Why We Should Support Ukraine (what you can do)

In the Budapest Memorandum (1994), Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for security assurances from Russia, the UK and the USA.  Russia violated the agreement, annexing Crimea in 2014 and invading the rest of Ukraine in 2022.  The UK and USA have done too little to defend Ukraine.  Below, I outline many reasons to support Ukraine.  First, here’s what you can do:

1. Make your opinion known to your politicians (Senators' URL protocol is www.Senator'sFamilyname.senate.com.  House URL protocol is https://FamilyName.house.gov/contact/)

Click Reinstate Russian Oil Sanctions to ask Congress to reinstate Russian oil sanctions.  Near the bottom of this message, you can see a political cartoon I created with AI that mocks us for crying about the price of gas while Ukrainians are experience true suffering.

Click Sanctioning Russia Act to send a letter, text or call politicians' offices to support this bill: HR2548 (154 sponsors) and S1241 (84 sponsors) are identical. Here you can find their summaries and sponsors: ttps://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2548 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1241. 

2. Donate.  We donate to https://www.razomforukraine.org/ and https://www.hopeinternational.org/.  Here is Razom’s 2025 Impact Report.  Here is Hope Internationsl's efforts in Ukraine: https://www.projecthope.org/region/europe/ukraine/     
3. Spread the word

 I surprisingly found 23 reasons why we should support Ukraine.  I divided into 4 categories which overlap: 1) Peace and Security; 2) Moral; 3) Economic; 4) Ukraine can win (or at least negotiate from strength).  My 20 sources are listed at the end.

Peace and security reasons (see also 10, 14, and 15)

1. To promote general peace in the world, we must dissuade aggression and violation of treaties.  (Russia has violated both Minsk Agreements as well as the Budapest memorandum. 
2. We must encourage countries to forebear nuclear weapons, instead of letting Ukraine be punished for having done so.
3. United, we stand; divided we fall.  If we let Ukraine fall, other allies (Baltic countries and Taiwan) may be next.
4. Ukraine is weakening our enemy and exposing Russia’s weakness and cruel and mercenary practices to the world, benefitting us indirectly.
5. Ukraine is teaching us new ways to fight war and developing weapons we need.
6. Ukraine provided direct expertise to help us defend against Iranian drones.  In return, we harmed Ukraine by suspending sanctions on Russian gas.
7. Ukraine is stymieing Russia without USA troops being engaged.
8. The war in Ukraine has helped focus Europe more on its defense.

Moral reasons

9. Russian is attacking civilians, infrastructure, nuclear facilities, etc. and has abducted 20,000 children.  The brave Ukrainians deserve support.
10. Russian blocks Ukraine grain exports, increasing food insecurity in Africa and Asia.  In 2021, Ukraine was the world’s breadbasket, producing 10% of the world’s wheat, 15% of its corn, 13% of its barley, and 50% of its sunflower oil.          
11. Doing the morally right thing protects us.  As Martin Niemoller said: “First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist.  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
12. If you’re an environmentalist, you should value that sanctions divert gas production from Russia to the USA, where stricter regulations reduce the use of methane, through policies with better measurement and validation.  Thus, our gas production is much better for the world.

Economic reasons

13. Up to 90% of our aid to Ukraine is spent in the USA, creating USA jobs in all 50 states (including suppliers).  Substantial oversight assures the money is properly spent.  So, our aid is not exposed to corruption in Ukraine.  While Ukraine has significant internal corruption, it has improved its ranking from 122^nd in 2021 prior to Russia’s invasion to 104^th in 2025.  Corruption typically increases during wartime.
14. Ukraine has 5% of the world’s reserves of lithium, graphite, manganese, titanium, gallium, nickel and other critical minerals.  It also has reserves of the 17 rare earth minerals.
15. In April, 2025, the Ukraine–United States Mineral Resources Agreement created a Reconstruction Investment Fund to develop Ukraine’s critical mineral, oil, and gas sectors.
16. Sanctions help our economy as nations which bought gas from Russia might instead buy it from us.

