Getting Our Fiscal House in Order Part 2: The Republican Tax Plan

Nearly five years ago, I wrote about the need for us to get our fiscal house in order. This was in the midst of calls by then-President Obama to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to trim federal deficits and tame the runaway national debt. The vast wealth inequality in our country, as well as the disparity between the taxes often paid by businesses and the wealthiest Americans compared to lower-income taxpayers, certainly helps justify the argument that a heavier tax burden should be borne by the most fortunate among us. At the time, though, I argued that before the government demands more from any of us, it owes it to all of us to be more responsible with our tax dollars. 

I remain consistent in my assessment of half a decade ago when it comes to the current proposed Republican tax plan. The truth is, most taxpayers would selfishly welcome paying less taxes. But what is the cost of these tax cuts for society as a whole? Just like I once questioned the wisdom of raising taxes in light of a fiscally irresponsible government running up the federal debt, I now question the call for cutting taxes while the government runs budget deficits on a yearly basis.

The main argument in favor of the Republican tax plan is that it will spur economic growth, thereby increasing government revenue. But that involves a very precarious presumption: that the economy will continue growing uninterrupted, even when the current streak is already one of the longest ever. Just like a responsible family accounts for unforeseen circumstances when crafting a budget, the government must consider what happens if the economy slows. And while a family with a robust emergency fund can better withstand a monetary hit, one with a mortgage, car payments, student loans, and several maxed-out credit cards would likely face financial ruin if a major crisis surfaces. With the federal debt currently at over $20 trillion and annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars, there's no disputing which family's budget situation most closely resembles our own government.

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution might be a solution to the government's out of control spending. Of course, such an amendment could bring about a whole new set of problems. Ultimately, just like a family facing the reality of a less-than-ideal financial situation, it would take courage, sacrifice, and innovation for our government to operate within its means. 

The bottom line is, even though the idea of tax cuts is always attractive to those who pay them, the government getting its fiscal house in order by controlling spending is a much more pressing priority. Almost five years ago, I called on the government to hold off on raising taxes until it cut wasteful spending. Today, we should call on the government to hold off on tax cuts for the very same reason.

Mayim Bialik Should Apologize for Apologizing

With the Harvey Weinstein scandal all over the news recently, many people have come out on social media to speak on sexual harassment and assault. Obviously, the vast majority of sane humans is against such atrocious behavior. But probably the most important outcome from all this is increased awareness of just how pervasive this behavior is throughout our society, particularly the workplace.

Adding her own two cents and sharing her experiences on this hot-button topic, actress Mayim Bialik penned an opinion piece published in The New York Times. In it, she describes how her "self-protecting and wise" choices and behavior have contributed, along with what she terms her "non-traditional" physical appearance, to her steering clear of the kinds of encounters suffered by women who may dress provocatively and "act flirtatiously."

Naturally, there was a backlash by victims of sexual harassment and assault and their advocates who make the most important point of all: sexual harassment and assault is always the perpetrator's fault and never the victim's fault. That is 100% true. Period. Full stop.

But while asserting that victims are always blameless is certainly a valid point, that doesn't mean that Ms. Bialik's point is not valid. In fact, in her essay, she points out how "women should be free to act however they want" in a "perfect" world. And that's true! In a perfect world, anyone and everyone should be free to act however they want: free to walk down a dark alley in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the middle of the night; free to wear blue in Bloods gang territory; free to pet a rattlesnake. Sure, in a "perfect" world, we should be free to do any of those things. But the fact is, our world is far from perfect, and while a woman does not deserve to be sexually harassed or assaulted no matter how provocatively she dresses or how flirtatiously she acts, engaging in certain behaviors can certainly be misinterpreted by men blinded by hormones, wealth, power, or a lethal combination of all three.

So, in essence, Mayim Bialik should apologize for apologizing. Or rather, she should not have apologized at all, because the points she made in her opinion piece are perfectly valid and appropriate. 

Gun Violence vs Gun Rights

In the wake of the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, we find ourselves, as a nation, once again grappling with the same questions that arise way too frequently: How do we stop the gun violence plaguing our country? How do we keep something like this from happening again? Naturally, these questions usually come up when the hurt is still fresh and the grieving is in full force, but also while the powerful gun lobby continues to look out for its own bottom line and decent law-abiding citizens seek to preserve their right to bear arms. All too often, these opposing forces create an environment where people are talking past each other rather than coming together to find common sense solutions. What typically ends up happening, as a result, is nothing much.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I’m just another concerned citizen who believes that our right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is assaulted in a very real sense every time one of these brutal attacks occurs. But perhaps by sharing my interpretation of the Second Amendment, I can make at least a tiny positive contribution to the conversation about how best to solve an extremely serious problem.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The very first part of the amendment is where the greatest trouble lies. Based on the incredible amount of gun violence in our country, it is clear to any rational person, regardless of where they stand on gun laws, that the “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment is utterly failing. One of the NRA’s most famous slogans is: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Without getting into the merits or validity of the slogan itself, we can interpret it to mean that any regulation of guns should strive to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys while not taking guns away from the good guys. The question then becomes, how do we determine who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? For our gun rights to be “well regulated,” the answer to that question becomes, very literally, a life and death matter.

The next word in the amendment, “Militia,” is also not without controversy. A militia is basically a civilian military force. Based on this definition, civilians may indeed possess military style weapons. However, the possession of these weapons by civilians must be “well regulated.” Therefore, ownership of these weapons should be severely restricted based on the qualifications of the civilian and the weapon’s degree of deadliness. In other words, the deadlier the weapon, the harder it should be to acquire. For civilians to possess military style weapons, they should have to exhaustively prove their physical and mental fitness, as well as receive the proper training on how to handle, use, and safely store such weapons.

The phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” that follows in the amendment is important because it outlines the purpose of the militia. Broadly, we can interpret this to mean that armed civilians secure the “free State” by doing everything from fighting off an invading force (not very likely) to protecting their own homes and family from a burglar (much more likely).

Finally, the Second Amendment ends with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This phrase enshrines in the Constitution our right to have guns, which brings us back to square one: How do we stop gun violence in the United States? Certainly, neither the spirit nor the original intent of the Second Amendment has anything to do with the devastating events unfolding across our nation on a seemingly regular basis. For that reason, we must demand that Congress respect the Constitution and ensure that our right to bear arms is “well regulated” by passing sensible laws that will safeguard our gun rights while helping to prevent these national tragedies.

ADDENDUM (10/05/2017):

I don't customarily make changes to my blog posts once they're published (with one notable exception), but I felt a certain uneasiness with this one almost as soon as I finished it. I realized that I spent a large part of the post addressing gun violence and gun rights through my interpretation of the Second Amendment, but I didn't address the social aspects of gun violence. I failed to bring up what are probably the most important questions of all: How can someone feel the need to commit such a horrible deed against other human beings? What would drive someone to act so violently?

Like I wrote before, I don't have all the answers. But taking a broad view of our social structure might offer some insight. While some may argue that we do not explicitly encourage such violence as a society, there can be little doubt that, at the very least, we pave the road by which these awful incidents travel, as we can see by taking a look at our nation's values.

The United States has the world's largest economy. We also spend more on the military than the next several nations combined. These two telling facts are a basic reflection of the values of our society. The most important things to us are wealth and power. We believe in accumulating untold riches. We also believe in strength, force, and domination. That's it! Long and healthy lives for our citizens? Forget it! We rank #42 in the world in life expectancy. A smart, well-educated populace? Please! The U.S. lags far behind many other countries in reading, math, and science while many of our teachers earn virtual poverty wages. Our values, once again, are money and might. Period.

So, how do we expect our mentally unstable citizens to react when they feel powerless? When there is such a stigma on mental illness? When we look down with disdain, starting with our own president, on those whom we perceive as "weak?" When our multi-billion dollar entertainment industry constantly bombards us with violent movies, TV shows, music, and video games, then uses their own people to hypocritically lament the acts of violence that happen in the real world? When it is so easy to get a deadly firearm with which to rain death upon fellow human beings? When the idea of strength is equal to wanton destruction in the eyes of certain twisted individuals?

We can't keep turning a blind eye to the effect that our own values play on our society. We can keep believing the people profiting from the violence, whether it's the entertainment industry telling us "it's just art" or the gun industry telling us "it's your Constitutional right." While we're at it, we might as well believe whatever the tobacco industry wants to tell us about cigarettes or whatever the fossil fuel industry wants to tell us about climate change!

Wealth and power. Those are our values. We either change our values, or we keep living (and dying) with the consequences.

The State of Our Politics: Where Do We Go from Here? (Part 3 of 3)

NOTE: This is a series of three blog posts that look at the current state of American politics. In the first post, I break down the Republican party base in the age of Donald Trump, using historical analysis for context. The second post focuses on what the Democrats, as the party currently out of power, can learn from the recent success of the Republicans. Finally, this third post highlights how we can all help move the country forward, regardless of which political party is in power.

The State of Our Politics: Where Do We Go from Here?

The deep political divisions all across the United States might inspire many to scoff at the idea of unifying the country, but the truth is that not only is it possible, it is absolutely necessary. As described in part one, the divisions in our country go way back to its earliest years. And even as the Democrats can learn from the success of the Republicans over the last several elections, as described in part two, healing our nation and moving it forward should be accomplished together, regardless of how we choose to politically identify ourselves individually.

The main obstacle to unity comes from our nation’s great diversity. So, the first step has to be an acceptance that different people have different worldviews. A healthy respect for that diversity is necessary to coexist effectively. We must understand that a large part of the population has religious beliefs that teach that homosexuality is a sin and aborting a pregnancy is akin to murder. However, we must also understand that the United States has separation of church and state, and morality cannot be legislated. We have to see the existence of social and racial injustices stemming from the ugly aspects of our country's history, but we also have to encourage a sense of individual responsibility among Americans of every color, size, and shape. But accepting our racial and religious diversity can only go so far. The most dangerous aspect of our diversity has nothing to do with our beliefs or our skin color.

Our free enterprise system has helped the United States achieve an unprecedented level of prosperity. Under that system, we've accepted that there will be wealthy people, poor people, and a middle class in between. However, our vast income and wealth inequality goes far beyond what most Americans can even fathom, let alone what they believe is fair (see video below). Most Americans of all socioeconomic levels acknowledge that a civilized nation like ours should be perfectly capable of not only providing citizens with opportunities to amass wealth, but also make sure that the most vulnerable among us do not suffer needlessly, and that our middle class is strong and healthy. Overall, we must take concrete steps to ensure that our nation functions well for the benefit of every American.

One idea we can enact as part of our political discourse is to focus on the solutions to our problems, not on attacking opponents just to score a “win.” Although the two major political parties seem like they’re always at each other’s throats, our representatives need to realize that none of them got elected with 100% of the vote. Many of them probably won with only slight majorities. Therefore, the best way to govern is as close to the middle as possible, incorporating the best ideas from all sides. In that spirit, we need to recognize that the free market is incapable of solving all of society's problems, but we also need to realize that neither can the government. We need to acknowledge that businesses deserve to maximize profits, but workers also deserve to earn enough to be able to provide for their families. We must allow for the extraction of resources and manufacture of goods, but we must also demand protection for our shared natural environment. We should encourage the wealth-building power of capitalism, but we shouldn't do so at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens or the workers whose daily efforts help create that wealth. We must also strengthen our democracy by passing laws to encourage voter participation, curtail or even eliminate gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing and lobbying to minimize the undue influence of powerful and wealthy interests, benefiting all Americans in the long run.

