Tag: Politics

An Exhortation from the Word of God for Donald Trump…, and for Us

“Do not think more highly of yourselves than you should.” So wrote the Apostle Paul (Romans 12:3) around 55 AD to the followers of Jesus in the city of Rome. Although most Christians in the first century were poor and without much social power, this was not universally true. Rome was the capital of the Empire, and the Roman Empire was the most powerful empire of its day. It ruled the world with violence, arrogance and pride. Their citizens generally looked down upon their neighbors and considered others to be inferior human beings. It is tragically true that arrogance is contagious and that some of the Christians in Rome had also been infected with this pride. Therefore, the apostle exhorted them to re-evaluate themselves more carefully, more soberly, and more humbly. It shouldn’t be so difficult to acknowledge this pride, personally or nationally, but it is.

The United States is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to equate might with right, or wealth with justice. The Bible frequently points out that wealth and power have been accumulated through violence and oppression (James 2:6). Politicians, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, proclaim that the United States is the best country in the world. This might make us feel good…, but it is not true.  Our European ancestors acquired this land stewarded by indigenous nations through warfare and broken treaties. They wickedly enslaved Africans and became rich off of the labor of the slaves. Waves of immigrants came to out country seeking the “American Dream” and a better life for their children. Some saw their dreams come true, but others were grossly mistreated. In the Mexican American war, we acquired half of Mexico’s territory. Abraham Lincoln denounced this war as most unjust. I could go on and on, but this is enough to reveal some of our national faults.

Donald Trump, soon you will be sworn in as our 47th president. Many will say that you are the most powerful man in the world…and maybe they are right. But do not think more highly of yourself that you should. You also will have to give account to God for your actions. Even presidents must bend the knee before the King of Kings. God does not ask you to enable the rich to become richer. He has other criteria. He told a Jewish king the message “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9). Mr. Trump, I suggest that God will use similar criteria for you.

Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. His victory was decisive even though it was not the landslide that he has claimed. (In fact, his margin of victory was lower than every presidential election since 2000.) As President-elect, he has the legal right to nominate qualified candidates for his Cabinet and other top posts in his administration. The Senate has the responsibility to meet with the candidates and then to “advise and consent”, in effect, to approve or reject each one. The process involves a hearing with the appropriate Senate committee which explores whether the person is qualified (in terms of experience, integrity, judgment) for the position. This is followed by a vote of that committee. If favorable, the nomination is forwarded for a vote by the entire Senate. Many of his nominees are having their committee hearings this week.

Some of Trump’s nominees will sail through this process. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has been nominated to become the next Secretary of State. Although I disagree with some of Rubio’s policies, he is very qualified for the position and will receive bipartisan support. He will probably have more problems with Trump himself (regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine and personality issues) than with Democrats.

A more controversial nominee is Pete Hegseth. Trump named him to become the next Defense Secretary and to supervise the extensive Department of Defense (DOD). This is the largest department of the federal government with some three million employees and an $849 billion budget. His hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee took place on January 14 and was seen live by millions of citizens.

I have some serious questions regarding Hegseth. There are at least three procedural anomalies:

  1. Previous presidents have fully vetted their nominees with the FBI. This has been done to reveal any “skeletons in the closet”. Trump chose to bypass this procedure regarding Hegseth and most of his other nominees. Why?
  2. Most hearings permit two or three rounds of questions by its members. During the Hegseth hearing, only one round was permitted. Why?
  3. In the past, before they have their hearing, nominees have met individually with senators of the appropriate committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to answer specific questions the senators might have. Hegseth chose not to meet with Democrat senators. Why?

In addition, the following are areas that warrant honest, thorough evaluation of Hegseth’s qualifications.

Lack of experience in administering organizations

The DOD has three million employees. Hegseth has never administered an organization with more than a few dozen paid employees. Does he have the management experience to lead the largest department in our federal government? This is not an ideological debate between conservatives and liberals. This is a technical question regarding administrative experience and preparedness.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

In 2017, Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Although he denied it and affirmed that their sexual encounter was consensual, he paid the woman a confidential settlement. She is willing to meet with the Senate committee to confirm her allegation. She should be released from the confidentiality aspect of this settlement so that the truth sees the light of day.

Even his own mother, Penelope Hegseth, accused him of mistreatment of women. She wrote him in an email, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

In the hearing, he was repeatedly asked whether specific allegations of sexual assault (and drunkenness on the job) were true or false. He repeatedly refused to answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. He claimed that these were “anonymous allegations that were part of a smear campaign”. Many of these allegations were not anonymous. Hegseth should have answered. His refusal to respond suggests that he was guilty.

