Trump's truths face the facts

Gordon L. Weil

“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.”

This quote is attributed to many people and liberally advanced as an obvious truth.  But it is not; it is not a fact.

President Trump asserts that he is entitled to his own facts.  He can make a verifiably false assertion as fact, while a contrary, evidenced-based statement is “fake news.” 

Many people in the U.S. and elsewhere defer to him, because he is the powerful president of the most powerful country.  Opposition to his version of truth is overcome by intimidation and the accompanying appeasement.  Trump gains an aura of invincibility when others must accept his version of the truth.

The Washington Post fact checker found 30,573 times when Trump advanced his untruth as a truth during his first term.  He seems not to have slowed down.  In fact, his opinion-as-fact has been working even better than it did the first time around.

Trump backers have taken over the Republican Party.  Politicians in office before Trump arrived are given the choice between aligning themselves with his policies, facing defeat by one his backers in a party primary or retiring.  Loyal Trump backers can expect to keep their seats and hope for appointment by him to higher office.

In his first administration, Trump named competent people to top positions.  But he found they were not sufficiently loyal, relying on their own expertise and experience.   When they refused to follow orders that contradicted practice and sound policy, he fired them.  There was much turnover in that term.

For his second term, he sought loyalty above competence.  It is obvious that he did not want any more frequent turnover.  He has found people whose ambition led them to abandon their own past versions of the truth in favor of his.  The most obvious examples are Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

At the same time, he found cheerleaders, grateful for high office and pleased to support whatever his version of the truth might be, even embellishing it.  Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noam would blatantly lie about the killings of American citizens to justify the actions of personnel of her agency enforcing Trump’s immigration sweeps.

Attorney General Pam Bondi obediently seeks dubious prosecutions of Trump’s opponents and critics, mostly pursuing Democrats. 

Dealing with other countries, Trump could easily exploit America’s superior military and economic power.  Many nations depend on the U.S. for their defense or their export market and appease the president.  They fall in line behind his actions based on his version of the facts, though he often abruptly shifts course.

He has claimed that Greenland’s waters are being patrolled by Russian and Chinese vessels, though there is no evidence of their presence.  He asserts that only U.S. ownership of the island would offer adequate Arctic protection, although over 10,000 American troops had been withdrawn from Greenland without his sending any replacements.

Trump’s peace policy also included invading Venezuela, bombing Iran and sinking boats on the high seas.  He imposed arbitrary and excessive tariffs on world trade for political, not economic, purposes.  Because he went largely unopposed, he deemed his actions acceptable and appropriate.

Finally, he began to face pushback.  Bystander videos of the Minneapolis shootings of immigration enforcement opponents showed that Noam had manufactured false charges about them.  Resistance grew to the killing of people who posed no lethal threat.  He then promised to “de-escalate a little bit.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney forcefully declared his country’s dissent from Trump trade and invasion policies.  Carney’s Davos speech galvanized world opinion.  Trump warned the Prime Minister that Canada is a U.S. dependent.  Then he phoned Carney to hold a civil discussion of mutual concerns.

Still, his sycophants’ lying remained unrelenting.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promptly bragged that Carney had backed off his Davos positions.  He attempted to transform Trump’s call into a political win, not expecting a Carney response. But the Prime Minister immediately confirmed that he had stood his ground with Trump.  Bessent had lied.

Trump’s popularity with American voters, to say nothing of foreign leaders, is declining.  While polls are not entirely accurate and they do not forecast future sentiment, they indicate a trend away from Trump.  Republicans remain strongly loyal, yet some are beginning to put daylight between themselves and the president.

His high opinion of himself may lead Trump to create his own truth.  Much of his political power depends on other people’s willingness to accept his truth.  In Minneapolis, irrefutable evidence overcame self-serving falsehood.   In Davos, his potential retaliation became less menacing than his existing international behavior.

Trump’s truth is failing.  Evidence and nerve are beginning to emerge. What are the consequences for him and the U.S. if his mystique melts?

Social Security war looms

 

Gordon L. Weil

The war over Social Security is on the verge of breaking out.  It will run short of funds to pay for promised benefits in less than 10 years.

Many American leaders intentionally ignore the issue, which may be the most important economic and political challenge before them. They dodge the problem because there are only two solutions – raising taxes or cutting benefits, and both are politically dangerous.  Facing only downsides, politicians push the problem off, making it worse.

Either payroll taxes will have to be raised or retirement and disability payments will have to be cut – or both – to keep the program solvent.  The aging population does not include enough people paying payroll taxes to cover the costs of benefits for current beneficiaries.  Expenses rise, but income either does not rise as fast or might decline.

The Republican textbook answer is that revenues could be increased if Social Security reserves could be invested in the stock market instead of lower interest Treasury debt.  Over time, the financial markets have grown, though during recessions and other economic setbacks, they have faltered.  This proposal has not been endorsed by Congress, but it lives on.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill, known as Trump accounts, “is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.”  Trump accounts give newborns an account of $1,000 with gains used to supplement their education spending when they are 18. 

After he set off immediate alarms, Bessent retreated, claiming that privatization would supplement Social Security, not replace it. Two funds, the original and the add-on, would co-exist.

Trump accounts will come at a cost to taxpayers, and so would a parallel investment fund.  Does Bessent propose taking part of the payroll tax revenues for private investment, thus reducing the reserve for paying benefits that would otherwise flow from the original Social Security?  Would for-profit investment firms handle the add-on funds?

Though not an exact parallel, this proposal sounds like a variation on Medicare Advantage, run by insurers, instead of using original Medicare, operated by the government.  Recent reports suggest that the insurers put profits over health care, and retirees may suffer both physically and financially.

Two senators have proposed creating a separate fund from the Social Security Trust.  Revenues from that new fund would be used to close the gap between traditional benefits and the money available from the Trust.  The new fund could invest in the stock market rather than only in U.S. Treasury debt, as does Social Security.  After 75 years, it would repay its balance to the Trust.

This proposal would require an initial investment to get the new fund into operation so that it could produce enough income to cover the benefit shortfall and to maintain its assets, enabling it to survive for 75 years.  The senators estimate that it would take $1.5 trillion to create the fund, right from the start.  What would be the source of that seed money?

Social Security was originally intended as a retirement supplement to other income and, based on the life expectancy at the time, it was not planned for payments stretching over decades, as they now do.  For many people, it has become their main or entire source of retirement income. In effect, it may have come to be widely, if not openly, considered a national retirement plan.

In the U.S, there is a belief, virtually the Eleventh Commandment, stating: “Thou shall not raise taxes.”  If Social Security must abide by that rule, the only realistic option is to reduce benefits.  That’s what many pre-retirement people accept as inevitable, though they themselves may have failed to save for their later years.

Bessent and others seem to believe that investing in the market will increase returns enough to ensure Social Security will never have a shortfall.  Retirement payments would be hostage to the performance of those making the investments – amounting to an act of blind faith.

Congress has been approving changes that reduce the shortfall by boosting the age to receive full benefits, raising the cap on how much income is subject to the payroll tax and making most of the benefits for higher income people subject to income taxes.  These are all helpful, but not enough to close the gap.

A wide array of other options is available, and it is possible to estimate the effect of each of them on reducing the Social Security shortfall.  You can be the policy maker by using this questionnaire.  Go to the Revenues (or the other tabs) tab and make your choices, and you will see their relative effect. 

Note that diversifying Social Security investments, the Bessent idea, only solves 6% of the problem.  It’s not the solution.

Have fun with the questionnaire.   Members of Congress ought to give it a try.