidentally, you may be interested to learn that Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, once said that fascism could better be described as corporatism.)

A kleptocracy is defined as a government in which its rulers use their positions to steal from the people. Given what we saw during Trump’s first term in office, how could one argue the description won’t apply to this term? Not only did he financially benefit from overcharging his own Secret Service officers for staying in his resorts and hotels, from violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause with his Washington, D.C. hotel, from appointing his family members to positions of power within his administration, and from his son-in-law receiving a $2 billion “investment” from the Saudis. Several of his cabinet members helped themselves to taxpayer funds for private vacations on government planes along with numerous other perks. And, by firing the independent Inspectors General, Trump has made it clear that we should expect even more of this behavior in the future.

A kakistocracy is defined as a nation run by the worst, least qualified or most unscrupulous people. It’s certainly difficult to argue that the incoming administration doesn’t fit that description. Not only is Trump a convicted felon, an indicted conspirator in the January 6 insurrection, the owner of a company convicted of tax fraud, an adjudicated sexual assaulter, and an accused rapist. Many of his nominees have also faced legal problems. And many more are obviously unqualified for their respective positions. Indeed, the only qualification that seems to matter is a willingness to kiss the king’s butt…err…ring.

Finally, as it sounds, an idiocracy is a society run by idiots. I’ll leave it to you to decide if the term now fits the United States.

Sadly, I fear the one definition that will no longer apply is democracy.

The Real Teflon Don.

In the 1980s, John Gotti, the boss of the Gambino family became known as the “Teflon Don.” Though he was indicted for numerous crimes committed as head of America’s most powerful crime syndicate, he repeatedly escaped conviction through jury tampering, juror misconduct and witness intimidation. Until finally, in 1992, he was convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, racketeering and a host of other crimes.

But today, we have a crime boss who has more successfully earned the title of “Teflon Don” – a criminal who has proven to be much more slippery. I’m referring, of course, to Donald J. Trump.

Gotti would be envious of Trump’s ability to escape any real accountability for his crimes. Sure, Trump was convicted of defamation following a sexual assault and sentenced to pay his victim $5 million. In addition, his crime family’s business was found guilty on 17 felony counts including tax fraud and fined $1.6 million. And more than a thousand members of his crime syndicate, aka MAGA, have been convicted or pleaded guilty for participating in an insurrection that cost lives.

But, thus far, he has dodged indictments for inciting the insurrection, for trying to coerce state officials into rigging the outcome of the 2020 election, and for stealing and mishandling highly sensitive classified documents. Moreover, despite being convicted of 34 felony counts for hush money payments to women with whom he had extramarital affairs, unlike his former fixer, he apparently will avoid any prison time or other penalties. And, after receiving a sentence far less severe than a slap on the wrist, he almost certainly will appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court, where it likely will be overturned by the corrupt conservative majority that already has judged him immune for crimes committed while in the White House.

He didn’t have to resort to witness intimidation. His MAGA followers did that for him. And he didn’t’ have to tamper with jurors. One of the federal judges he previously appointed did all the work for him.

More impressively, he was elected to a second term in the Oval Office, even though voters had been informed of his indictments and convictions, his marital infidelity, his alleged rapes and sexual assaults, his close ties to famed pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, his defrauding of the government, his bullying and more.

Soon he will have the power to pardon members of his crime syndicate and preside over a government of nominees, appointees and a congressional majority that mirrors his own self-serving, hateful image.

It has long been said that justice is blind. In the case of Donald J. Trump, it certainly is.

Complex Problems: Part 3 – The National Debt

According to the National Debt Clock, our national debt is currently $36 trillion and counting. That’s because the government is currently spending more than $1.6 trillion than it receives from federal taxes. This is despite the fact that the annual deficit is currently $1 trillion less than when President Biden took office.

Of course, there are many who will say that the way to reduce the debt is to simply cut spending. Others will say that we need to raise taxes to increase revenue. But it’s not that simple. To understand why, you need to look at how we got here.