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

In the recent past, Hegseth has frequently affirmed that women should “straight up” not serve in combat. In his hearing, he tried to modify these affirmations without disavowing them completely. He hid behind new affirmations of the military’s lowering of standards in order to meet quotas for women in the military. Women on the committee who have served in the military (including Senator Tammy Duckworth who defeated me in a congressional race back in 2006) refuted his affirmations about the lowering of standards.

There are many additional areas that need honest evaluation. May the nominee provide us with honest responses.

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the people he wants to fill out his Cabinet. This is appropriate because he won the presidential election in November. (His claim of a landslide victory is false. He won 49.81% of the popular vote compared with 48.33% for Kamala Harris, the smallest margin of victory since 2000.) According to our Constitution, the President nominates candidates, and the Senate examines them and then approves or rejects each one, based upon their background, expertise, policies they would pursue, and their moral character. Some of his nominees are well qualified and should sail through the Senate. Nevertheless, other nominees are quite controversial and will probably not get confirmed. Most have not been properly vetted. Some, like Matt Gaetz, will withdraw their nomination or suffer the embarrassment of being rejected by the Republican controlled Senate. One of the most troubling is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who himself was a candidate for president, then threw his support to Trump. As compensation for his “loyalty”, Trump named him to become the Secretary of the powerful, sprawling Health and Human Services Department (HHS). He told RFK to “go wild” on health. Perhaps he is too “wild”. He has received sharp criticisms from at least these three constituencies.

The Medical Community – If he is confirmed, Kennedy would oversee 13 federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RFK is so controversial because he has made many affirmations that are contrary to scientific evidence. For example, he is known as an “anti-vaxxer”, who urges people not to get vaccinated. He has claimed (without proof) that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism. He has just petitioned the FDA, through his lawyer, to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The Salk polio vaccine has protected an estimated twenty million people from getting this dreaded disease. This past Monday, 77 Nobel laureates, from the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics wrote an open letter to the Senate, urging its members to reject the RFK nomination. The letter states that “placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of HHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in health science”.

The Pro-Lifers – Some pro-lifers are realizing that Trump’s support of pro-life issues was largely transactional. He manipulated them and he is not a true believer in their cause. An early indication was the platform of the Republican party. Trump promoted a change in the abortion plank which watered down its wording which had endured for decades. Now, the President-elect has nominated Kennedy to head up HHS. RFK has been pro-choice on abortion, yet he tried to walk that back when he was courting Republican voters. Significant pro-lifers are raising their voice against RFK. For example, former Vice-President Mike Pence wrote, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.” He added, “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as Secretary of Health and Human Services”. (Here I am not weighing in on the morality of abortion; I am just reporting that Pence sees the RFK nomination as a betrayal of the pro-life movement.)

Corn Farmers – RFK has been quite outspoken regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. He denounces that our high consumption of this corn syrup in many food products has been the major factor in childhood obesity and other illnesses. (The medical community largely agrees with RFK on this issue.) In one of his promo videos, he affirmed that high-fructose corn syrup “is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic”. The political controversy swirls around what he might do about corn syrup and how this might negatively affect the jobs of farmers. As Secretary of HHS, he could urge the elimination of farm subsidies for corn production. This would be devastating for rural farmers (rural folk are some of Trump’s most solid supporters). Senators from corn producing states have raised the alarm. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, “I may have to spend a lot of time educating Kennedy about agriculture”.

U.S. Senators, you are responsible for seriously evaluating the experiential and moral fitness of each nominee and their mental judgment. Next week, Kennedy will be meeting with many of you. Please, do your job of serving the citizens by being rigorous in your evaluation of RFK.

When Politics Becomes a Cult

When we think of a cult, we usually focus on a relatively small group of people who are under the “spell” of a manipulative religious leader. Nevertheless, there are moments when political movements and politicians demonstrate cult like tendencies. Hitler had a powerful spell over much of the German population. Dictators frequently have such power over many of their citizens. I recently did a google search for characteristics of cultic leaders which revealed the following traits with brief descriptions in parentheses. I urge you to study these characteristics and evaluate if any current leader comes to mind. If you are under the influence of such a leader, have the courage to break free.

  1. Grandiose idea of who he is (exaggerated self-importance)
  2. Excessive admiration demands (narcissistic cravings)
  3. Exaggerated power sense (rule-breaking confidence)
  4. Boastful about accomplishments (showy self-promotion)
  5. Unlimited success fantasies (delusional aspirations)
  6. Exploiting others financially (financial manipulation)
  7. Hypersensitivity to perception (concerned with image)
  8. Center of attention craving (distracting behavior)
  9. Blind, unquestioned obedience (demanding loyalty)
  10. Arrogant behavior (haughty attitude)
  11. Ignoring others’ needs (selfish disregard)
  12. Best of everything expectation (material superiority)

Defending the Immigrant: Thanksgiving, Father Abraham, and Brother Jesus

The recent election reveals a lot about us in this country. Polls show that immigration was one of the most important issues and that up to half of our population would like to see millions of undocumented immigrants deported. If you are in favor of this massive deportation, I write this brief article with the hope of changing your mind. I appeal to your conscience, your sense of integrity, and if you are a religious person, your understanding of Biblical teaching.

