Trump’s Plan to Eliminate the Federal Income Tax: Why would any Sane Person Support It?

Former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has recently floated the idea of eliminating the federal income tax. At first glance, this could be seen as a popular plan. I don’t know anyone who enjoys paying income taxes. Nevertheless, sensible people know that we have to pay our bills, as families and as a nation. The federal government annually receives $2.4 trillion dollars from the collection of personal income taxes, about half of the government’s budget. Common sense reminds us that if you cut your income in half, you must increase your money intake in some other way. Trump claims the funding shortfall could be made up with tariffs on imported goods (see below). Government leaders, including prominent Republicans, have repudiated Trump’s plan while others have suggested that Trump was just “kidding”. Trump responded in his recent interview with Joe Rogan on Friday that he was quite serious about his plan.

It is important for us to remember that during Trump’s presidency (2017-2021), the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars, the largest increase in our country’s history! His idea of raising money by 10-20% tariffs on foreign goods is also quite flawed. Foreign companies and countries would not pay a penny to the U.S. government. The tariffs would be a “sales tax” paid for by U.S. importers who would pass on the higher costs to U.S. consumers! In addition, other countries might retaliate and impose their own tariffs on U.S. products, and thereby hurting companies in our nation.

His plan to implement massive deportation of immigrants is inhumane at a moral level. It is also economical lunacy. Many immigrants work for lower than a minimal wage. If they are deported, labor costs would dramatically increase, especially in the fields of construction, agriculture, and food services. Inflation would skyrocket.

23 winners of the Nobel prize for economics recently wrote a letter to the U.S. public in which they stated, “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump.”

We must also remember that many of his businesses (like Trump University) have failed. He has declared bankruptcy multiple times. He has also been found guilty of cheating on his payment of state and federal taxes.

Given this massive quantity of evidence, why would anyone of sound mind trust Trump with our nation’s economy? There might be some reasons for voting for Trump (although his lying, womanizing, felonies, racism, bullying, etc., disqualify him according to my conscience), his economic strategy is horrible,

What to Watch for in the Great Debate: Trump and Harris on the Economy

The great debate takes place tonight. What should we look for? Among the many important issues, I suggest we pay close attention to the economy.

Trump, of course, has a record to run on. How successful was our economy during his four-year administration as president (2017-2021)? Although he claims it was the “greatest the world has ever seen”, the facts tell a different story. During his presidency, the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars (U.S. Treasury Department). This was the largest debt increase in a four-year presidential term in our country’s history! (Caveat: The debt rose $9.1 trillion under Obama, but that occurred over his eight years as president, in contrast with Trump’s four years.) Trump’s large deficit was mostly due to his huge tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy citizens in our midst. He claimed that tax revenue would show an amazing growth due to a boom in the economy. Of course, he was wrong. The debt increase was similar to indulgent parents who buy their children expensive gifts…and buy them with a credit card. Sooner or later, someone has to pay. In this case, it is the U.S. taxpayer.

If this truth is acknowledged, it is difficult to understand why sane voters would trust Trump on the economy. Let’s look at tariffs. Trump has promised, “We will become a tariff nation”. Tariffs are usually applied on products from foreign nations in order to financially punish those countries, by raising prices and, therefore, reducing sales of those products. Trump has claimed that these tariffs will not increase inflation for U.S. consumers. This is illogical! If retail companies in the United States import products that have higher prices due to tariffs, they will pass on that increase to consumers. Even the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal acknowledges this truth: Higher tariffs, by definition, lead to higher inflation.

Where does Vice-President Harris stand on the economy? Usually sitting vice-presidents are not held accountable for the successes and/or failures of the president. A question arises. Tonight will she “own” the Biden-Harris economy? On the one hand, coming out of the Covid pandemic, the U.S. economy is the “envy” of all the major capitalist nations when evaluated on criteria of jobs, inflation, GDP, etc. On the other hand, many middle-class people don’t “feel” good about their family finances. Housing costs are up. Gasoline prices are up. Grocery prices are up around 22% over the last couple of years. Harris needs to enact policies that will offer relief for the middle class. She has promised that first-time home buyers will be able to obtain up to a $25,000 tax credit for that purchase. This is a very popular policy, especially with undecided younger voters. But how will she pay for this policy? Will she, like Trump, increase the national debt? She says that she will pay for her policies, by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Most middle-class people won’t pay even a penny more in income taxes. I would like to see some clear figures tonight to back up her promises.

