Commentary by Jerry Lanson

From health care to higher education, scientific research to social policy, the Trump Administration in six short months has propelled this country sharply backwards.

Looking forward, however, the heart of the fight to preserve our democracy will rest on all our ability to expose and reject the increasingly lawless reach of the administration in enforcing its ever-harsher immigration “policies.” That fight will demand determined, unrelenting and united action. After June’s successful No Kings protests, the fight continued Thursday with nationwide rallies named after the “Good Trouble” stirred throughout his lifetime by former Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis.

Donald Trump’s Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) already has proven itself to be ruthless, both in the sweep of its arrests and its tactics. And it is gearing up to be much worse.

Already, ICE agents across the country are arresting far more completely law-abiding individuals than criminals. ICE agents are plucking them from streets, rounding them up at their workplaces, pulling them from immigration courthouses and even from their cars. They do so without warrants and without identifying themselves. With the blessing of an ideologically hard-right Supreme Court super-majority, the agency already has begun deporting some immigrants to distant countries known for torture. ICE also has arrested citizens, sometimes by mistake, sometimes because they allegedly get in the way. And it regularly separates parents from their children, many of whom were born in the United States.

The scale of these actions is about to explode. 

•A New York Times article titled, “ICE Set to Vastly Expand its Reach ...” noted that the budget of ICE will more than triple to $28 billion a year under the new GOP-driven budget law, making it “the highest funded law enforcement agency in the federal government.”

•The agency is set to hire as many as 10,000 new agents across the country. “You’re going to see immigration enforcement on a level you’ve never seen before,” Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, told the NYT.

•The acting director of ICE, in an internal memo obtained by The Washington Post, wrote that ICE may deport thousands of undocumented immigrants to countries other than their country of origin, doing so in as little as six hours after taking them into detention.

•In a separate article, the WaPo on Monday reported that ICE, according to its own internal memo, intends to deny all immigrants who arrived undocumented in the United States the right to a bond hearing. This means that some could remain behind bars for months or years as they fight deportation. The new Republican budget law provides funds for to more than double the number of prison beds for immigrants. 

•Nearly three-quarters of immigrants being detained – 72 percent – have not been convicted of any crime whatsoever Fortune reports. This figure, based on ICE’s own internal documents, continues to grow. 

•The brazenness of ICE operations also continues to escalate. In my hometown of Falmouth, Massachusetts, agents, some masked, took a man away in handcuffs at around 9 a.m. on Friday, July 11, in front of a highly popular and busy coffee shop. They were filmed disregarding requests that they identify themselves. When they took the man away, they left his car running on the street, according to witnesses. Falmouth police said they were not notified in advance.

In San Diego, a 71-year-old U.S. citizen was detained for 8 hours by ICE after she was handcuffed by agents at a federal immigration courthouse she had visited to observe ICE operations, ABC Local 7 News reported. ICE said Barbara Stone pushed an agent, but no charges were filed against her. Her phone was confiscated.

Such horrifying incidents continue to grow in number. The good news is that Americans are noticing. Their views on immigration and on Trump’s policies are now changing rapidly as some activists take specific action to document and slow ICE’s assault on American communities.

A study last week by the venerable Gallup polling organization found that a record-high 79% of Americans now say that immigration “is a good thing” for the country. Furthermore, the poll, taken June 2-26 and based on interviews with more than 1,400 people nationwide, found that only 35% approved of Trump’s immigration policies while 62% disapproved. That’s a remarkable shift from both the weeks before the election and the start of Trump’s term, when slight majorities favored his crackdown on immigrant “criminals.” The Gallup poll showed by far the biggest gap between approval and disapproval since Trump’s term began.

People are speaking out, too – on local government boards, in letters to newspapers, in protests around the country, in telephone calls to their election representatives and at gatherings.

On Tuesday, for example, The Boston Globe ran three letters critical of the ICE’s immigration actions.One ranunder the headline, “We will not be bystanders to ICE’s thuggery.” It started, “A counterforce has begun in communities of faith.”

That counterforce also has led to the formation of community organizations to support and inform immigrants. The newly formed Falmouth Immigrant Resource Coalition hands out cards and brochures in multiple languages to inform immigrants of their rights, prepare families should a loved one be detained, and connect them with longstanding immigrant organizations that can help with legal advice, counseling and more.

Still other organizations are springing up to bear witness to ICE arrests and record them on video. This may become particularly vital as the agency tries to deport immigrants rapidly to countries serving as offshore concentration camps.