Another way our country shows its strength is by protecting the freedom of every citizen to pursue happiness in their own individual way. However, as long as we have such a vast and growing wealth and income inequality gap, the number of people who will never have a fair shot at pursuing that happiness will only increase, depressing economic growth, straining our social structure, and sending millions of Americans from the middle class into poverty. The hard-working Americans who help create trillions of dollars in wealth every year should be able to enjoy it, not just the small group of rich investors who own the businesses. We can also look beyond our borders for smart solutions to pressing issues.

On the global stage, the United States already has the largest economy and most powerful military in the world. However, while America enjoys supremacy in these areas, we fall behind in others. And our military and economic dominance should not preclude us from learning what we can from countries that are outdoing us in other areas. For example: What is the health care system like in countries with the highest life expectancy? What is the criminal justice system like in countries with the lowest crime rates? What is the education system like in countries with the highest student achievement? How much paid family leave, paid vacation time, and child care assistance do they have in countries with the happiest citizens? We do not diminish our greatness by incorporating and improving upon the successful ideas of other nations. Rather, we enhance our strength and show the leadership that comes with the ability to adapt to given circumstances and learn from others to make our society better.

The problems we face in our country are deep and, in many ways, embedded into the very fabric of who we are. But that doesn’t mean we can’t strive for and achieve the promise set forth in our Constitution of creating “a more perfect Union.” Only by embracing our differences, not shunning them, and working together to solve the issues that vex us all, can we move forward as “one Nation under God.”

The State of Our Politics: Learning How to Win (Part 2 of 3)

NOTE: This is a series of three blog posts that look at the current state of American politics. In the first post, I break down the Republican party base in the age of Donald Trump, using historical analysis for context. In this second post, I focus on what the Democrats, as the party currently out of power, can learn from the recent success of the Republicans. Finally, the third post highlights how we can all help move the country forward, regardless of which political party is in power.

The State of Our Politics: Learning How to Win

In the 2016 election, the Republican party took over the White House and Congress. With control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, the GOP earned the power to advance its agenda with little opposition. Many diverse factors aligned to make this rise to power possible, including what could be considered a backlash against the first black president and the country’s shifting racial and cultural demographics, as alluded to in part one of this three part series. But the GOP owes its political success, in large part, to very deliberate moves it made to galvanize the electorate behind its candidates in the years leading up to 2016. It would be good for the Democratic party to learn some of the tactics and strategies employed by the Republicans if the Democrats hope to regain any kind of significant political power ever again.  

One method of gaining political advantage the Republicans used to great effect is gerrymandering. Although both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering, the GOP used it after the last census to solidify majorities in districts across the country. The Princeton Election Consortium conducted in-depth research that debunked the myth that both sides are equally guilty of gerrymandering. They discovered significant and widespread Republican gerrymandering in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, and Indiana that by and large surpassed any Democratic gerrymandering efforts. Journalists for Business Insider and The Washington Post have also reported on the extent of Republican gerrymandering far exceeding Democrats' own efforts in this regard. The solution, however, is not for the Democrats to work at becoming better at gerrymandering than the Republicans. After all, gerrymandering by either party hurts our democracy because the people who get elected do not accurately represent the people who elect them. The real solution is to take the necessary steps to minimize, or eliminate the practice altogether.

And while gerrymandering is a very old method of gaining political power, Republicans have also relied on modern technology, starting with the president. Donald Trump’s technology use is mostly limited to Twitter. He doesn’t even use email. However, his campaign used technology in revolutionary ways, by compiling detailed voter data and micro-targeting through social media, including Democratic voters for the purpose of switching their vote or depressing turnout. With the help of data firms like Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign devoted a significant amount of resources to its digital division, to great effect. This is all “listening” to the voters 21st Century style, and the Democrats would be well-served to ramp up their voter data analysis efforts in order to target their message right down to the individual voter, whether that voter is a Republican or a Democrat. And while many people still watch plenty of TV, social media can be much more effective to reach voters, particularly younger voters. Who knows? Maybe the next Democratic presidential candidate will be able to match Trump tweet for tweet!

Another one of the great strengths of the Republican party might actually be confused for a weakness. As of this writing, Republicans have struggled to pass a healthcare reform bill, even with majorities in both chambers of Congress. Although the bill’s unpopularity and the president’s low approval rating have certainly contributed to stalling this legislation, one of the main problems in mustering the necessary number of votes has been the wide political diversity within the Republican conference. The Republicans in the House include the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, the more moderate Tuesday Group, and representatives spanning the entire conservative political spectrum. The Senate Republican membership also constitutes a wide variety of conservative ideologies ranging from very conservative to moderate. As a small example of the ideological diversity within the Republican party, right here in South Florida we have Carlos Curbelo, a Republican House member who's a strong proponent for climate change policy, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican congresswoman who's an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights. While this ideological diversity can sometimes present challenges when trying to pass legislation, it’s a testament to the GOP being a true big tent political party. With winning elections in mind, the Democrats would do well to embrace center-left candidates in the upper Midwest, even if they may happen to be strong gun rights advocates. They should support center-left candidates, who just might happen to be pro-life, in deeply religious districts in the South. They could win back control of Congress by helping center-left candidates in Arizona and Texas, even if those candidates are in favor of Trump’s border wall. This party loyalty and determination to win was most evident in the presidential race. While many Republicans had serious misgivings about a Trump presidency, most of them ended up uniting behind him as their candidate and helped propel him to the White House. On the other hand, many traditionally Democratic voters stayed home or chose a third party candidate rather than supporting Hillary Clinton. The bottom line is that in order to win more elections, Democrats need to relax their ideological litmus test and support members with more diverse views, even if some of those views might occasionally go against their own.