In a previous presidential race, the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” became popular. Economic issues determine elections. Who do I trust with our economy? It is not Trump.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 3)

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973 essentially legalized abortions across the country, especially during the first two trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was not much difference on abortion in the Republican and Democrat parties. There were many pro-choice and pro-life advocates in both parties. That changed in the 1980s beginning with the Reagan presidency. Republican presidential candidates promised, that if elected, they would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. Pro-lifers, especially evangelicals, became a major constituency of the Republican Party. In contrast, the Democrats became staunchly pro-choice. For over four decades abortion has been one of the most important political issues. Many people are “single-issue” voters and are, therefore, a “safe, solid voting block” for their respective parties. These “single-issue” voters seldom criticize their own party on other issues, even when criticism is warranted. In my opinion, these voters are naively allowing failed policies and character flaws to go unchecked.

During his presidency, Trump appointed three judges to the Supreme Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett). In their Senate hearings, they affirmed that they would accept Roe as settled legal precedent and, as a result, hardly anyone across the political landscape thought Roe would be overturned. Nevertheless, these judges broke their promises, and joined the other conservative justices in overturning Roe through the Dobbs decision in 2022. This action returned the abortion issue to every state. Since then, seven states have put abortion on the ballot. In each of these states, the pro-choice position has won, including in conservative “red” states like Kansas and Ohio. (Democrats affirm that their pro-choice position turned the expected Republican “red wave” into a “trickle” in the 2022 midterm elections.) In other places, state legislatures enacted laws regarding abortion access and/or restrictions (for example, no abortions after six weeks, or exceptions like rape, incest, or the life of the mother).

These actions have spurred political activism by Democrats and Republicans. Some politicians, from both sides, have made campaign promises that they would bring federal legislation to Congress (either abortion access or abortion restriction, respectively). There are so many hoops to go through, that a nationwide access or restriction bill is quite unlikely to be implemented. For example, it would need 60 votes in the Senate, and there are neither 60 pro-choice nor 60 pro-life senators.

Abortion will be voted on at the state level. In the upcoming elections in November, at least five states (including Nevada and Florida) have constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot. If passed, they would enshrine abortion rights into their state constitutions. In at least five additional states, including Arizona, similar proposals are in the pipeline and will probably make the ballot. It is likely that the pro-choice position will win in most of these states. Nevertheless, it is an open question to what extent this will help the Democrat presidential, senate, and congressional candidates in their particular races. This depends on the number of Republicans who are, in fact, pro-choice voters.

I encourage all my readers to be alert during this election season. Lies will be flying all around. Let’s use our best discerning skills. Vote well…vote wisely.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 4) The facts don’t support his claims about the 2020 election being stolen

For the last four years, former president Trump has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. He claimed that he actually won the election, but irregularities in key battleground states cheated him out of his victory. In addition, he has required that Republicans who want his endorsement in state elections must agree with him, that is, they must also become “election deniers”. The official results revealed that Biden won the electoral college 306 to Trump’s 232 electors. Biden won the crucial battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fact #1 – As was his legal right, Trump appealed the election results in courts across the country. Frequently, these courts were headed up by judges that Trump himself had appointed. Trump lost every appeal!

Fact #2 – When he was president, Trump picked William Barr to be his Attorney General. Throughout his presidency Barr consistently favored Trump in every legal decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not agree with Trump about the 2020 election results. After investigating the results in the key states, Barr concluded, “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Fact #3 – The most important example comes from the state of Georgia. Although usually a Republican state, elections have been more competitive in the last decade. The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the official in charge of overseeing the election, (and a conservative Republican with an impeccable reputation) announced that Biden won the election in Georgia. Republicans demanded a recount. Raffensperger implemented a hand recount/audit of the 5 million votes that were cast, and the recount confirmed that Biden had won. On January 2, 2021, Trump telephoned Raffensperger and pressured him to overturn the election. Trump begged, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Not only did Raffensperger refused to become complicit in Trump’s crime, he had taped the phone call as evidence. The transcript of the phone call as well as the tape itself are available online for everyone to see and hear.

The 2020 election was not stolen by the Democrats. Trump’s phone call demonstrates that, in fact, Trump tried to steal the election, but was caught red-handed.

Dear MAGA readers, if you value the truth, do not spread Trump’s lie about a stolen election. Have the courage and integrity to face the facts. Trump lost.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 3) The facts won’t allow us to believe his comments about crime

President Biden’s announcement yesterday that he will no longer run for re-election and his endorsement of Kamala Harris is rightfully shaking up the race for the White House. I will analyze this historical event later this week. Meanwhile, I will continue my series of the unbelievable Trump.