Countering an increasingly aggressive, shadowy and well-financed federal agency is taxing and can seem scary. But it also is urgent. Speaking out for the rights of all matters. It takes a bit of courage. But with that courage comes renewed energy and hope.

Stay peaceful. But stand up and be counted by attending rallies like Good Trouble and No Kings.

Lanson’s column first appeared in his Substack, From the Grassroots.

_____
MONDAY 7/21/25

Commentary by Rich Corbett

In his compelling 2024 work Kent State: An American Tragedy, historian Brian VanDeMark revisits one of the darkest chapters of modern American history — the deadly clash between student protesters and National Guardsmen on May 4, 1970. What began as demonstrations against the Vietnam War spiraled into chaos, culminating in the deaths of four students. VanDeMark’s narrative captures both the recklessness of those in the crowd and the grave cost of state force when the line between protest and violence becomes dangerously blurred.

More than half a century later, we’re watching similarly combustible forces simmer in today’s streets. But this time, the hostility is increasingly directed not at a war overseas — but at the very institutions tasked with enforcing the law at home.

Under the Trump administration, federal immigration officers with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) were repeatedly vilified — not for misconduct, but for doing their jobs. Protesters have blocked courthouses, swarmed detention centers, and, in increasingly frequent cases, hurled rocks, bottles, and threats at agents. These are not peaceful protests; they are violent confrontations dressed in the language of social justice.

And yet, as tensions escalate, where is the national outcry? Where is the media scrutiny or the principled calls for de-escalation from elected officials?

Instead, we hear words from Democratic leaders — some in Congress, others behind microphones at rallies—openly invoking “blood in the streets” as a necessary means of resisting perceived injustice. Whether metaphor or malice, such rhetoric is beyond irresponsible. It is the spark that ignites tragedy.

The tragedy at Kent State was not inevitable — but it was predictable, given the rising intensity of demonstrations and the breakdown of order. VanDeMark’s book reminds us that when law enforcement is put into impossible situations — surrounded, demonized, and physically attacked — disaster becomes more likely than not.

President Trump, for all his polarizing traits, took a firm stance in defending law enforcement and securing the border. His administration backed ICE agents with resources, political support, and moral clarity. In a time when mobs chant to abolish ICE, when officers are ambushed, and when cities offer sanctuary to lawbreakers, that stance is not merely defensible — it is essential.

Let Kent State serve as a warning, not a blueprint. America cannot afford to see blood spilled again because we allowed protests to morph into riots, or because political leaders saw chaos as a means to an end.

Words matter. So do the rules of law and order. If we are to preserve this republic, we must reject the violent fringe and support those sworn to protect us — even when their job is unpopular.

Corbett writes about myriad subjects at My Desultory Blog.

_____
MONDAY 7/21/25

One of our contributing pundits of the left comments on Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s column on the right, “Economic Issues or Recalcitrance?” Scroll down this column to find out how you, too, can join the discussion.

No Surprise – Quite the roundup. In other words, a shit show. No surprises there but tell me how a graduate of Penn can fake economics like this. Something in the water at the White House no doubt. – Kate McLeod

•••

How to Comment

Democrats have had to do little more than watch as MAGA splits from President Trump on the issue of release of the Epstein Files. Conservatives who want Attorney Gen. Pam Bondi to release the client list she said five months ago she had on her desk for review believe it will at least reveal connections to Democratic elite and at most prove the conspiracy theory of a global elite sex trafficking.

In last year’s presidential race Trump also promoted the theory that Epstein did not commit suicide while in federal custody but instead was killed by the “deep state.”

Photos of Epstein hanging out with former President Bill Clinton often pop up, but on the left side of social media, so too do photos of Epstein with Trump, from when the future president was a real estate developer.

If you’re on the right side of the political divide, do you think Attorney Gen. Pam Bondi should release everything she has on Epstein? If she refuses to do so, should she step down or be fired?

If you’re on the left side of the political divide, what are your thoughts about the fallout from this apparent split between Trump and the MAGA faithful? 

Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line, irrespective of your position on a specific issue, so that we may post your comments in the proper column.  –Editors

_____
WEDNESDAY 7/16/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Kevin Hassett is the White House National Economic Council Director.

That is a fairly impressive title.

Hassett has a PhD in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, so presumably he knows considerably more than the average person about the subject, which is a good thing given that the purpose of the NEC is to provide advice to the president about economic policy matters, both domestic and international.

Hassett was a guest on ABC New’s This Week on July 13. He was interviewed by Jonathan Karl.

And right off the bat it became clear that Hassett must have missed some history classes.