Amazingly, Ukraine might win (or at least we should help them negotiate from strength)

17. Russian soldiers and mercenaries have incurred 1.3 million casualties, about ¼ of its pre-war military..
18. Russia’s major attacks have gained only 50-230 feet per day. 
19. Russia is spending an unsustainable 50% of its budget on the war.
20. The Hungarian election of Peter Magyar is likely to unblock the EU’s intended $100 billion loan to Ukraine and may result in the EU giving $230 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
21. The USA forces Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back by not allowing it to hit targets in Russia (without prior approval by the USA). Ukraine can do better if we don’t restrict it.
22. Ukraine soldiers have better morale, and the citizenry supports the war.  Only 17% of Ukrainians would agree to a treaty based on Russian demands.  67% support Zelenskyy.
23. More than 95% of Ukraine’s drones and 60% of its battlefield equipment are manufactured in Ukraine.

I created this political cartoon (using AI) to show the difference between our focus on short term costs and inconveniences compared to the suffering of brave Ukrainians.

Sources:

1. Razom reports
2. Ukraine’s Top Drone Commander Wants to Bleed Russia’s Army Dry
3. https://www.hudson.org/defense-strategy/symposium-why-us-needs-help-ukraine-defeat-russia
4. https://www.usglc.org/the-importance-of-u-s-assistance-to-ukraine/
5. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-the-us-has-to-gain-from-supporting-ukraine
6. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/four-reasons-why-supporting-ukraine-good-investment
7. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine#:~:text=To%20finance%20the%20Ukraine%20war%2C%20the%20Kremlin,its%20budget%20on%20the%20armed%20forces%2C%20the
8. https://www.dw.com/en/five-facts-on-grain-and-the-war-in-ukraine/a-62601467
9. https://spectrum.ieee.org/ukraine-rare-earth-minerals#:~:text=Ukraine%20will%20contribute%2050%20percent,attempt%20to%20secure%20stable%20supplies.
10. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/28/mapping-ukraines-rare-earth-and-critical-minerals#:~:text=What%20minerals%20does%20Ukraine%20have,at%20an%20estimated%20500%2C000%20tonnes.
11. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20le8jn282o
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93United_States_Mineral_Resources_Agreement
13. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/russias-disregard-nuclear-safety-and-security-ukraine#:~:text=OCTOBER%202022:%20Russia%20conducted%20air,infrastructure%20heedless%20of%20the%20repercussions.
14. https://theconversation.com/corruption-and-war-two-scourges-that-feed-off-each-other-199265#:~:text=Second%2C%20corruption%20leads%20to%20a,threatened%20and%20even%20sometimes%20murdered%E2%80%A6
15. https://www.progressivepolicy.org/the-role-of-natural-gas-in-reducing-asias-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20Russia%20and%20the,emissions%20than%20does%20Chinese%20coal.
16. https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/ukraine-can-still-win-the-war-russia-started-with-u-s-and-european-help
17. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/02/06/russias-january-budget-deficit-hits-nearly-half-of-annual-target-a91885
18. https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/13/peter-magyar-election-win-hungary-eu-ukraine-russia#:~:text=Magyar's%20predecessor%20made%20no%20secret,money%20could%20finally%20be%20disbursed.
20. https://www.courthousenews.com/the-300-billion-hostage-europes-high-stakes-gamble-with-russias-frozen-fortune/#:~:text=March%2013%2C%202026-,The%20$300%20billion%20hostage:%20Europe's%20high%2Dstakes%20gamble%20with%20Russia's,murky%20%E2%80%94%20and%20could%20backfire%20spectacularly.&text=File%20photo%20of%20a%20briefcase,standing%20rules%20of%20international%20finance?

