R.J. Eskow

Run Venezuela? Trump can’t even run the United States

Read it in the news:

“Economic Confidence Drops to 17-Month Low”
Gallup, December 4, 2025“Satisfaction with U.S. healthcare costs is the lowest Gallup has recorded … since 2001.”
Gallup, December 15, 2025
“ACA credits expire, leading to sharp rise in health insurance premiums.”
—WANF TV Atlanta, January 1, 2026
“We’re going to run (Venezuela) until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.”
—Donald Trump, January 3, 2026

The commentary pretty much writes itself. As surely as night follow day, the Trump Administration was bound to do something to distract Americans from their well-founded economic fears—especially from a health cost crisis Trump’s party just made vastly worse. And all that Venezuelan oil looks mighty attractive from an oligarch’s perspective.

But “run Venezuela”? Shouldn’t they do a better job running this country first? Let’s start with healthcare. The Affordable Care Act is what programmers used to call a “kludge”; it’s a Rube Goldberg contraption whose goal is to mitigate the pain caused by America’s so-called healthcare “system.” America’s healthcare crisis can’t truly be fixed until the profit motive is removed.

Nevertheless, the ACA has provided at least some healthcare coverage to millions of people. That’s better than nothing—much better. The premium tax credits are a wealth transfer from the public to the private sector. But without them—and with no other system in place—millions of people will soon face disastrous monthly premium hikes. If they don’t pay them—and many won’t be able to afford it—they’ll face financial ruin if they become sick or injured.

We can recognize the flawed nature of the ACA and still see that these Republican cuts are inhumane and indefensible.

“We can’t afford it,” the Republicans argue. But that raises the obvious question: If not, then how can we afford to “run Venezuela”? Besides, they’ve got work to do right here.

Sure, the economy is doing pretty well—for the investor class. But even that limited success is hanging by a thread. It’s driven by an AI bubble that will almost certainly burst, wreaking economic havoc when it does. Meanwhile, millions of households are struggling with the cost of living.

More than 43 million Americans live in poverty, including one child in seven.

The housing shortage is causing widespread pain as homes become increasingly unaffordable for most workers.

The labor outlook is “cooling,” as the economists say. But even that doesn’t count the most critical element of the job market, which is the ability to find jobs that actually pay a living wage.

Young people are especially hard-hit.

“Energy affordability” is a growing crisis, too. The average American household paid $124 per month more on its utility bill in the first nine months of 2025 and rates are still rising, with no end in sight.

Oh, and the New START treaty will expire in a few weeks, leaving the world with no meaningful limits on the possibility of a new nuclear arms race.

Nuclear catastrophe? It’s not impossible. Doesn’t that warrant some attention from this country’s leaders?

You get the idea. With all these problems to solve, our leaders have decided the right thing to do is—invade Venezuela. That won’t be an easy ride. It’s a country of 28 million people and its terrain that includes jungles, deserts, and mountains.

With all these disasters at home, it’s a safe bet we’re not wanted in Venezuela for our management expertise. In fact, most Venezuelans don’t want us there at all.

Most Venezuelans think the US is only doing it “because of the oil”

The question, translated: “Do you believe that a potential military invasion against Venezuela would aim to overthrow the president in order to seize the oil, or do you think it would be to combat drug trafficking?” The headline: “90% believe that an invasion would aim to overthrow Maduro because of the oil.”

To be fair, we are only doing it because of the oil. Mostly, anyway.

Most Americans don’t want us in Venezuela, either.

In fact, most Americans are sick of our government’s seemingly endless addiction to foreign military adventurism.

And yet, here we are.

This is a desperate resource grab by Trump and the other overseers of this dying economic system. It’s also an obvious and deliberate distraction from the many problems here in the United States. And we all know they’re doing it for their benefit, not ours.

Like the saying goes: it’s all about the grift. But at what price for the rest of us?

Major Pushback Against Attacks on the Sensible Expansion of Social Security

The long knives have been coming out over Social Security lately.

Keep reading...Show less

Congressional Republicans Propose Another Immoral Budget, Targeting Safety Nets

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with a Congressional Republican on fiscal matters, but it's hard to argue with a recent statement from Rep. Rob Woodall of the House Budget Committee. "A budget is a moral document," said the Georgia Republican. "It talks about where your values are."

That's certainly true. So what are we to make of this year's House and Senate Republican budgets? They harm seniors, use the disabled as pawns, punish the needy, pamper the wealthy, and employ deceit - all to promote a selfish agenda for the wealthy and powerful.

There's a lot to say about these two proposals, but for now we'll restrict ourselves to two important subjects: Social Security and Medicare.

False Alarms

On Social Security, both the House and Senate documents mislead readers about the state of the program's finances. "(I)t is irresponsible to ignore the looming insolvency in Social Security," says the House GOP plan. "The Social Security program is on a track to bankruptcy," says the Senate proposal, adding: "The deficits will increase the publicly held debt while depleting the Social Security trust fund."

These statements are false and alarmist. The Social Security Trust Fund currently holds $2.8 trillion in assets, in the form of legally binding debt from the US Treasury. (And a word to conservatives: don't tell us that this debt is comprised of "just IOUs" - not unless you're prepared to say that your own Treasury bonds are "just IOUs" too.)

Under current projections, and with no changes to the program, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until the mid-2030s. Even then it will be able to pay three-quarters of benefits, since it will continue to collect revenue every year. That is neither "insolvency" nor "bankruptcy" as those words are commonly understood.