So, gerrymandering, technology, and party unity have all helped Republicans gain significant majorities at both the federal and state level. It all culminated with winning the White House in the November 2016 presidential election. In response to Trump’s victory and presidency, many Americans have taken to the streets in protest. While the right to protest is constitutionally protected, Republicans have shown that the single most powerful weapon we have is the vote. So, another very valuable lesson the Democrats can apply to themselves is to focus on getting out the vote instead of protesting. Because even though protests can help achieve some victories, the real winning always takes place at the ballot box. But you have to give the voters something to vote for as well, which is where messaging is crucial.

Perhaps the most important thing the Democrats can learn from the Republicans is the idea of having a simple and clear economic and political philosophy. The Republican ideas of smaller government, stronger military, less regulation, and lower taxes have a broad appeal to a majority of voters, even if those voters may disagree with specific policies. The Democrats need to formulate an equally appealing philosophy that the average working and middle class voter can embrace. Unfortunately, bigger government, less military spending, more regulation, and higher taxes just doesn’t cut it! In the classic sense of politics being the art of the possible, the message should focus on what needs to be accomplished: a healthier, better-educated populace; a vibrant and upwardly mobile workforce; a clean and safe natural environment. Those are policy messages that every American can support.

Ultimately, the Democrats, if they wish to regain political power in this country, need to learn from the party that actually possesses that power at the present time. Beyond that, the Democratic party needs to also find its own innovative ways to appeal to the American voter by doing more than just resisting Trump and the Republicans. If the Democrats don’t do this, we may end up with many years of Republican rule even while the majority of Americans may inherently support Democratic policies. Regardless of which party is in power, we the people need to take steps to heal the division that's such an inherent part of our nation's history, as discussed in part one, and learn to work together to move our nation forward. And how we can achieve this very important task will be covered more in-depth in the final part of this three-part series.

The State of Our Politics: Breaking Down the Republican Base (Part 1 of 3)

NOTE: This is a series of three blog posts that look at the current state of American politics. In this first post, I break down the Republican party base in the age of Donald Trump, using historical analysis for context. The second post focuses on what the Democrats, as the party currently out of power, can learn from the recent success of the Republicans. Finally, the third post highlights how we can all help move the country forward, regardless of which political party is in power.

The State of Our Politics: Breaking Down the Republican Base

The election of Donald Trump in November 2016 solidified Republican control of the presidency to go with both chambers of Congress, in addition to holding a majority of state governments. While polling data seems to indicate that a larger proportion of the population actually favors more of the center-left policies usually espoused by Democrats, certain significant factors have nevertheless allowed the Republican party to establish decisive control of the government. Since they’re the party currently in charge of the nation’s political agenda, it’s important to understand which voters make up the GOP base. To do that, we have to first look at history.

Political parties change and evolve over time. In its over 160-year existence, the Republican party is no exception. In fact, one could argue that the modern-day Republican party is very different from the Republican party of even twenty years ago. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, we’re going to focus on the voters that support the Republican party in its current incarnation.

Donald Trump won thirty states on his way to the presidency (refer to map below). These states, which make up three-fifths, or 60% of all states, are full or majority Republican at just about every level, from federal congressional representation to state governorships and legislatures. This level of dominance by one political party should not be understated. However, what’s even more important is knowing the people who are voting overwhelmingly Republican. What is the historical context behind the control the GOP currently enjoys? Will understanding the Republican base help us make sense of the deep division in our country?

Let’s start by looking at the history of these states that vote Republican. First, let’s go back to the Civil War, to the time when the Republican party was formed and our nation was literally at its most divided. Ten of the 11 states that formed the Confederacy back then are states that voted for Trump and are full or majority Republican. Of all Confederate states, only Virginia went Democratic in the 2016 presidential election. Yes, it’s true that Abraham Lincoln, the president who led the Union and wrote the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, was a Republican, and the Confederate states that wanted to preserve slavery were Democrat. But what is most important is which party the descendants of those Confederates are voting for and supporting now. And the answer to that is, by a significantly large margin, the Republican party.

Next, let’s look at the lynchings of African Americans. There were 3,446 total recorded lynchings of African Americans from 1882 to 1968. Of these lynchings, 3,303 of them occurred in states that voted for Trump and are full or majority Republican. In other words, over 95% of these black lynchings took place in states currently controlled by the GOP.

Another aftereffect of the Civil War and the racial divide in our country was the enactment of Jim Crow laws. These laws were specifically designed to oppress and subjugate black people in most areas of American society, from education to transportation, and everything in between. Most Jim Crow laws were passed in states that voted for Trump and are full or majority Republican.

Finally, let’s look at a detail that is not directly related to race: the federal funds dependency score (refer to map below). This score is derived based on how much a state relies on federal funding. The higher the score, the more that state depends on federal funds. In the 2016 presidential election, nine of the 10 states with the highest federal funds dependency score voted for the Republican candidate. By contrast, nine of the 10 states with the lowest federal funds dependency score voted for the Democratic candidate. The biggest irony here is that the Republican party bills itself as the party of “smaller government,” yet the federal funds dependency score shows that Republican voters rely on big funds from this government they keep wanting to shrink.

What does all this mean? Does the Republican party consist of a bunch of racist people who can’t get by without government help? Certainly not. The great majority of the people living in these Republican states are good, decent, hard-working, self-sufficient people. In fact, I can attest that some of the most honest, loyal, warm people I’ve ever met have been Republican voters. Nevertheless, this country’s racist legacy cannot be ignored. And there's no denying that the descendants of the people who owned slaves, enacted Jim Crow laws, and lynched black people are mostly Republican voters today. It is also a fact that while many of these Republican voters decry “big government” and its “runaway spending,” they depend on funding from that same government more than their Democratic counterparts.