Karl asked about the president’s announcement of a flurry of tariffs on August 1.

Hassett answered, in part, “the thing about President Trump, if you go back and look at his history, that he became one of the most successful, if not the most successful, businessman in the 20^th century.”

Let’s see. . .

Warren Buffett. Bill Gates. Sam Walton. Andrew Carnegie. John D. Rockefeller.

Donald Trump?

Then there’s this:

Hassett said that when he is talking to negotiators from other countries, “what I am trying to get — the message we’re all trying to get across is this is about America getting itself ready for the golden age by getting our house in order, by getting our tariff and trade policy and tax policy exactly where it needs to be for a golden age.”

There has long been a debate about whether economics is more of an art than a science.

Listening to Hassett it sounds as though it is neither but some sort of fanciful fiction: “a golden age.” 

We will all ride bejeweled unicorns on streets paved with crystals while wearing red ballcaps. . . .

Karl questioned Hassett about the announced 50% tariffs on Brazil. Karl noted:

“Brazil had a $6.8 billion surplus last year. In fact, the US hasn't had a trade deficit with Brazil since 2007. I mean, almost two decades. So why, why, why are we putting a punishing 50% tariff on Brazil?”

Hassett responded: 

“Well, bottom line is the president has been very frustrated with negotiations with Brazil and also with the actions of Brazil. In the end, though, you know, we're trying to put America first. I think that a lot of people, when I'm talking to negotiators from other country is at some point they'll say, ‘What did we do wrong?’”

So let’s see: The president is frustrated, so even though there has been a trade surplus with Brazil (i.e., they buy more of our stuff than we do of theirs), he is going to stick it to them. By offending our customer, doesn’t that put America in a secondary place?

Does Hassett (or the president) know that even though Brazil is, along with America, in the Western Hemisphere, China is Brazil’s largest trading partner? Do they know that the B and C in the organization established to provide an alternative to Western-dominated economic institutions BRICS are Brazil and China? Does the US really want to push Brazil further into that space?

And the whole “when I’m talking to negotiators from [an]other country is at some point they’ll say, ‘What did we do wrong?’” is nothing short of pathetic: What seems to be lost is that the US is buying things from other countries because we want those things — those other countries aren’t doing anything “wrong” — although the way Trump is applying tariffs will make some of them realize that trading with the US may fit into that category.

Finally, the 50% copper tariffs.

Why?

Hassett: “The bottom line is that if there is a time of war, then we need to have the metals that we need to produce American weapons, and copper is a key component in many American weapon sets. And so, as we look forward to the threats that America faces, the president decided that we have plenty of copper in the US, but not enough copper production.”

Presently the US produces more than half the copper it needs. Presumably if there were a war of the magnitude that required more copper it would be diverted from applications like electric vehicles. Oh, wait, the elimination of the tax breaks for EVs in the budget bill is taking care of that. 

Of the sources of imports, 31% come from Canada, which used to be a good thing before that country apparently starting doing something wrong. 

What Hassett doesn’t mention is that transforming copper ore into copper is something with all manner of nasty things associated with it like arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive materials, slag piles. . . .

Not the sort of stuff you’d associate with a “golden age.”Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
WEDNESDAY 7/16/25

New York City’s Democrats have nominated socialist Zohran Mamdani as its mayoral candidate. He will face incumbent Eric Adams, the Democrat-turned-independent and ally to President Trump, Republican Curtis Sliwa and potentially former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the November election.

This list of opponents raises the question; Is New York City ready for a socialist mayor? And what are the implications for the national Democratic Party and its upcoming midterm candidates, as well as its 2028 presidential candidate? We discuss these questions in our latest Substack here.

Following is commentary by our resident Manhattan contributing pundit. To submit your own COMMENT email editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line.

Ready for a Non-Criminal – I am so ready for a non-criminal to run our fabulous city. Someone who actually works for all the people and not just the moneyed. Those who value money over the working people who make this city run, make me gag. The other night I was walking to the theater on E. 59^th, a location I rarely visit and I hyper-noticed these gigantic retail spaces selling tiny luxury “designer purses” – for how much, $2,000 or thereabouts – and it struck me; What a total waste of space, energy, money. –Kate McLeod

_____________________________________________

More Comment on Tax and Spending Bill

Cruelty -- This bill is big, alright, but it is far from beautiful for most Americans. There is so much cruelty in it, it makes me want to sit down and cry. The cruelty starts with the cuts to Medicaid of course, but it also includes an enormous amount of money to recruit and train ICE agents, Trump’s version of the Geheimrat Staats Polizei -- Gestapo -- so he can roust anybody, anywhere, anytime. No other president has ever, ever thought we needed a secret police organization of this size and scope. That, coupled with his stated intention to deport American citizens tells me all I need to know about the Republican MAGA Party. The Republic is finished. –Jim McCraw

•••

Agree? Disagree? – Voice your opinion in these very columns by emailing your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we can post them in the appropriate column.