To add an extra frisson of panic, the Republicans continue to oppose rebalancing the retirement and disability trust funds to ensure that disabled Americans continue to receive full benefits. That adjustment, which Congresses led by both parties have made eleven times in the past, is quite minor. But the Republicans are eager to provoke a needless crisis to promote their agenda, even if it means using the disabled as pawns.

A "moral document," indeed.

Here's another fact these GOP budgets conveniently fail to mention: That future shortfall is easily remedied through such measures as lifting the "payroll tax cap" for high and extremely high earners, imposing a financial transaction tax on Wall Street, and increasing the average American's payroll tax by literally a few dollars a month.

Polls show that these solutions are popular with voters. In fact, large majorities of Republicans, as well as Democrats and independents, support using a tax-the-rich approach to fund an expansion of Social Security benefits. That makes sense, since growing wealth inequality and the collapse of other retirement vehicles has left most Americans facing financial insecurity in their retirement.

The Bipartisan Shuffle

Having raised their false alarms, the Republicans are surprisingly diffident about following them to their logical conclusion: benefit cuts. No wonder - the idea is enormously unpopular with voters. Instead of pitching that, Republicans take a page from the "Grand Bargain" and "bipartisan" talk of years past.

"Truly what's needed is a long-term solution to the problems facing Social Security," says the House document. "One such proposal would be a bipartisan commission that would be required to study the structural deficiencies within the current Social Security system and report back with specific legislative proposals for Congress and the President to consider."

The Senate document echoes that sentiment. Senate Republicans say their plan "allows the President and congressional leaders to begin a bipartisan, bicameral discussion to protect Social Security, prevent a massive increase in publicly held debt(note: Social Security law is forbidden by law from contributing to Federal deficits), and avoid ... across-the-board Social Security benefit cuts ..."

The House budget says, "Our budget calls for a bipartisan path forward in addressing the long-term structural problems within Social Security." (Emphasis ours.)

Well, of course it does. No politician in their right mind, not even a Republican one, would want their party associated with such widely unpopular policies. That's why Republicans, as well as Democrats who are economically conservative on this issue, are so fond of the word "bipartisan."

"Bipartisanship" is the Washington equivalent of those Agatha Christie novels where all the suspects commit the murder in the hope than none of them will be found guilty.

They're Ba-a-a-ck...

Bipartisanship was the watchword of the "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," commonly known as the "Simpson Bowles commission." While the commission deadlocked and failed to issue a proposal, the "Simpson Bowles proposal" released by its co-chairs became the outline of several failed attempts at a "Grand Bargain."

There appears to be some nostalgia for those talks among Republicans on the Hill. In discussing sequestration (mandatory government spending caps), Sen. Lindsay Graham said this last week: "I would generate some revenue by capping deductions in the tax code if Democrats help me make some small entitlement changes that buy it back...a mini Simpson-Bowles."

Beware, Democrats. Congressional Dems like Rep. Chris Van Hollen, now seeking Sen. Barbara Mikulski's Senate seat, are already paying a political price for their past support of Simpson Bowles. Van Hollen has, in fact, just come out in support of Social Security expansion.

For his part, President Obama appears to be in less of a mood to play along with "Grand Bargain" talk than in years past. But Social Security remains at great risk when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Democratic president has already displayed a willingness to propose Social Security cuts of his own.

Undoing Medicare

When it comes to Medicare, Senate Republicans were more inclined to punt than their House counterparts. The Senate proposal promises to match the President's projected Medicare savings of more than $400 billion - but it doesn't say how they plan to do that. Senate Republicans would dismantle a key element of the President's cost containment mechanism. But when it comes tor replacing it they're vague, proposing "congressional committees (that will) work with beneficiaries and other stakeholders on the best ways to save the system and stave off insolvency."

The House proposal repeats the Republicans' extremist plan to dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing with a voucher system that would fail to cover the cost of private insurance. Even the GOP admits that, at least tacitly, when they describe it as a "premium support system."

There's also this: "... (T)his system would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage."

Sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? That's somewhat ironic, since Republican proposals would dismantle the Affordable Care Act without offering a viable replacement.

A Question of Values

We haven't even discussed the jury-rigged numbers yet, or the false fiscal assertions - and Mike Enzi, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is an accountant. Contrary to GOP assertions, these documents wouldn't balance the budget. What they would do is plunge the United States into an austerity-triggered recession reminiscent of Greece.

But for all the deception and evasion which permeates these documents, one thing comes through clearly: the Republicans have no interest in the well-being of seniors or the disabled. Theirs is an anti-tax agenda for the wealthy, and an anti-social contract agenda for everyone else.

Rep. Woodall is right. A budget is a moral document which "talks about where your values are." These documents don't paint a pretty picture.
 

Bill de Blasio Is a Progressive Leader on Education and Poverty

Progressives who are elected to executive office have a unique opportunity to highlight neglected issues and stimulate much-needed debate, by taking actions which challenge the "conventional wisdom." They can change the political landscape by employing a principle that might be called "leadership by example."

Keep reading...Show less

When Will the Media Learn? Conservatives Are NOT “Centrists”!

That word. They used it again this week. In coverage of the new, tentative budget deal, the term “centrist” was used to describe political opinions that are far from the center of public opinion. Even as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray were finalizing the deal, Roll Callwas reporting that “Three Blue Dog Democrats and three Republicans from the centrist Tuesday Group have co-signed a letter … with a simple message: They’re ready to work together” to pass whatever Ryan and Murray agree upon.

Keep reading...Show less

Goodbye, Liberty! 10 Ways Americans Are No Longer Free

Our most fundamental rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are under assault. But the adversary is Big Wealth, not Big Government as conservatives like to claim. Consider:

Keep reading...Show less
BRAND NEW STORIES
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.