It is timely to end the current DHS government shutdown

 In my post of October 18, 2025, I wrote:

"Democrats could have refused to fund the government because the Trump administration is acting unconstitutionally, undermining separation of powers.  Democrats could have demanded that Adelita Grijalva be seated in the House (which Republicans are blocking to avoid release of the Epstein files), that President Trump get Congressional approval for military action in the Caribbean, etc.  

Instead, Democrats shut down the government because they don’t like a law that was legally passed.  That’s a terrible reason to shut down the government.  If you disagree about a law that passed, you close the government???  Consider the national and international ramifications.  If it is appropriate to shut down the government because you don't like a law that passed, our government could be shut down permanently. "

So, it may not come as much a surprise that I have supported the Democratic shutdown over ICE.  Defunding an executive branch to press for the discontinuation of unconstitutional behavior is appropriate.

However, the Trump administration has now signaled acceptance of most of the Democratic demands in several ways: Tom Homan replacing Greg Borvino, MarkWayne Mullin nominated to replace the now-fired Kristi Noem, Mullin's testimony as to the direction in which he intends to take teh agency, compromise negotiation stances by Republicans, and press reports of moderation throughout the administration.

The Democrats should now declare victory and end the shutdown of DHS.  The current risks due to the war with Iran underscore the wisdom of ending the shutdown now.

The Iran War

Nuclear War is our biggest existential threat.

Iran’s current regime is determined to have nuclear weapons.

Therefore, this is a war for regime change to avoid Iran having nuclear weapons.

The current Iranian regime is also the biggest exporter of terrorism.  And it has called for “Death to America” incessantly for nearly 50 years.

I have documentation of being a “never Trumper” since 1988.  I have repeatedly lauded                Separation of Powers as the key to our national success and have consistently, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, objected to Congress relinquishing power to the President.  Below I note some criticisms of President Trump and why the Republicans’ comparison to Libya is inaccurate.

Despite the previous paragraph, the world will be much safer if we topple the Iranian regime.

Many in the liberal press and many Democrats instigate opposition to the war by focusing attention on its disadvantages.  Their efforts are damaging:

1.      1) Because of the emphasis on the increasing price of oil, President Trump temporarily released sanctions on Russian oil, to the detriment of Ukraine.

2.      2) If President Trump curtails activities prior to regime change, the world will be much less safe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments drill down.

President Trump is consistently not interested in spreading democracy, neither in Venezuela nor Iran.  Iranian dissatisfaction with the regime is a strategic asset in his eyes.  This is very different from most previous “regime change” wars.

Instead of rallying the nation by noting that higher temporary oil prices are a small price to pay for removing Iran’s nuclear capability, many press/Democrats focus on oil price increases.  CNN has stated multiple times that oil prices have never been higher during Trump presidencies.  A more appropriate (and simpler) message is that oil prices are still lower than under President Biden.  CNN preferred contorted language to cast the price increase in a bad light.

I created the following cartoon using AI.

Ukraine has helped us in the Iran War by providing anti-drone expertise.  Ukraine benefits from the Iran War to the degree that the war cuts off a source of drones for Russia.  However, suspending sanctions on Russian oil undermines Ukraine.  (19Mar26 addition: the Iran War also helps Russia by boosting the price for its oil.)

President Trump wisely boosted our energy independence.  His “all of the above” approach is faulty in overly reducing attention to renewables (which I believe will grow, albeit more slowly, despite his efforts).  President Obama opposed fracking (but took credit for the economic growth it created).  President Biden tried to close all carbon power plants and block liquid natural gas exportation.  We, and our allies, are safer with Trump’s energy strategy.

To stimulate opposition, many press/Democrats claim there is no clear goal for the war and no plan.  Despite President Trump’s communication flaws, I think the goal is clear (see above).

Many press/Democrats focus on our military deaths, rather than recognize there have been impressively few deaths compared to the impact of our bombing.  We don’t know whether there is a complete plan, but clearly there has been a well-coordinated plan of attack so far.