_____
FRIDAY 7/11/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

If you wanted to — or didn’t want to, put your fingers in your ears and go “nah-nah-nah” to block out the information — hear a clear statement of why Team Trump is not in the least bit serious when it comes to tariff announcements, just consider the 50% tariffs that are to go into effect August 1 on Brazil.

Trump, according to The Washington Post, sent a letter to Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that says, in part: “The way that Brazil has treated former President Bols naro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!”

The middle school grammar aside, here’s the question: If the point of the tariffs is to Make America Great Again by making it more cost-effective to produce in the US rather than import the goods, then is the announcement of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods a prime example of why that isn’t the case?

Trump has a problem with the treatment of Bolsonaro, someone he evidently likes, so he is going to “punish” Brazilian producers by applying the 50% tariff (even though it is ultimately the American consumer who is going to pay the tab).

And we don’t need to point out that the US isn’t exactly environmentally apt for growing coffee outside of, say, Kona.

But that doesn’t matter: Up the price from the beans from Brazil! They are bad, very, very bad, plenty of people say so, when it comes to Bolsonaro.

Who cares if US companies pay more for products that have been found to be more cost-effective to import than produce (even if they can be produced in the US)?

The whole approach to tariffs that has been exhibited by Team Trump is something that shows this is more a matter of whim than studied policy.

Where do the numbers come from?

It was shown on “Liberation Day” that the initial list had absurd numbers because of the silly approach to calculation (take the US trade deficit with a country, divide it by the amount of US imports, divide that by two and round up). And if the US had a trade surplus with a country, there was a 10% tariff simply to be able to sell goods in the US.

Indeed, the US does have a trade surplus with Brazil. The US Trade Representative’s office says we sold $7.4 billion more than Brazil sold to us in 2024, The Wall Street Journal reports.

None of this takes simple supply-and-demand into account, however.

There are 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum. Hey, let’s apply 50% to copper, too! Perhaps Stephen Miran and Peter Navarro can take out a copy of the Periodic Table of the Elements and find more things to apply tariffs to.

Although credit must be given to the first Trump Administration for “Operation Warp Speed” and the creation of COVID vaccines, perhaps no one currently in the White House realizes that Pfizer worked with BioNTech to develop the vaccine based on mRNA technology from BioNTech. And BioNTech is a German company.

So now Trump throws out a number — 200% -- that is the potential tariff on pharmaceuticals.

And take into account that the 2026 budget is going to cut about 40% of the funding for the National Institutes of Health — and about 90% of the monies spent by the NIH is for basic research and early-stage drug discovery and development.

What are the odds there will be another pandemic within the next five years?

Consider this from Yonatan Grad, a professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health:

“Is there another pandemic coming? Yes. When? Which pathogen? How severe will it be? No one can say for sure. But the big demographic changes that are coming, due to climate change as well as economic and other factors, will alter the landscape and create new risks, both for new pathogens to emerge and for known pathogens to re-emerge.”

Yes, he’s from Harvard (grrrr!). And the mention of climate change may raise red flags for some people, but whether it is real or not (it is), people are migrating from places where there is too little rain or too much rain, for example, and may be bringing with them new or old pathogens into places near you.

(The Environmental Protection Agency budget is being cut by 50%, because apparently the environment doesn’t need a whole lot of protection.)

Going back to the language quoted from the WaPo in the letter: This whole approach is not predicated on any planned policy, just personal petulance.

Is this the way statesmen are supposed to behave?

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
FRIDAY 7/11/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

I first visited Lenox, Iowa, in the summer 1972 when Kathy and I were moving from Connecticut to Denver.

Kathy’s grandfather, a lifetime farmer, was quiet and in poor health. But her grandmother, the town poetess, embraced me as a kindred spirit even though I was a New Yorker by birth, a city boy and an Easterner. Soon she was driving us both around the grid of dirt roads that intersected the fields of this small farming community, “visiting” an hour or two here and there with friends and neighbors to introduce us over cookies and a glass of lemonade.