Crime – On my blog last week, I brought facts to bear on former president Trump’s promises on the border and the budget. Today, let’s compare Trump’s affirmations about violent crime in the United States with the facts. Trump, like most opposition candidates, describes the contemporary situation in the worst possible ways. He stated that the country is “awash in bloodshed and violent crime” and that “our crime rate is going up while crime statistics all over the world are going down”. According to Trump, violent crime has increased under the Biden administration, and this is due to Biden’s “failed” policies. The truth is quite different.

Fact #1 – Violent crime actually increased during Trump’s administration and has decreased during Biden’s. In fact, the largest recent annual increase in the murder rate took place in 2020 (Trump’s last year in office, not under Biden’s watch). In that year, murders rose by almost 30% and assaults by more than 10% (Source: FBI). During the first two years of Biden’s presidency, murders fell by 7%, and in 2023 by 13%, now approaching pre-Covid levels.

Immigrants and Crime – It is a sad fact of our national history that immigrants have frequently been scapegoated, that is, blamed for the ills of society that they did not commit. This has happened to the Irish, the Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, and many other immigrants. It was easy for white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants to blame newcomers to our country, especially if they were people of color or if they practiced a different religion.

Trump has continued this practice of scapegoating. He began his first campaign in 2015 claiming, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Trump has continued his anti-immigrant rants for over nine years. And now, he bolsters his lies about increased crime, by accusing foreign governments of emptying their jails and insane asylums and sending these “bad apples” to our southern border. Many MAGA supporters believe these lies, but they shouldn’t.

Fact #2 – Foreign born immigrants have a much lower crime rate than U.S. citizens. There is parallel data such as when undocumented immigration plummeted in 2020, murders rose by 30%. Nevertheless, there are numerous studies that back up my affirmation. I refer my readers to the book “Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock” by Kubrin and Ousey for an analysis of these studies. Common sense must also be considered. Why would undocumented immigrants, after risking their lives to travel to and cross over the border and put down roots in a new country, then expose their families and themselves to deportation, by committing violent crime?

As always, I encourage all my readers, especially my MAGA friends, to check out these figures for themselves to see if Trump is telling the truth or lying. In tomorrow’s post, I will shine the light on Trump’s ad nauseum claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump is Unbelievable! The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the border and the budget

Biden and Trump both have records to run on… or to hide from. God has given each of us a brain and a conscience to evaluate their actions as a former or current president. I will analyze Biden’s record in upcoming posts, but in my writings today and tomorrow, I will address Trump’s promises and practice in two areas: the Border and the Budget.

The Border

Ever since his escalator descent when he began his first presidential campaign in 2015, the southern border has been one of Trump’s principal issues. A major thrust of his solution to the “immigration crisis” was his promise to build a wall along the two-thousand-mile border between Mexico and the United States. In fact, the phrase “Build the wall… Build the wall” became the standard chant at MAGA rallies. Last night, Trump promised that he would complete the wall, although he had already “finished most of it”.

Fact # 1 – During his previous four-year presidential administration, Trump built a whopping 52 miles of new wall (according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report). He had the full authority of the White House and a Republican controlled Congress, yet he only constructed fifty-two miles of new wall. We should evaluate people, and especially presidential candidates, by their “fruits”, that is, by their actions (or in this case, inaction). Given this fact, it is incredible that anyone would believe Trump’s words about the border.

Fact # 2 – Earlier this year, the conservative Republican Senator James Lankford was the main author of a tough immigration bill in the Senate. It included everything that Republicans wanted in immigration legislation. Republicans were in favor of the bill… until they weren’t. What happened? Trump urged Republican officials to vote against the legislation. Trump did not want to solve the “immigration crisis”; he wanted the crisis to continue as a political issue for his campaign. This was pure hypocrisy.

In my post tomorrow, I will analyze Trump’s promises about the budget and the national debt. Meanwhile, seek the truth, follow the truth, live the truth. Do not believe lies, whoever they come from.

The Supreme Court and Total Audacity

The Supreme Court and Total Immunity

When Donald Trump made his claim for the total immunity of presidents, I thought it was an outrageous attempt by a guilty, out-of-touch liar making a last-ditch effort to avoid serious criminal convictions in the courts of Georgia, D.C., and Florida. I still believe that. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling last Monday was even more outrageous. It essentially declared that all U.S. presidents are above the law, transforming the presidency into a monarchy.