So, the Republican party controls the presidency and Congress, as well as a majority of governorships and state legislatures. And while it enjoys support from a cross section of American society, a large portion of the GOP base consists of the keepers of our nation’s ugly racist legacy. Additionally, the economic realities of these Republican states contradict a central tenet of their own party’s political philosophy. Overall, what takes on a deeper meaning is not so much who makes up the Republican party base, but how these voters help shape the path our nation takes while we head to an uncertain future, as we will see in parts two and three of this three-part series.

How Should Teachers Get Paid?

Not long ago, I wrote about the ridiculous Florida Best & Brightest Scholarship Program, which has doled out millions of dollars in bonus money to teachers who got a high score on a college entrance exam they took long before they were even teachers. There's also performance pay, which ties teacher salaries to student test scores. No other public servants get paid like this. We don't pay cops based on how well they did in high school or how many criminals they arrest. Firefighters get paid even when the house burns down, and they don’t get a bonus for every kitten they rescue from a tree. So, the question is, how should teachers get paid?

For starters, like the aforementioned cops and firefighters, teachers perform a vital service for the community. Therefore, rookie teachers should count on a decent salary from the beginning of their career. Nobody goes into teaching to get rich, but a reasonable starting salary should be one that's significantly above the median salary in the particular school district. When it comes to salary increases, nothing helps teachers become better quite like good old-fashioned experience. However, teacher salaries should be based on other factors as well.

Teachers who earn additional teaching-related degrees and certificates are gaining the knowledge necessary to become better teachers, so they should earn more money. For example, a high school social sciences teacher with a master’s degree in economics should get paid more than a like teacher who doesn’t possess such a degree. Simply put, the more degrees and certifications teachers get related to their field, the more money they should make.

Teachers can also get better by participating in professional development workshops. These courses give teachers valuable knowledge that they can immediately apply in the classroom for the direct benefit of their students. Perhaps this is an area where a bonus system would actually make sense; the more professional development workshops teachers attend, the more they get paid. And teachers who actually lead workshops and help disseminate information to other teachers can get even bigger bonuses.

What about the "performance pay" system that ties teacher salaries to student test scores? On the surface, this may seem like a good idea, but we run into serious problems when it comes to equity and fairness. To illustrate, I currently teach both regular and advanced Language Arts classes. Although I’m the same teacher teaching the same standards to both groups, my advanced students routinely outperform my regular students in both grades and test scores. Does that mean I’m the Jekyll and Hyde of education? Am I a genius teacher with one group of students and a bungling fool with the other? Of course not. Student success ultimately comes from the student, not the teacher. So why tie teachers' salaries to something they have little or no control over?

When it comes to teacher salaries, like with most things, the best approach is simplicity and common sense. Instead of using complex formulas or arbitrary guidelines as criteria, we should reward teachers who improve by accumulating experience, acquiring teaching-related higher education degrees and certifications, and participating in professional development. This will help teachers teach better and lift up all students, rather than having the weight and pressure of student test scores dragging both teachers and students down.

High Impact Teacher vs. Best & Brightest

In the wake of a recent Herald article describing how Miami ranks near the bottom of all major U.S. cities when it comes to housing affordability for teachers, how teachers are compensated in the state of Florida takes on a bigger, real-world, dollars-and-cents significance. While the state’s legislature prepares to continue the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program that’s based on a teacher’s college entrance exam score that may be decades old, teachers who are actually making a positive contribution to their students’ learning are receiving nothing more than the paper equivalent of a pat on the back. I am one of those teachers!

Recently, I received a letter from Florida Department of Education Commissioner Pam Stewart congratulating me for being “one of the highest impact teachers in the state!” This determination was made “based on a state-level value-added model (VAM)” that “used each of the most recent three years of data” of my “former students’ performance on statewide standardized assessments.” While the VAM, and how it’s calculated, has received plenty of well-deserved criticism, it is currently the only official way used to tie a teacher’s effectiveness to actual student performance. And what does this High Impact Teacher achievement earn me? Not one shiny red penny!

Meanwhile, the Florida Legislature has allocated $50 million in each of the last two years for the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program. This year, a Florida House member proposed adding an additional $200 million to the program. The Best & Brightest bonus is determined in part by how high a teacher’s score was on a college entrance exam, such as the SAT. Teachers who qualified received over $8,000 under this program last year. In my case, I took the SAT nearly a quarter century ago. Under the criteria for Best & Brightest, I scored high enough on one of the two SAT categories, but to qualify, I would have had to score high enough on both.

Let that sink in for a minute. I had a measurable real-life positive effect on my students’ education for the past three years, and I am not getting any money whatsoever for this. Yet, Florida legislators have determined that if I would have scored well enough on a test I took almost 25 years ago that has no definitive connection to my students’ education, I would deserve thousands of bonus dollars! In case you’re slapping your face at the baffling absurdity of it all, please rest assured that you are not alone!

If you are a fellow teacher, a parent, or just a concerned citizen, you should contact your Florida state representative and senator and let them know that you believe the allocation of the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program money based on the results of a teacher’s college entrance exam test score is ill-conceived, at best. If you are a Florida legislator yourself, then it is your duty to talk some sense into your fellow legislators! We should award the Best & Brightest Scholarship Program bonus money to the teachers who are actually providing a genuine quantifiable benefit to their students' education.