It was a way of life, slow, neighborly, grounded in community. Whatever squabbles might flare from time to time, the farmers relied on each other and likely still do. Iowa back then also voted Democratic nearly as often as Republican. (A Democrat defeated an incumbent Republican for the US Senate that year though Republicans controlled the state senate.) Today the state is overwhelming red in its representation.

I was curious how independent Iowans reacted to the mean-spirited cuts in health insurance and food resources under the big, ugly bill that just squeaked past the Congress to become law. I also wondered how the sharp escalation of ICE raids nationwide has played out in farming communities that rely on undocumented immigrants for work in the fields and meat-packing plants. The time to “visit” seemed right when Donald Trump visited the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines the day before signing his bill into law, complete with a military flyover at the ceremony.

I started by stopping by the Ames Tribune in the town where Kathy’s mother grew up. Her father was the town doctor there and, during the Great Depression, helped feed those without enough food. The paper, printed since 1919, today is published by Gannett six days a week.

Money mattered in the news on Saturday, July 5. The lead story was headlined, “Burning through budgets: rising costs strain Iowa fire departments.” Below that was a story headlined: “Trump signs tax-cutting, debt boosting bill in White House ceremony.” And on the letters page, I ran across the headline, “Concerns with the Billionaire Bonanza Bill,” a reference to the trillions of dollars in tax cuts the rich will receive in the next decade in Trump’s new law.

Wrote the first letter writer, “SNAP (food) payments will go down even though Iowa food banks cannot keep up with the current demand. Local food purchase programs were cut, hurting both school children and farmers. Enormous Medicaid cuts will cause some rural hospitals to close and services to be reduced. Medicaid helps fund over 40% of births, so pressure on OB-GYN services will be especially intense.”

Lower down on the home page, I found an interesting headline reporting on Trump’s visit to the fairgrounds. It read: “Trump: ‘We’ll ‘put the farmers in charge’ when deciding to deport undocumented ag workers.”

His words flew in the face of ICE actions nationwide in recent weeks and the administration’s vow, after vacillating, to make no exceptions to meet concerns of farmers and GOP business owners about the arrest of law-abiding workers.

“If a farmer’s willing to vouch for these people, in some way, Kristi, I think we’re going to have to just say that’s going to be good, right?” Trump said to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency oversees ICE. “You know we’re going to be good with it. Because we don’t want to do it where we take all the workers off the farms.”

That presumably became the placeholder for this week’s policy in what the newspaper described as “a string of conflicting messages from the administration on the issue.”

The article added, “Perpetually short of labor, Iowa is the leading U.S. producer of pork and eggs and a top source of beef, turkey and milk. At large meatpacking plants scattered across the state and in livestock operations, immigrants are a major source of labor.”

According to multiple news reports, ICE since Trump took office has arrested law-abiding workers in significantly greater numbers than those who have violated any laws.

From Ames in Central Iowa, I headed southwest to the Sioux City Journal, published by Lee Enterprises. National news at the paper takes a decidedly back seat to local photo-driven stories. But the opinion page did feature a “mini-editorial” headlined “Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill should be headlined the Big Beautiful Billionaires’ Bill.” I couldn’t read more because of a paywall, but it the headline certainly seemed to convey that the paper is none too happy with the GOP’s signature legislation.

It was time to stop by the Des Moines Register,the state’s dominant newspaper. It drew Trump’s ire and a lawsuit when its respected pollster appeared to find a late surge for Kamala Harris during the presidential campaign. Among its lead stories July 3 was one headlined, “5 Takeaways from Donald Trump’s Speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines.” It read a bit like a White House press release, the first takeaway being, “Trump says there’s ‘no better birthday present for America than ;the big beautiful Bill.” The article was accompanied by a picture of Trump 2028 and Gulf of America hats.

But, referring to the states’ two US senators, the editorial in the same edition cut a different tone with the headline “Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst abandon Iowans in need.” Both Republican senators voted for Trump’s bill.

As for Lenox. It’s too small, with a population of only 1,372, to support a newspaper. I imagine much of the news there still spreads through “visiting.” Kathy’s grandma Alice got to meet both our daughters before she died years later. On our earlier visits to the farm she taught both of us to appreciate leftovers, meticulously stowed in the refrigerator meal after meal, and re-served until everything was eaten. In 1974, Alice was thrilled when I entered journalism school a several hours away at the University of Missouri in Columbia.

I can only hope I’ve lived up to her standards as the Lenox town poetess.

Jerry’s Substack is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Jerry’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.

This column first appeared in Lansion’s Substack From the Grassroots.

