PAUL GORDON
When Donald Trump went to Texas to view the devastation left by the flooding a few weeks ago, I was actually convinced by the concern he showed. He spoke in caring tones one would expect from the president and made himself seem human.
Then he went back to Washington, D.C., and became himself again, threatening to revoke the citizenship of Rosie O’Donnell, doing victory laps for the cancellation of Stephen Colbert and demanding two pro sports teams change their nicknames back to the offensive ones they had before.
You know; things with which the president of the most powerful nation on Earth should not concern himself.
Such attempts at distraction from more pressing issues only bring more criticism and disappointment.
As it is we cannot believe much of anything coming from the White House or the GOP or Trump fans when they want to tell us what the Big Ugly Tax Bill will mean for us. For example, that the bill will end taxation on Social Security benefits isn’t quite true.
While the majority of Social Security recipients over age 65 will get a tax reduction of $6,000, it is only scheduled to last through 2028. And it will be less for those earning more than $75,000 a year, or $150,000 for couples.
I look forward to any income tax reduction, of course. But I would take less of a deduction if it meant hungry children would get the food they need. Or if it meant helping those affected by natural disasters, like the floods in Texas. Only heartless seniors would say different; of course, there are plenty of those. Some are in Congress, unless those are simply afraid of Trump.
What’s left for LaHood?
I still am not sure what to think about Darin LaHood. Is he afraid of Trump’s reach into Illinois? If so, why? Now, it is true his district that barely reaches here anymore was redrawn to try and make sure it stays in GOP control, but would another Republican challenge him?
A lot of people would love to ask LaHood about these things but he won’t hold any town hall meetings on his own or appear at any such meetings others plan. His telephone meetings with constituents keeps him from having to look them in the eyes and makes it easier to cut them off. Protestations can be nullified.
LaHood is actually considering running for the U.S. Senate seat that will be open with Dick Durbin’s retirement after the 2026 midterm elections. And his name is even being thrown out as a possible challenger to Gov. JB Pritzker in 2026.
LaHood would, of course, find it a lot different campaigning in one gerrymandered, GOP-strong Congressional district than it would be in a statewide race, where he would face much more Democratic scrutiny and debates.
Who is to blame?
Trying to blame anything but nature for the devastating floods in Texas is ludicrous, but the aftermath is a different story. Interestingly, many Texans aren’t blaming Trump-led agency cuts as you might think.
That’s my take from a brief messenger chat with an old friend of mine who is a photojournalist in San Antonio. He shot much of the devastation and later helped some who are trying to recover.
I asked my friend, Robin Jerstad, if the victims are assigning blame.
“There are a lot of people pointing fingers at state government that has not passed legislation for updates and an early warning system although state coffers have a huge surplus, and state government always seems to have millions for razor wire barriers and blockades along the river,” he said while acknowledging there still would have been lives lost and devastation even with better systems.
He continued, “Search and rescue teams from Mexico were here way before any of the FEMA. Folks here are less than enamored with government to say the least. The visit from the president was significantly unimportant for many of those affected. I was there for three days covering it and when I left I was just numb. The devastation is massive, but the heartbreak is everywhere and has affected everyone involved.”
Such heartbreak can happen anywhere and it probably will, possibly even in these parts as climate changes continue to happen. Now is not the time to be reducing funding for early warning systems.