CNN says the war has caused Americans to feel insecure due to radical Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks.  On 9/11, we joined the rest of the world in recognizing our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.  We’ve had domestic shootings, as well as terrorist attacks, that cause us to feel insecure.  CNN should encourage us to be vigilant to maximize safety and should explain that success will increase safety.

Many Democrats/press still tout President Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal with Iran.  The deal had various 10-15-year limitations on Iran and required Iran to reduce (not eliminate) stockpiles of enriched uranium and centrifuges.

These press/Democrats fail to mention that President Obama essentially recognized Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons and had no plan to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons after those short-term limitations expired.  What was he going to do?  Continue our history of rewarding nuclear development by bribing them to stop, with funds that would support more terrorist activity?

President Obama stated repeatedly that ”every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off”.  However, as I noted at the time, it did nothing to restrict Iran from developing nuclear weapons outside Iran.

Many press/Democrats say the attack on Iran is illegal because there was no “imminent” threat.  While I favor the “imminent threat” philosophy and agree that Congress should declare war, Trump, like many Presidents, justified his action under the War Powers Resolution, which does not require an “imminent” threat.  It deals with hostile action (regardless of imminent threat) and, secondly, placing the military in a position where they might be subject to an imminent threat.

Nonetheless, Secretary Rubio addressed the “imminent” threat issue.  He said Israel was about to attack Iran and our government concluded Iran would respond by attacking us.  He stated we attacked Iran at that time not because Israel pushed us to do so, but because of the imminent threat that Iran would attack us.  It affected, as he expanded later, the timing of the attack, not whether to attack.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the above rationale, but I think it is terrible that many press/Democrats have chosen to mischaracterize it.

I don’t criticize government every time something goes wrong.  We can’t control everything.  Imagine what these Democrats/press would have said if Israel attacked Iran, as we sat on the sideline; Iran then attacked us, inflicting casualties; and it became public that the Trump administration anticipated Iran’s attack and our losses, but decided to take no proactive steps to thwart it.

On March 5, 2026, the House of Representatives passed Resolution 1099, affirming that “Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism”.  It made no mention of attacking Iran. 

Adam Smith (D, WA), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, released this statement: “I agree with the principal assertion of this resolution that Iran is a bad actor.  Iran’s malign and destabilizing actions in the region and treatment of its own citizens should be denounced.  I have never contested this.  What I do contest is that going to war is the reasonable response to this assertion.  I support this resolution.  I do not support the president’s war of choice with Iran.”

Yet 53 Democrats (25%) opposed this resolution.  Why?  Congresswoman Lateefah Simon said, in part,  ”I voted against H.Res 1099, a Republican resolution that contains inaccuracies and is designed to justify the President’s actions in Iran…. That is already U.S. policy.  This resolution … puts Congress on record as giving the Administration further pretext for a war that should not have been started in the first place.”

She cited no inaccuracies in the brief resolution.  How can the resolution provide “further pretext” if it simply restates what “is already U. S. policy”?  If she, and the other 52 Democrats, agree that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism but oppose the war, why not take the same approach as Adam Smith?  Why vote against a resolution that precisely states their position?  Might their vote encourage Iran to continue resisting?

President Trump’s defenders cite President Obama’s action in Libya as precedent.  However, President Trump is, as he continually does, hugely expanding on past precedents.  Some key differences between the current war in Iran and the 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya:

1)      We were part of a broad-based consortium in Libya.  President Trump has stupidly and frivolously eroded support from our allies.  (Later addition: our allies are refusing to join us in opening up the straits of Hormuz even though they would benefit more than us.  This is a direct result of President Trump's mishandling of our alliances.  Early reports ignored that European allies are more vulnerable to domestic violence if they support the war because they have large Muslim immigrant populations.  Japan has no such problem and I believe our allies would have supported us if President Trump acted better.  Earlier, when Britain said it was sending a warship, he ridiculed them and said it wasn't necessary.  He has told our allies  - other than Israel - that he doesn't need their help, so they've decided to trust him on that.)