SCOTUS tried to make a distinction between official, governmental acts (for which the president would be immune) and private, personal actions (for which the president could be criminally liable). At a superficial level, this sounds reasonable, but it is fraught with problems. Almost any action, if it involves any part of the governmental apparatus, can be declared official and, therefore, provide grounds for immunity.

Weaponizing the Federal Government – In the last decade, both Republicans and Democrats have accused the other side of utilizing the instruments of the government (The Department of Justice, the IRS, etc.) to take down political opponents. The prosecution of Hunter Biden and the current charges against Trump are examples of this alleged weaponization. Nevertheless, under the new SCOTUS ruling, if a sitting president gave the order to the DOJ, that act could be an official governmental action and, therefore, the president would be immune.

Trump – Applying the SCOTUS ruling to the cases against Trump, he would probably be declared immune from the charges leveled against him for his actions/inactions regarding the insurrection of January 6, 2021. He could be declared immune from charges for the mishandling of secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. He would probably be immune from the charge of overturning the election results (eg. phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger) and so on.

Historical Precedent – This SCOTUS ruling goes against all examples in our U.S. history. The founders of our country and the signers of our Constitution had just fought a long war to break free from the “total immunity” of a king. They gave no hint that a president would be “above the law”. They knew that power can lead to corruption and that absolute power “corrupts absolutely”, and therefore they put restrictions and limits on the presidency. Former president Nixon would be provided immunity for his Watergate crime under this ruling.

Crazy Audacity – Trump made another crazy claim. He stated that he made his appeal to the Supreme Court not merely for his own protection, but also to protect Obama and Biden from criminal prosecution. It is tragic when people believe such self-serving lies. No president is above the law. Not Obama. Not Biden. Not Trump.

Biden had a bad debate…Trump lied all night and didn’t answer the questions

Last night’s presidential debate was painful to watch. President Biden did not have a good night. His voice was hoarse, and he stumbled over some of his words. At times, he didn’t finish his train of thought, and at one point he ended an incoherent section with “We beat Medicare”. Even when he was defending some of his successful policies, he was not very persuasive. As the night wore on, Biden got a little better, but the damage was done.

Former president Truimp was more polished. He seemed more restrained than usual, but he also had a bad night. He told a litany of lies that are factually false: migrants commit more crimes than others, he won the 2020 election, and that Biden favors “post-birth abortions”. He refused to answer questions about what he would do regarding climate change, opioid addiction, child care, and the war in Ukraine, even when the commentators repeated their questions two or three times. He did not offer any policy proposals.

Many Americans do not like the two major choices of Biden and Trump. Influential Democrat leaders are urging Biden to step aside to allow someone else to become their party’s nominee. Some governors (like California’s Gavin Newsome) would be stronger than Biden and would shake up the race. If Biden really wants his party to win, he should consider this option.

A Latin American Journal Worth Reading

The Spring issue of our Journal of Latin American Theology is hot off the press! Since 2006 we have published two issues per year, but this issue is one of the very best. It has some excellent articles, book and film reviews and theopoetry.

One of my heroes in Latin American history has been Bartolome de las Casas. He denounced the immoral conquest of the Americas that used Christianity as a pretext. As a bishop, he became the Defender of the Indigenous. He urged Christians to preach the gospel with their lives and not with hypocritical words. Yet even heroes have their flaws. In his article on De las Casas, Luis Tapia Rubio alerts us to some of those flaws and sketches out a better way for Christianity to interact with society.

Most of us who live in the United States are frustrated by the low level of political discourse in our country. We can learn a lot from how Christians in Latin America interface with their political realities. Peruvian theologian Dario Lopez points out the failures and successes of “evangélicos” and their politics in his article “Anointed to Rule: Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the Public Square”. Milton Mejia analyzes the role of Christians in the reconciliation process in Colombia.

Regarding the complex phenomenon of global immigration, the Brazilian Mariani Xavier shares her insights from the Biblical texts. Fabio Salguero Fagoaga addresses the same issue in light of aporophobia, a disdain for the poor. He urges readers to do something quite radical: actually following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Theologian Valdir Steuernagel urges followers of Jesus to share the whole gospel to all peoples. He suggests many Latin American examples. The two examples of theopoetry explore the suggestive themes of a God who does not “sunset” and submerging ourselves in God’s mystery.

Of course, the journal is available on Amazon and the articles can be downloaded from the ATLA data base.

“Illegal”: From Linguistics to Divine Ethics

There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.

I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.

There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.

There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.