_____________________________________________

Your Turn

There may be a no more definitive expression of our nation’s political debate than arguments about tax and spending. Conservatives, and most Republicans, have been on a quest to cut taxes and spending since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, while liberals and most Democrats argue a country as rich as ours deserves a strong social “safety net” for those who do not get a sufficient share of the wealth.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in which Republicans in the House and Senate are carrying out President Trump’s agenda, especially extension of his 2017 tax cuts mostly benefitting the rich, upends this conservative-liberal split – kind of. The bill Trump signs on Independence Day will blow up the federal deficit and raise the debt ceiling – unless you buy the “dynamic” scoring of the budget argument that the tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the middle- and lower-classes via investment and good-paying jobs.

From that perspective, the pro-OBBB argument is much like arguments for President Reagan’s supply side economics. 

Confusing. Even head-spinning. We know. But that’s why today Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s commentary criticizing the tax and spending reconciliation bill is in the right column along with pro-MAGA contributing pundit Rich Corbett’s commentary on why the OBBB will spur the US economy.

It is why we ask you to indicate your political leanings in the subject line when you email your COMMENTS on this and other news and issues to editors@thehustings.news.

--Editors

_____
INDEPENDENCE DAY 2025

As usual, Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay and contributing pundit Rich Corbett have very different conservative perspectives on the merits, or lack thereof, of the One Big Beautiful tax and spending bill …

Murkowski Got It Right -- The thing about the budget bill is it shows just how mendacious the majority of Republicans have become. Note how when essentially every organization that runs the numbers announces the bill is not going to be good for essentially anyone but the higher tax brackets (and in the long run not for them, because when the deficit balloons, the economic status of the US is going to be in a very bad place), they announce that those organizations don’t know what they are talking about — even though they use the numbers from those organizations when they work to their advantage.

And a word about Lisa Murkowski, who has been reviled for her “yes” vote.

Actually, Murkowski is the only Republican who got it right. She made it clear she wasn’t going to vote for the bill until she got what she wanted for the people of Alaska. And she got it. If every other Senate Republican recognized they work for the people of their states and not for their apparent Liege Lord, they would have held out for things, too. And a consequence of that would probably have been a rethinking of the whole bill and something better would have been the result. —Stephen Macaulay

A Promising Step Forward -- Congress has taken a bold and commendable step by passing the "One Big Beautiful Bill," a transformative piece of legislation on its way July 4^th to President Trump’s desk. This bill, while not without room for improvement, charts a path toward economic vitality by prioritizing business incentives that will drive growth and opportunity across the nation. Personally, I would have preferred more aggressive spending cuts to streamline government operations and reduce waste, but the bill’s focus on empowering businesses to innovate, expand, and create jobs is a powerful catalyst for prosperity. By fostering an environment where entrepreneurs and companies can thrive, this legislation sets the stage for a robust economic resurgence that will benefit communities from coast to coast.

A cornerstone of the bill’s economic promise is its commitment to continuing the 2017 tax cuts, which are imperative for maintaining stability and confidence among businesses and individuals alike. These tax policies have proven effective in spurring investment and job creation during the first Trump administration, and their extension ensures that Americans can continue to reap the rewards of a dynamic economy. The bill also offers tax savings for service workers and those counting on every dollar from tips and overtime pay. Many Social Security-dependent Americans get a tax deduction that benefits lower income seniors struggling most as the cost of living rises. These measures provide meaningful relief to hardworking workers and retirees on fixed incomes. Coupled with President Trump’s tariff policies, which are bringing jobs back to American workers by incentivizing domestic production, the bill strengthens our manufacturing base and gives priority to the needs of our labor force, ensuring that economic gains are shared broadly.

As it heads to the President’s desk, this legislation inspires optimism for a future where American workers and businesses are empowered to succeed. Let us celebrate this milestone and encourage ongoing efforts to build an economy that lifts all Americans. --Rich Corbett

_____
INDEPENDENCE DAY 2025

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

I spent four summers right before and during college working either in or right outside the entrances of our National Parks. At 18, a new high school graduate, I pumped gas at Flagg Ranch, located a few miles south of Yellowstone National Park and just north of the Grand Tetons. At 19 and 21, I worked as a bell hop and desk clerk at Grand Lake Lodge, on the western slope of Rocky Mountain National Park. And at 20, I worked at Many Glacier Hotel in the heart of Glacier National Park, rotating between day and night shifts as a desk clerk and night watchman.