2)     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized the action.  NATO led it.

3)     Fighting was occurring in Libya; the stated goal was to end that fighting.

4)     Secretary of Defense Gates discussed the intervention in advance in a Congressional hearing.

5)     Hopefully, unlike NATO, President Trump will not cease our efforts too soon.  President Obama said the "worst mistake" of his presidency was "probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya."

However:

a)      The Libya effort lasted 7.5 months.

b)     It accomplished regime change with only minimal special forces activity on the ground.  Note: While regime change was NOT part of the U. N. Resolution, it appears to have been a goal.

c)      Involvement of special forces violated the U. N. Resolution. 

d)     On June 24^th, 2011, the House of Representatives voted down Joint Resolution 68 which would have authorized U. S. involvement for up to 12 months.  Even 38% of Democrats voted against Resolution 68, but President Obama plowed ahead without authorization.

e)     The French had initially stimulated the action, reportedly because of oil (sound familiar?).

War with Iran

Our country is at war; people are dying.  We have a human responsibility to think about this  -- to decide if we think it is right and to do what we can to support it, if we do think it is right.  Regardless of what we think about it, we should try to solve such problems, at least with our vote.  In my life, while the USA has been at war, citizens have often been oblivious to it, living their daily lives without thinking about it.  Politicians like that because they are afraid of being criticized because of wars.

Destroying Nuclear Proliferation

I have long believed that nuclear weapons pose our most existential threat.  Thus, a consortium of countries should band together with the intent to destroy new nuclear weapons facilities, thereby dissuading further development.  (See Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.)

Although I was disappointed that the consortium consisted of only the USA and Israel, I strongly supported the summer 2025 strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Unfortunately, the world is still not united in thwarting nuclear development.  It seems that Iran was resuming efforts to build nuclear weapons or at least wanting to give that impression.

However, the current attack on Iran goes beyond nuclear weapons.  It has the goal of regime change, which is a different issue.

Defensive vs. Offensive Wars; Supporting our Allies

In the 20^th century, we became the strongest world power.  Our major wars were defensive wars (WWI, WWII and the Korean War), defending ourselves and our allies.  I believe in the phrase “Together we stand, divided we fall”.   We should defend our allies.

The Viet Nam war was murkier.  We were defending South Viet Nam, but the regime we were supporting was not a true democracy.  Were we thwarting the will of the people?

I supported our interventions in Bosnia and Kuwait (first war with Iraq) to protect those people.

But I did not support our second war in Iraq.  Just because you fear someone is not a justifiable reason to attack.  Such thinking could be used to justify nearly every aggression in history.

I also did not support our war in Afghanistan.  We were retaliating against a terrorist attack, fighting an amorphous enemy.  From the beginning, I questioned whether we’d be able to extract ourselves.

Nonetheless, I was very critical of our Departure from Afghanistan.  We are developing a history of abandoning countries we say we will support (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Kurds, Ukraine).  (Note: with Ukraine, we have a treaty which requires us to step in to defend them.)  How can allies count on us for support?  Why shouldn’t they want to develop nuclear weapons, if they can’t rely on other defenses?

The second war in Iraq was an offensive war rather than a defensive war.  When countries engage in offensive wars, they justify the fears of other countries.  The more that individual countries fight offensive wars, the more strongly other countries can justify developing strong defenses, including nuclear weapons.

That’s why I am a strong believer in a rules-based world order with international cooperation.  I do NOT support President Trump’s “might makes right” philosophy.

The Constitution and the War Powers Act

Our presidents do not have the right to go to war on their own.  I’ve long maintained that the USA became a great country because of Separation of Powers, more so than democracy.  Our constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to declare war.