Republican Health Care Plan Means Less Freedom Than Obamacare

The health care law known as Obamacare mandates that people purchase health insurance. The Republican Party feels that this goes against its core values of freedom, choice, and personal responsibility. It’s no surprise, then, that the Republicans are citing these same values to promote the American Health Care Act (AHCA), their repeal and replacement plan for Obamacare. However, in a strange twist, the AHCA may actually leave Americans who make responsible choices with less freedom than Obamacare!

Let’s start with freedom and choice. These terms, used within the context of the AHCA, invariably come down to money. Republicans believe the American people should have the freedom to choose what kind of health insurance they want to buy, or whether they even want to buy health insurance at all. Put another way, rather than mandated health insurance under Obamacare, the AHCA ostensibly offers Americans the freedom to spend their healthcare dollars however they choose. This goes to the root of the difference between the two plans. Many Republicans passionately believe that the government should not force anyone to buy health insurance. Doing so is un-American, they say, because it takes away people’s freedom and choice, forcing them to buy health insurance even if they don’t want it.

However, giving Americans the freedom to choose whether or not to buy health insurance, as the AHCA purports to do, could actually end up, paradoxically, taking more freedom away. In order to understand this, one must first understand the way insurance works. Insurance is all about risk management. The larger the pool, the more dissipated the risk. Simply stated, the more people buy insurance, the less it costs for each individual because the risk is spread out over a larger group of people. This is why one of the central tenets of Obamacare is the insurance mandate. It also happens to be one of the most unpopular aspects of the law for Republicans. So, the easy solution is to pass the AHCA plan, which eliminates the mandate and gives the people the freedom to choose, right? Not so fast!

When the AHCA gives Americans the freedom to not buy health insurance, the pool becomes smaller and riskier, thereby raising the cost. As a consequence, under the AHCA, responsible Americans who purchase health insurance end up with less freedom (in the way of less money) just so that people who choose not to purchase health insurance can have the freedom to be irresponsible. How, then, is the AHCA giving Americans more freedom than Obamacare? How is the AHCA rewarding Americans who make responsible choices? It’s incredibly ironic that the Republicans’ health care plan actually goes against three of their most cherished beliefs!

Ultimately, the best plan, better than the AHCA and even Obamacare, is universal health care. Not unlike Medicare and Social Security, everyone would pay into a universal health insurance plan that would drive down costs by amassing the widest risk pool possible: every single American! And that would go to the heart of what it means to be a citizen of this country. After all, what better way is there to enjoy our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than to be secure in the knowledge that we, as individuals, along with every member of our family, all our friends and neighbors, and our fellow citizens across the United States, can enjoy the security of knowing that our health care is fully covered? We put a man on the moon. Surely, we can figure out how to enact universal health care! We spend more on the military than the next seven nations combined. Surely, we can find a way to pay for universal health care! In the end, though, we shouldn’t do it because we can; we should do it because we must!

The Trump-Russia Connection

The list below is a collection of publicly available and verifiable facts connecting United States President Donald Trump and his closest associates during his presidential campaign and administration with Russia, generally, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, specifically. The list doesn't include the Russian hacking into the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump, although it’s very well-established that Russian agents, under the direction of Putin, were indeed responsible. Following the list is my take on the whole Trump-Russia connection. After my take, I’ve included some important questions to consider pertaining to the Trump-Russia connection and a section describing the big picture as the Trump presidency unfolds. Finally, I list my sources (including links to specific web pages). Since this blog post was first published, it has been updated multiple times as the story of the connection between Trump and Russia has unfolded and whenever new information has been revealed. Consequently, the note in parentheses at the very bottom of the blog post lists when the blog post was last updated.

The facts about the Trump-Russia connection:

• Donald Trump traveled to Moscow for the first time on July 4, 1987, by invitation of the then-Soviet ambassador, to pursue a hotel deal.
• Trump purchased a Palm Beach mansion for $41.35 million in 2004 that he sold to a Russian oligarch about four years later for more than double the price.
• Felix Sater, a Russian-born principal for real estate investment firm and Trump Tower tenant Bayrock Group, which has worked on deals with the Trump family, has admitted to having close ties to the Kremlin and the KGB. Sater communicated with Trump lawyer and Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen during the presidential campaign about helping Trump get a Trump Tower built in Moscow and win the election with the help of Vladimir Putin.
• In a 2008 real estate conference, Donald Trump Jr. admitted that the Trump Organization gets a large amount of business from Russia.
• Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani's law firm counted Russia's state-run oil company as a client.
• Trump held the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, in a deal that was financed in part by a Russian billionaire ally of Putin.
• In 2013, Trump admitted to having a relationship with Putin (video below). He also claimed to have close ties to many Russian oligarchs.

• Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked for a Russian billionaire with close ties to Putin. Manafort also advised the Putin-backed former Ukrainian president.
• Trump’s former foreign policy adviser Carter Page lived in Moscow and advised Russian state-run company Gazprom. During the Republican National Convention, Page had communications with the Russian ambassador. Also during the presidential campaign, Page gave a speech in Moscow criticizing U.S. sanctions against Russia.
• Russian-born Boris Epshteyn, a Trump aide, worked to promote investments in Russia.
• Howard Lorber, a long-time Trump friend and adviser who donated to the Trump presidential campaign, runs a company with business interests in Russia.
• Michael Cohen wrote to Putin's personal spokesman regarding the Trump Tower project in Moscow.
• Starting in March 2016, George Papadopoulos, an adviser for the Trump campaign, sent multiple emails about arranging a meeting between Trump campaign officials and Russians.
• Richard Burt, who helped draft a foreign policy speech Trump delivered in April 2016 that called for greater cooperation with Russia, was lobbying at the time for a Russian-backed gas pipeline. He also advised an investment group with close ties to the Kremlin.
• Before his April 2016 foreign policy speech, Trump met the Russian ambassador. During the speech, the Russian ambassador sat in the front row.
• The Republican National Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, who later became Trump's White House chief of staff, paid a firm with ties to a Russian former KGB agent for reports on Trump's presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
• At a news conference during his presidential campaign, Trump said he hoped Russia could find Clinton's "30,000 emails that are missing" (video below).