Let’s begin with Thanksgiving. According to our national folklore, the first Thanksgiving took place in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1621. Members of the Wampanoag indigenous people shared food (venison, bass, mussels) with the pilgrims. Whether it occurred exactly in this way is not that important for this post. What is important to remember is that on the eve of the European colonization of the Americas (by the Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and others), these lands were under the stewardship of the indigenous people tribes. Not many Europeans asked the indigenous leaders for “permission” to occupy and settle in the land. In other words, they were “illegal” or “undocumented” immigrants, although they tried to justify their actions by affirming “manifest destiny” or other religious arguments. Others claimed that although their government was wrong, they were individually innocent. Over the next centuries, treaties were made…, and frequently broken. The result was that almost the totality of the land previously under the stewardship of indigenous people was taken by Europeans and their descendants. I am a descendant of those European colonists and a beneficiary of that unjust land takeover. Most of my fellow citizens are in a similar situation. It would be hypocrisy for me to glory in this pursuit of the “American Dream” of my predecessors and to deny other immigrants that same opportunity.

Our national history regarding immigrants has been quite checkered. Protestant immigrants from western or northern nations of Europe have been very privileged. Others, not quite so much. At various times, Italians, Poles, Jews, the Irish, Mexicans, the Chinese, and others have been scapegoated, as if they were the cause of all our country’s ills (as claimed today). Some suffered outright persecution and deportation. Of course, the capture and enslavement of Africans was our nation’s most horrific evil committed against foreigners. If we were honest, we would confess our national sins against immigrants.

Now, let’s turn to the Scriptures. “Father Abraham” is recognized as the founding patriarch of the three great monotheistic religions in our world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. According to the sacred texts, God called Abraham to leave his father’s house to go to a distant land (Genesis 12). He became an immigrant “par excellence”. God told Abe that those who welcomed and blessed him would also receive the Lord’s blessing. Along the way, Abe made many mistakes. (Like some contemporary immigrants, Abe told some lies to save his own skin.) Nevertheless, people in other countries forgave him and blessed him… and Abraham became a blessing to others, just like God had promised.

Some will say that God’s promise to Abraham was quite specific and does not apply to immigrants today. Not true… at least not for those who want to follow the God of the Bible. The Scriptures tell us that all people, including all immigrants, are made in God’s image, and therefore, have immense value. Because immigrants are frequently subject to mistreatment (just like orphans and widows), God defends them and provides them with special protections (Leviticus 25:35, Deuteronomy 14:29, the entire book of Ruth the immigrant, and Malachi 3:5). The Lord Jesus is even more radical in his teaching: “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me… what you have done to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done to me” (Matthew 25:31-46). The way we treat an immigrant is, in fact, how we treat Jesus himself.

How should we treat the millions of undocumented immigrants in our midst? The overwhelming majority of them are working in gainful employment. Our economy, especially the agricultural and construction sectors, needs immigrant labor. It would suffer greatly if millions of immigrants were deported. Undocumented parents would be separated from their children, many of which are U.S. born citizens. A good solution would be to follow the contours of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, carved out by President Reagan and Congress. Let them regularize their legal status, pay a penalty, continue in their jobs, and most importantly, keep their families intact. A good first step would be to increase the pathways for legal immigration.

Let’s do better in the future than we have in the past!

The Matt Gaetz Nomination: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, your Christian Values are at Stake

A week ago, President elect Trump nominated Congressman Matt Gaetz to become the country’s Attorney General. Like other nominations, this process moves to the Senate so that the nominee can either be confirmed or rejected. Usually, the House of Representatives has nothing to do with this confirmation process, but in the Gaetz process, it does. Why? Gaetz is a very controversial nominee for many reasons. He does not have significant experience in prosecution of legal cases, a must for the position of Attorney General. Gaetz was largely responsible for getting rid of previous House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In addition, he was being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for a wide range of allegations: violating sex trafficking laws, sharing inappropriate sexual images on the House floor, using campaign funds for his personal use, and accepting bribes! He has denied committing these crimes. The House Ethics Committee (composed of five Republicans and five Democrats) was moving forward last week to make public the results of their investigation. Trump then nominated Gaetz for the position of Attorney General. Gaetz abruptly resigned his position in the House (which was not required for nominees). He hoped the potentially damaging investigation report would never see the light of day. The current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, now appears on the scene. First, Johnson confirms that, in his position as Speaker of the House, he has no role in the Senate process. Then, he meets with Trump. Johnson then immediately states that the House Ethics Committee’s report should be buried.  