The last time Congress declared war was in WWII.  Since then, Presidents have chosen to engage in military action without Congressional approval.

In reaction to bombings of Cambodia during the Viet Nam war, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973.  It requires the President to consult with Congress, in every possible circumstance, before sending USA military into hostilities or into situations which are likely to quickly turn hostile.  

Any such use of the USA military must be reported to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours (and at least every six months thereafter), detailing the circumstances, the estimated scope and duration of such hostilities, and the constitutional and legislative authority under which President acted.  The report is to be forwarded to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for appropriate action.

Such action must be terminated within 60 days unless Congress approves and “immediately” if so instructed by Congress.  However, the President can require an additional 30 days to process termination safely. 

Although Presidents have complied with the law by filing reports more than 130 times, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Obama defied it.

The “in every possible circumstance” creates some wiggle room, but President Trump did “consult” with the Gang of Eight prior to this attack on Iran.  The “Gang of Eight” includes the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence.  I’ve put “consult” in quotation marks because I don’t know the nature of the discussion.

 So, at least so far, President Trump has acted legally in this   Iran war.

It clearly would be dangerous to let one person make such a momentous decision.  Even if the President consults with his/her Cabinet and military staff, the President is a sole decision-maker and an administration is vulnerable to group think.  Thus, requiring that the President consult the Gang of Eight is important.

However, if a rogue President pushes ahead despite opposition from the Gang of Eight, a lot of harm can be done.  I have consistently expressed such concerns regardless of then-current President’s political affiliation.

President Trump is an extreme example of the danger in allowing one person to make such decisions.  As I have maintained since the 2016 election, considering President Trump to be an isolationist gives unwise weight to his words, ignoring his personality.  President Trump is most motivated by wanting power.  He is mercurial, easily insulted (and easily cajoled by flattery) and seeks revenge.  Allowing such a person to declare war is literally playing with fire.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that President Trump may feel he can get away with anything he wants to do.  He has, of course, said such many times in one way or another.  Republican legislators have encouraged him to have such blind confidence as have weak-kneed law schools and universities.

The Current Situation with Iran

President Trump has relied on surprise to maximize his military efforts and to minimize USA deaths.  That has been true for both strikes against Iran and the decapitation of Maduro in Venezuela.

Sadly, in today’s world, the President has a reasonable concern that if he/she goes to Congress for permission, the element of surprise will be lost because:

1.        Many people in Congress are political partisans rather than patriots.

2.        The press doesn’t use good judgment in what it reports.  (I hope that controversial statement is not a distraction to the flow of this blog.)

3.        It is harder to have secret meetings and votes in today’s world of surveillance.

Consulting with the Gang of Eight has avoided that problem, at least for now.

Securing international support can also undermine secrecy but is important.

Congress could authorize the President to engage in police actions against nuclear installations if the USA is part of a consortium that represents at least x% of the world’s population.  However, generally, such authority should not be granted.

This Iran war is clearly NOT focused solely on stymieing nuclear weapon development.  It is about regime change.  It might be justified in either of the following ways:

a)        Regime change is necessary to thwart nuclear weapon development because the regime has proven that it will simply start over if nuclear capability is destroyed.

b)       It is defensive because of Iran’s numerous aggressions since 1979.

c)        It is supporting the freedom of Iranian citizens.

I’ll discuss those arguments, but my main point is that these issues are not clear, which is why we should rely on Congress.  I feel much more comfortable knowing that the Gang of Eight were involved.

I’m not able to judge whether Iran has resumed efforts to build nuclear weapons.  However, if a diverse group of our leaders tell me that is their assessment of the evidence, I will trust them.

Iran has had an oft-repeated slogan of “Death to America”.  I don’t consider such statements to justify our attacking them.

However, Iran has broadly supported terrorism through Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias, Islamic Jihad, etc.  An international consortium police action against such terrorism is clearly justified in my mind.  In the absence of a consortium-as-broad-as-desired, individual nation action may be justified.