• Roger Stone, a former campaign adviser for Trump, communicated privately with Guccifer 2.0, the persona tied to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, in the summer of 2016.
• Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official, arranged a meeting between Stone and a Russian offering to help provide information that would help Trump's presidential campaign.
• Trump's deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn, who was a Trump aide during the presidential campaign, communicated with campaign officials in June 2016 about efforts to arrange a meeting between Trump officials and Putin.
• On June 9, 2016, shortly after Trump secured the Republican nomination, Donald Trump Jr., along with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, met at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin.
• During the presidential campaign while he was an adviser to Trump, Michael Flynn was paid tens of thousands of dollars for work he performed on behalf of two Russian companies. He was also paid to attend and participate in an event for the Kremlin-financed network RT, where he sat next to Putin (pictured below).

• Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, serving as CEO of ExxonMobil in 2011, struck a $500 billion oil deal with Russia. In 2013, Putin awarded Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship (pictured below). The oil deal was canceled in 2014 as a result of U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia after Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

• In 2016, Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was a member of Trump's presidential campaign at the time, met privately with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
• J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's director of national security, communicated with the Russian ambassador during the Republican National Convention. He also advocated for a softening of the language against Russia in the Republican platform.
• Gordon communicated with a Russian accused of being a foreign agent.
• Gordon, Sessions, Page, Trump campaign national security advisory committee member Walid Phares, and Trump's former Deputy National Security Advisor K. T. McFarland, were part of a diplomacy conference held during the Republican National Convention attended by the Russian ambassador.
• Trump's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus. A part-owner of the bank, along with a former KGB agent who was vice-chairman of the bank, are both close allies to Putin. Another one of the part-owners of the bank is the same Russian oligarch who had bought a Palm Beach mansion from Trump. Ross is also invested in a shipping company with ties to a Russian gas company owned in part by Putin's son-in-law.
• Jason Greenblatt, a former Trump Organization lawyer and current White House special representative for international negotiations, met with the chief rabbi of Russia, an ally of Putin.
• A Russian bank with leaders who are close allies to Putin was found to be communicating with an email server from the Trump Organization.
• In September 2016, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who has met multiple times with Russian officials, met with then-Trump campaign adviser Michael Flynn.
• In October 2016, Donald Trump, Jr. spoke at a private dinner hosted by a group with connections to Russia's Foreign Ministry that promotes pro-Kremlin initiatives.
• Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and White House senior adviser, met with the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower in December 2016 and discussed setting up a secret communication channel between Trump's team and Russia. Kushner also met with an official from a Russian bank tied to Putin that's been under U.S. sanctions since 2014.
• During the presidential transition, while attending intelligence briefings with Trump, Flynn was lobbying on behalf of a Turkish man with business ties to Putin.
• Flynn also communicated with the Russian ambassador. Flynn later resigned as national security adviser as a result of providing misleading information regarding these contacts.
• Erik Prince, a major donor to the Trump campaign and brother of Trump's Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, also with ties to Trump's one-time campaign CEO, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Steve Bannon, met in January 2017 in the Seychelles with a Putin associate.
• Since taking office, the Trump administration has explored lifting sanctions placed on Russia by the Obama administration for invading Ukraine and interfering in the U.S. presidential election.
• In February 2017, during his first foreign trip as secretary of state, Tillerson met privately with the Russian foreign minister after the press was ushered from the meeting (video below).

• Yachts belonging to Robert Mercer, a major Trump campaign donor, and the Russian oligarch who bought a mansion from Trump were seen anchored near each other off the coast of the British Virgin Islands.
• The law firm representing Trump that wrote a letter declaring that he has no significant business ties to Russia received a "Russia Law Firm of the Year" award.
• Stephen Schwarzman, an economic adviser for Trump, helped a Russian bank with ties to Putin seek international investments.
• A number of individuals with ties to Russia attended events related to Trump's inauguration.
• Trump met with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador, per Putin's personal request, at the White House (pictured below). No American media were allowed to attend, although a Russian media member was in attendance. In the meeting, Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russians.

• Trump met with Putin for the first time as president at a Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany in July 2017 (pictured below). The only other people present at the meeting were Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the Russian foreign minister, and the translators. After the meeting, Putin told reporters it appeared Trump agreed with him that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

• Trump called a bill strengthening U.S. sanctions against Russia "significantly flawed" and "unconstitutional."
• In response to Putin's order to expel 755 U.S. embassy workers from Russia, Trump thanked him for helping the U.S. "cut down on payroll."
• Trump and Putin met informally at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference. Trump afterwards said that Putin "very strongly" denied meddling in the U.S presidential election. Trump also said he had a "very good feeling" about meeting with Putin.
• The Trump administration sent to Congress a list of Russian defense and intelligence entities subject to sanctions almost a month past the deadline. Later, the Trump administration declined to impose any sanctions related to those entities.
• Trump said he congratulated Putin on Putin's election victory.
• Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that Trump had notified Russia that the U.S. would not impose sanctions on Russia, even after UN Ambassador Nikki Haley had announced the sanctions.
• Putin said that he and Trump speak regularly on the phone.
• At a G7 summit in June 2018, Trump said that Russia should be allowed back into the group of leading industrialized nations.
• On July 16, 2018, Trump and Putin met in Helsinki with only their translators present. In a press conference after the meeting (video below), Trump said, "I think that the United States has been foolish," when asked whether he held Russia accountable for anything. Trump also said he didn't see any reason why Russia would have interfered in the election, despite what his own intelligence officials have told him. When asked whether he wanted Trump to win the election and whether he directed any officials to help, Putin answered, "Yes, I did."