Johnson is very open about his faith in Jesus Christ. That is appropriate. Nevertheless, those of us who claim to believe in Jesus must strive to follow the Lord’s teaching. Jesus claimed to be the Truth and urged his disciples to speak the truth, promote the truth, and live out the truth. Mr. Johnson, by trying to bury the investigation report on the allegations against Gaetz, you are suppressing the truth. If Gaetz is innocent, he will be vindicated. If he is guilty, the Senate needs to know the facts before they vote on his nomination. Leading senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have demanded to see that report. I am a fellow follower of Jesus, and I urge you not to continue your suppression of the facts. Your values as a Christian are at stake.

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,

Last Night’s Debate: Vance Won on Style, Lost on Truth

Last Night’s Debate: Vance Won on Style, Lost on Truth

Last night’s debate between the vice-presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz was generally respectful, almost downright friendly. Vance came across as polished and spoke a lot of content. He partly improved his unfavorable reputation on the campaign trail where, in addition to many other absurd comments, he has falsely accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of eating cats and dogs. Nevertheless, he lost the debate on credibility because he told numerous lies and refused to answer several tough questions. Here are some of the most important:

  1.  When he was asked about what the Trump/Vance administration would do about Obamacare (ACA- Affordable Care Act), Vance falsely affirmed that during his presidency Trump had “saved” Obamacare from crashing under its own weight. That is a lie. Trump tried to kill the ACA, but Senator John McCain blocked Trump in the Senate. In fact, Obamacare has increased in popularity over the years and more citizens are covered by Obamacare than ever before.
  2. Given the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, Vance was asked whether global warming/climate change was a “hoax” as Trump has frequently claimed. Vance would not answer the question directly, although he said climate change was “weird science”. He brazenly lied about the United States being one of the cleanest economies in the world. In fact, the U.S.A. is the third dirtiest economy, after China and India.
  3. Vance continued Trump’s claims that immigrants were the major cause for our increasing crime rates. This is a lie on two counts. First, major crime (murder, robbery, violence) rates have gone down over the last two years. Secondly, study after study have repeatedly shown that immigrants in the United States have lower crime rates that nationals. Scapegoating immigrants without credible evidence to back it up has been a shameful practice in our history… and continues to our times.
  4. Vance argued that our economy during Trump’s presidency was the best in the world. He conveniently omitted that Trump increased our national debt by more than any previous four-year administration. When pressed on the issue, Vance refused to answer the question.
  5. The most important moment in the debate occurred near the end. Walz asked Vance if he acknowledges that, in fact, Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance refused to answer the question. He responded, “I want to concentrate on the future.”

Both candidates (and all humans, for that matter) have their flaws. Both have told lies, big and small. But lies seem to roll off the lips of Vance quite easily. Truth still matters and can still set us free.

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.

Dear Donald and Kamala, You can Run (for President), but You cannot Hide (from Our Questions)

Dear Donald and Kamala,

The conventions are over and you are your respective party’s nominee for president. Nevertheless,  many important questions remain unanswered. I am not a member of the “press”, but I will press each of you with a significant question that my fellow citizens and I want answered.

Donald, what are your positions regarding the issues raised in Project 2025? (Project 2025 is a 922 page strategy document published by the Heritage Foundation and includes many conservative authors who served in your previous administration.) On the one hand, I believe you when you admit that you have not read such a lengthy volume. On the other hand, you are familiar enough with its contents to acknowledge that you think some of its positions are too “extreme” and that you do not agree with them. It would help voters to know your positions on the following recommendations:

  1. Project 2025 recommends cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Do you agree?
  2. It suggests eliminating the Department of Education. If elected, would you eliminate this Department?
  3. It supports enforcing the Comstock Act which prosecutes those who send or receive contraception products. Are you in favor of the Comstock Act?

Kamala, you have made economic promises that would benefit the middle class. For example, you want to make home ownership more affordable, which is a lofty goal. To achieve this, you propose offering a credit of up to $25,000 for first-time home buyers. You also promise to increase the child tax credit (which enjoys broad bipartisan support). Nevertheless, these economic benefits must be paid for. You claim that you can raise enough revenue to pay for these programs by raising taxes on the very rich, those who have an annual income of over $400,000. The wealthy citizens in our country are infamous for being able to avoid paying their tax obligations. They hire expert lawyers who find numerous “loopholes” in our tax system. In fact, they pay a lower percentage of their income than the majority of middle-class citizens. So, Kamala, what would you do, if tax revenues do not meet expectations? Would you renege on your economic promises, or would you increase the national debt? (Trump increased the national debt more in his four-year presidency than any previous four-year administration). Why should we believe that you would not increase the debt?

Donald and Kamala, earn our votes by answering these questions.