It seems more justified to initiate such police action against a country which is actively engaged in such activity.  Clearly, Iran’s activity has been muted since the summer 2025 attack by Israel and the USA.  However, it appears that Iran is continuing nonetheless and would resume past levels if, and when, possible.  Here, again, I’ll rely on a broad consortium reviewing the intelligence.

Some commentators note that because Iran was weakened last summer, this is a good time to attack.  Some people might then conclude that last summer’s attack was not an effort to block nuclear proliferation but rather phase 1 of a multi-phase plan.  All the more reason to involve Congress and an international consortium!

Iran also has a history of supporting attacks on USA citizens.  However, some of those have been direct, limited responses to USA strikes.

My “bottom line” remains that I support this effort, pending Congress’s vote, but I would have preferred a broader international consortium. 

I believe it is important for the world and the USA that the USA have a reputation of being a force for good.  President Trump has squandered our “brand”.  See President Trump’s Foreign Policy.

Regime change on behalf of Iranian citizens is a more difficult justification.  How do we know what a majority of people in Iran want?  Regime change has been hard to achieve and could be used to justify a lot of mischief.  It is convenient for me that I don’t have to make a decision on that basis, because Iran’s terrorism efforts would justify this attack for me.

No Labels' "Nightmare on Main Street"

For many decades, I’ve said that, as an actuary, I have no need for horror movies because reading annual OASDI actuarial reports (Social Security and Medicare financial status) is incredibly scary.

Former Senator Henry Bellmon (R-OK) and former Rep. Robert Giaimo (D-CT) created the Committee for a Responsible Budget in 1981.  It has a Fix the Debt campaign.

Seymour Durst created a US Debt Clock in NYC in 1989.  The wonderful US Debt Clock website (created in 2006) shows much other data including USA total debt ($107 trillion, including personal debt) and state debt.  I’ve always felt it understates the problem because it ignores our underfunded entitlements.  If you assume Social Security and Medicare will continue forever “as is”, we’re $95 trillion in the hole ($886,000 per USA taxpayer), not $39 trillion.

Heroes like Paul Tsongas spotlighted our economic problems (he founded the Concord Coalition in 1992), but most voters and most other politicians have continually ignored the voices of reason.

Bill Clinton gets credit for “balancing the budget”, but if you reflected the increase in underfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, we were still falling farther behind.

In 2008, Pete Peterson created Peter G. Peterson Foundation which has banged the drum loudly regarding our unsustainable direction.

The same year, we elected a president (Barack Obama) who promised to address the issue.  In 2010, he appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson to co-chair the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  Their WONDERFUL December 2010 report gave me hope.  I loved some of the proposals and hated others, but it was necessary to support the full, well-balanced package to avert catastrophe.  Sadly, President Obama abandoned the effort.

In my 2021 blog (10 Obvious(?) Lessons from the Pandemic), the first point was “To be able to spend lots of money in such emergencies, we need surpluses in other years.”  Alas, our politicians have continued to overspend dramatically.

No Labels just published a description of what could happen: Nightmare on Main Street, which I have attached.  An 884-word synopsis was published here.  Our unsustainable path will lead to disaster.   Your comments are welcome!

Government Shutdowns

In the latter half of 2025, the Democrats decided to shut down the government because they were unable to pass legislation they desired (the extension of COVID-inspired temporary increases of government subsidies for health care premiums).

Closing the government because you got out-voted is a terrible action to take.  It undermines our government, using extortion to try to get your way.  It sets a terrible precedent that could keep the government from ever getting funded because there are always a lot of bills which one side or the other would have liked to go “the other way”.

Ironically, in this case, the Democrats were objecting to a law they had drafted and passed during President Biden’s administration.  Regardless of who passed the unliked law, an unliked vote is NOT proper grounds to close the government.