Since the end of World War II, we have endured two banking crises and 13 recessions. Many of those events resulted in the necessity of corporate bailouts, tax cuts, and increased spending to induce economic recovery. During that time, we have also fought in four costly wars, not including the estimated $26 trillion in today’s dollars spent on defense during the Cold War. More recently, the failed response to the Covid Pandemic resulted in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $1.2 trillion Inflation Recovery Act, which were necessary to stave off a second Great Depression and lower runaway inflation. Without those expenditures, we would have seen unemployment and inflation continue to skyrocket with many millions of Americans in soup lines and/or begging in the streets.

The point is, in a civilized society, there are certain events and economic conditions that require government to outspend its revenue.

Not the least of these are the climate-related disasters that annually cost billions of dollars to help victims and rebuild infrastructure. The National Centers for Environmental Information estimate that over the last five years those costs have totaled $764.9 billion! Do we turn our backs on the Americans ravaged by wildfires, droughts, hailstorms, tornados and hurricane victims to avoid budget deficits? Of course not.

And there are still more issues that have contributed to our debt, including self-inflicted problems such as trade wars, battles over the debt ceiling, and political shutdowns of the government which have cost many billions of dollars.

Taking all of this into consideration, you can see why, in modern times, our government has experienced a budget surplus only once. That was accomplished by the Clinton administration.

Now, you may say that I have overlooked one of the largest contributors to our annual deficits – the rising costs of “entitlements.” Certainly, it is true that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments comprise about 61 percent of the annual federal budget. But before you call for cutbacks to these programs, consider this: In reality, these programs should be entirely separate from the federal budget. That’s because the retired workers who benefit from them have paid for them over a lifetime of work through FICA (the Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

That’s right, these programs are not “entitlements” at all. They are, in fact, insurance – nonprofit retirement insurance for which you pay premiums that are deducted from your paycheck.

Since the founding of the programs, the premiums collected have gone into a trust fund where the money is invested in federal securities. And because these programs are insurance, they should be treated like all other forms of insurance by following the principles of actuarial tables, which match premiums to expenditures. (When the costs of your casualty and accident auto insurance go up, so do your premiums.) Unfortunately, Congress has refused to consistently and equitably raise premiums, which has placed the programs in some degree of jeopardy.

That leads us to the politics of deficits and debt.

Since the Citizens United v FEC decision of 2010, political campaigns are funded in large part by billionaires, lobbying groups, and large corporations. Of course, these groups all expect a return on their investments. For example, despite the impact on our climate caused by the burning of fossil fuels, the fossil fuel industry received more than $1 trillion in subsidies in 2023. Many others have similarly cashed in. And all of these paybacks contribute to the deficit.

Further, politicians love to promise tax cuts even when they know those tax cuts will lead to larger deficits. Perhaps that’s why the highest federal income tax rate has been cut from 91 percent in 1950 to 40.8 percent today. Indeed, we have seen at least five major tax cuts since WWII. And since many of those same politicians like to campaign on a platform of fear – fear of immigrants, fear of other religions, fear of terrorism, and fear of other nations – they routinely vote to increase our defense budget.

The requested Pentagon budget for 2025 is nearly $850 billion dollars. That’s more than the next nine countries combined! And, if you separate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from the annual budget as is justified, it represents roughly 34 percent of the remaining (discretionary) budget. Add another $103.2 billion for Homeland Security, plus $303.8 billion for Veterans Affairs, and you’ll see that we’re spending an incredible amount for defense and the consequences of war – an annual total of more than $1.2 trillion that is nearly equal to our deficit.

And that doesn’t even include the $21 trillion in previous spending that the Pentagon couldn’t account for in a recent audit.

So, where do you cut? How do you raise more revenue? If you’re serious about reducing the debt, you absolutely have to do both. But if you do too much of either, you risk damaging the economy which will further add to the debt.

The planned tax cuts, inflation-inducing tariffs, and mass deportations of undocumented workers certainly isn’t the answer.