These were life-shaping experiences. For one thing, in 1968 in Colorado, I met the girl who would become my wife of nearly 54 years. During these summers I also climbed the Grand Teton and rafted on the Snake River in Wyoming, climbed Longs Peak and Snowmass Mountain in the high Colorado range, and hiked miles of trails on multi-day treks in Glacier, making noise in wooded areas to let the bear know we were coming. There were steak rides, mini-golf soirees, poker games and trips to Frontier Days and the Calgary Stampede, rodeos where cowboys would hone their craft and show their skills.

But what has stayed with me most so many decades later is the natural beauty of the parks, their lakes, forests, pristine streams and snow-covered mountains, all under big western skies that seem to stretch forever.

Sadly, America’s National Parks are endangered these days, in part because of growing crowds and the ravages of climate change, but most starkly because of accelerating cuts in the National Park Service staff and maintenance budgets. As NPR noted in a story this week, “as visitors flock to [the] parks, deep cuts leave rangers and wildlife at risk.”

The National Park system has been around since 1916. Today there are 63 National Parks and 423 National Park sites, which include the parks, national monuments, battlefields and other designated locations. In 2024, a record 331.9 million individuals visited these sites in aggregate, the largest number ever, according to the National Park Service.

Despite this, the Trump Administration has proposed a 30% cut in the National Park budgets. By May 22, according to an article by the National Park Conservation Association, the Park Service already has shed 13% of its staff under the Trump Administration as a result of “pressured buyouts, deferred resignations and early retirements.” Then, the House version of Trump’s big budget bill cast the parks “into even further crisis,” the Conservation Association reported.

Now, as the Senate version of the same budget bill enters its home stretch, it is not a question of whether, but how deep, cuts will be. Trump, the association writes, has proposed an additional $1 billion cut in the National Park Service budget in 2026 – even though visitors to the parks contributed $55 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023 alone.

These cuts are potentially so catastrophic that even some Republican senators from western states are squirming, The Hill reports. One is Steve Daines, senator from Montana. Daines, who is up for re-election in 2026, told The Hillthat he wants“to make sure [the parks are] adequately funded.”

The question is, what’s adequate? There has been no indication that either Daines or other western Republican intend to cast a nay vote when Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” comes up for passage, possibly this week.

Nor will cuts stop within the parks. The administration also proposes to sell as much as three million acres of federally managed public land outside the parks over the next five years. These, too, are treasured by fishermen, hunters, campers and hikers.

But it is the National Park sites that are the true gems of this country’s natural beauty. In a June 3 article, the National Parks Conservation Association noted the devastation they are facing.

•The administration’s proposed $1 billion National Park Service cut, if enacted, “would be the largest cut in the agency’s 109-year history,” the association says.

•The administration has moved to scale back efforts to preserve the environment within the parks. One example is the reversal of a move to phase out the sale of single-use plastics in the parks.

•The Trump Administration, since taking office, has fixated on rewriting American history to sharply reduce if not wipe out the role non-white and non-male Americans played in our history, going so far as to remove words like “black” and “female” from web pages across the government.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in mid-May issued a secretarial order and timeline for National Park Service and other Interior staff to review, identify and remove, “images, descriptions, depictions, messages, narratives or other information (content) that inappropriately disparages Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times).”

Just what that means presumably will be determined by this administration.

I haven’t been back to the National Parks in the Rockies since my wife, daughters and I celebrated our 25^th anniversary at Grand Lake Lodge, where we met and worked 57 and 55 years ago. We stopped there on a cross-country train trip from the Bay Area to Boston and back. Once again we found ourselves driving over Trail Ridge Road, traversing the pass over the Continental Divide.

I couldn’t help but think back on the half-dozen times my new girlfriend that first summer drove me over this treacherous 48-mile road between Grand Lake and Estes Park so I could visit a foot specialist. After my appointments, we’d often have pizza, take in a drive-in movie and make the long drive back to catch a few hours sleep before work at 6 a.m. 

It was the start of a romance that’s still unfolding.

Lanson’s commentary first appeared in his Substack From the Grassroots.

_____
FRIDAY 6/27/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Tesla stock price year-to-date is down (at least for the moment) by about 22%. 

Elon Musk’s net worth is approximately $410,000,000,000. Yes, a lot of zeros, so even were his net worth to decline by 22%, that would be $319,800,000,000. Still a lot of zeros.

Since January 1, 2024, NASA has used SpaceX for three crewed missions, one in March 2024, one in September 2024, and one in March 2025. There were several other missions with SpaceX rockets (e.g., SPHEREx, PUNCH, EscaPADE).