However, our Executive Branch has broken international law (killing people hanging on to a destroyed boat in the Caribbean) and US law (civil rights violations by ICE).  As an effort to restrain an Executive Branch that is violating law, closing down the government seems clearly appropriate to me.  Why wouldn’t you stop funding an entity that is not doing its job properly?

If you believe that the Executive Branch has reformed and won’t commit the violations cited in the previous paragraph, the justification of closing the government becomes more blurred.  Unfortunately, there is strong reason to doubt that the Executive Branch has mended its ways.  Shutting down the government for stronger assurances seems justified.

If they believe the government has mended its ways, the Democrats might argue that a government shutdown is appropriate because the Executive Branch is deporting people who have been here many years without having violated laws (other than their immigrant status) and have been contributing to the country as parents, students, employees, and taxpayers.  The deportations are actions that the Executive Branch has taken without Congressional authorization.  From my perspective, a better approach would be to stimulate a vote in Congress.

Sadly, Congress has rules that sometimes block votes even when a majority of the members of the House or Senate want to vote on them.  These rules should be ended.  While these rules are in place, the “solution” I recommend in the previous paragraph may be unavailable.  Under these circumstances, the propriety of a government shutdown is less clear to me.

Open Primaries

Today, Smerconish had this survey question:  "Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?

I commented that his question assumed a false premise.  I have been a lifelong independent voter, but I have voted in a Presidential primary each election.  Nothing in KS has precluded me from voting.  I simply decide which primary interests me most, then register for that party.  That works fine.

I strongly agree with Smerconish that we have a problem because elections are settled in primaries where extremists dominate the vote.  We could reduce this problem as follows:

1.        Find a way to stem what I think is the worst gerrymandering: the parties agreeing on safe districts for each other.  How do we curb this?

2.        We need political, religious, and educational leadership who promote character, sincere discussion and patriotism.

3.        Implement Ranked-Choice Voting, which encourages people to vote for the candidate of their choice (even if they think that candidate will lose), selecting their preferred major candidate lower on their slate.   RCV will encourage more candidates.  It also may encourage candidates to want to be listed second on ballots of voters who are not their core supporters, which should discourage voters in primaries from selecting extremist candidates.

I’m “open” (pun intended) to discussion on open primaries.  There are a variety of ways they can work.  But groups of people with common ideas should be able to get together and select a candidate who reflects their preferences.  Such “freedom of association” is protected by our Constitution. 

Open primaries seem likely to thwart such efforts.  They generally throw all candidates into one pot and allow only the top two vote-getters to advance to the main election. 

·        That seems to make it hard for groups to get together and select and support a main election candidate to promote their ideas, even if they would qualify under traditional rules. 

·        The more candidates a party has in an Open Primary, the lower its chances of having a candidate in the final election.  I'm concerned that Open Primaries will encourage “closed door” deals ahead of the primary to reduce the number of candidates.

Some proponents of open primaries claim there is no evidence of problems I envision.  However, I think such problems have already occurred, to a small degree.  Moving to open primaries would make that much more common.

We have seen major (and, unfortunately, successful) interference in party primaries.  Democrats, while claiming to fear right-wing extremist candidates, spent $51.5 million in 2022 to interfere in Republican primaries in 12 states supporting extremist Republicans who they thought would be easier to beat.  Such interference led to more extreme candidates, not more moderate candidates.  Would open primaries make such interference easier and broader?

The rights of the following groups to associate and select and support a candidate should not be abridged.

•      People who favor trans athletes competing as their chosen gender
•      People who want to restrict athletes to compete in their birth gender
•      Pro-life voters
•      Pro-choice voters
•      Isolationists
•      Internationalists
•      Free trade advocates or tariff supporters
•      Groups with cross-sectional preferences, such as isolationists who support free trade

·        How does an “open primary” system protect the rights of people to band together to select and support a candidate?

The current KS system already allows independents to register in any party to vote in a primary. Why am I wrong to oppose Open Primaries?