NASA is presently dependent on SpaceX. United Launch Alliance had a NASA mission back in December 2023. Blue Origin has just been doing things like launching Katy Perry.

Donald Trump has recently claimed that Musk “gets a lot of subsidies” and that perhaps if these firms are under the DOGE chainsaw there is “BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED.”

Tesla offers five electric vehicle models: the Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, and the Cybertruck.

Depending on the trim, there are 8 variants that permit purchasers to obtain a $7,500 tax credit.

Now if the Senate language of the budget has held (it passed 51-50 Tuesday), the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles will end September 30. The House, surprisingly, is a bit more generous: it would run through the end of 2025, and for automakers who have sold fewer than 200,000 EVs over the years will have vehicles that can qualify for the credit until the end of 2026.

Tesla’s share of the US EV market is just over 40%. It was over 50% not that long ago, but there is (a) more competition from other vehicle manufacturers and (b) the whole “Elon is a ****” movement.

Still, Tesla is doing well in the market. Should the tax incentives for EVs be eliminated, that bill won’t be particularly “Beautiful” for General Motors, Ford. . .or Tesla. Arguably it will have less of an effect on Tesla simply because it has a bigger piece of the market.

Additionally, unlike traditional automakers, Tesla has done things like suddenly adjusted pricing in a notable way (down and up: because it is more efficient in its production that other automakers, it has higher margins on its vehicles, which can be trimmed and still come out ahead, though not as far) and Tesla hasn’t done things like advertise. (GM spent some $3 billion in 2024 on advertising, so evidently it works. 

(Were Tesla to start spending on ads, it, too, might reap the benefits.)

So: (1) NASA is dependent on Musk. (2) Musk’s automotive fortunes (shrinking though they are) will not be devastated by the language in the budget bill, regardless of what passes.

Trump probably doesn’t understand that.

And Musk probably doesn’t understand that a purpose of a government is to help support the people who it governs. He may like DOGE. The majority of Americans don’t.

Both men have demonstrated they have little tolerance for those who don’t wholly agree with them. Consequently, their relationship is one that is intrinsically fraught with the seeds of failure.

And both men seem to have a world view that has it that people are out to screw them.

They’ve popularized the mantra “waste, fraud and abuse,” and even though it is repeated over and over and over again, there has been little in the way of what can be considered meaningful evidence — meaningful from the point that there could be “BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED.”

Sure, Trump could cut off SpaceX. But in 2024 a full 75% of SpaceX’s revenues came from commercial launches, and as indicated, 100% of NASA’s launches were on SpaceX equipment. 

NASA could be shuttered — and as it represents ~0.5% of the 2025 federal budget, there is “NO BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED.”

Trump’s threats to Musk are not as chilling as they would be to anyone else who doesn’t happen to be the richest person in the world. 

If the beef between the two really gets big, there is the possibility that Trump could nationalize SpaceX, and thereby reduce about 40% of a source of Musk’s wealth — and probably tank the stock market as investors see the treatment of private enterprise. (Why these people aren’t more concerned about tariffs being placed on things like Kia minivans because Trump invoked emergency powers predicated on national security grounds is curious, so it is hard to predict what they will do.)

As previously mentioned, if all incentives for electric vehicles are eliminated, Ford and General Motors will be impacted most at the showroom. And if, as is likely, they do go away, then this puts the US in a position that is substantially behind China in advanced technology.

According to a recent study by the International Energy Agency — a study pre-the-likely-elimination-of-incentives in the US, as well as the lifting of the California emissions waver — by 2030 electric car sales in China will be 80% of the total.

Europe? “Carbon dioxide targets support the achievement of a sales share close to 60%.”

The US? “Around 20% . . . less than half the share projected for 2030 last year.”

The billions invested by GM and Ford in electrification will be worth far less than they are at the moment. Which could be construed as “BIG MONEY TO BE LOST.”

Do either of these men understand that?

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____________________________________________

Your Turn

MONDAY 6/30/25

Was the Trump administration’s bombing of Iranian nuclear weapons facilities last weekend “obliteration” or something less? What do you think of Trump’s pivot from isolationism to a more neocon approach?

What do you think of the White House’s policy toward national parks, including its 30% cut in funding and plans to sell off some public lands?

Whether you lean right or left, pro-MAGA, never-Trumper, moderate liberal or progressive, we seek your civilly stated COMMENTS. Email The Hustings at editors@thehustings.news and please indicate whether you lean left or right, or leave a comment in the appropriate column here, so we can post your opinions in the proper column.

_____
FRIDAY 6/27/25