• The Trump administration lifted sanctions on companies linked to a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin.

My take:

Trump seems to value loyalty almost as much as money. And in the midst of several bankruptcies, he may have been bailed out by Russian organized crime. For this, he would feel indebted to the Russians, both literally and figuratively. He would also feel a sense of loyalty toward those who looked out for him when no one else, certainly no American, would. Of course, because of the criminal source of this money, Trump would likely feel a real threat, whether physical or through blackmail.

The nature of Trump's compromising situation would provide the proper context for Russia to interfere in the election on his behalf, in order to be able to extract usefulness out of him as president. While Trump has failed to significantly advance his relationship with Russia the way he would like since becoming president, it definitely hasn't been for lack of trying.

Further complicating matters is Trump's party. Many Republicans go out of their way to undermine the special counsel investigation into Russian election meddling and collusion with the Trump campaign. This raises the possibility of a Constitutional crisis if evidence of wrongdoing by Trump is revealed. Unfortunately, all these developments as a test of the resiliency of our system of government show just how incredibly fragile it all really is.

Questions:

If what Donald Trump says is true, and his connection to Vladimir Putin and Russia is nothing but “fake news” and a "witch hunt," then the following questions must be answered:

• Why has Trump continually refused to publicly release his tax returns and business information?
• Why is Trump so reluctant to criticize Russia, even in light of Russia’s interference in our election, instead consistently offering positive comments and actions?
• Why have Trump’s closest aides been so secretive about their contacts with Russian agents, often confirming the contacts only after they’ve been exposed?

If Trump is indeed guilty of conspiracy with Russia, then the following questions must be answered:

• Why hasn’t any evidence been found to definitively prove these charges?
• What are the specific goals Trump and the Russians wish to achieve through their mutual cooperation?
• How would all this affect national security and America’s leadership role in the world?

Perhaps the most important question of all is, if we know all this just based on publicly available information, how much more is there that we don't know?

The Big Picture:

The main focus of the special counsel and the various congressional investigations into the Russian interference on the 2016 United States presidential election has centered on trying to find collusion between Donald Trump and members of his campaign and Russia. The special counsel investigation has already resulted in a number of indictments and guilty pleas. However, definitive evidence that Trump colluded or conspired with Russians during his campaign for president has still not been revealed. Notwithstanding, since being elected president, Trump has clearly taken actions that could be seen as beneficial to Russia. Whether it's his repeated stinging rebukes of NATO, his trade disputes with long-time allies, his revealing of classified intelligence to Russian agents in an Oval Office meeting, his reluctance to impose sanctions on Russia that were overwhelmingly passed by Congress, his increasingly aggressive attacks on American institutions like Congress, the courts, the FBI and the Department of Justice, and even the free press, or simply his continued refusal to offer any harsh criticism of Vladimir Putin, Trump has, in many ways, been conspiring with Russia out in the open all along. Anything that happened before or during the campaign is practically insignificant compared to what Trump is doing to benefit Russia at the expense of the United States and its allies around the world now that he has the power of the presidency behind him.

Sources:

1. The Washington Post - "Here’s what we know about Donald Trump and his ties to Russia" - Rosalind S. Helderman - 07/29/2016
2. Time - "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia" - Jeff Nesbit - 08/15/2016
3. The New York Times - "Trump Team's Links to Russia Crisscross in Washington" - Scott Shane & Andrew E. Kramer - 03/03/2017
4. The Atlantic - "A Brief Guide to Rex Tillerson's Controversial Foreign Ties" - Siddhartha Mahanta - 01/11/2017
5. Politico - "RNC paid intel firm for Clinton dirt" - Kenneth P. Vogel & Eli Stokols - 03/23/2017
6. CNN - "More Trump advisers disclose meetings with Russia's ambassador" - Sara Murray, Jim Acosta & Theodore Schleifer - 03/04/2017
7. The Guardian - "White House accused of blocking information on bank's Trump-Russia links" - Stephanie Kirchgaessner - 02/27/2017
8. ABC News - "For Donald Trump Jr., lingering questions about meeting with pro-Russia group" - Brian Ross, Matthew Mosk & Rym Momtaz - 03/02/2017
9. The Miami Herald - "Donald Trump and the mansion that no one wanted. Then came a Russian fertilizer king" - Glenn Garvin - 02/27/2017
10. USA Today - "Exclusive: Two other Trump advisers also spoke with Russian envoy during GOP convention" - Steve Reilly - 03/02/2017
11. UPI - "Donald Trump email server with ties to Russia's Alfa Bank questioned" - Eric DuVall - 11/01/2016
12. The Wall Street Journal - "Donald Trump Goes His Own Way With Vladimir Putin" - Damian Paletta - 05/13/2016
13. The Washington Times - "Roger Stone, Trump confidant, acknowledges ‘innocuous’ Twitter conversation with DNC hackers" - Andrew Blake - 03/10/2017
14. Business Insider - "The Bank Of Cyprus' Biggest Shareholder Is A Russian Oligarch With An Insane Real Estate Portfolio" - Linette Lopez - 03/18/2013
15. NBC News - "Flynn Attended Intel Briefings While Taking Money to Lobby for Turkey" - Ken Dilanian - 03/11/2017
16. The Hill - "Flynn took money from multiple Russian firms" - Megan R. Wilson - 03/16/2017
17. Yahoo! Finance - "AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government" - Jeff Horwitz & Chad Day - 03/22/2017
18. Reuters - "Former Reagan aide helped write Trump foreign policy speech" - Mark Hosenball - 06/08/2016
19. The Washington Post - "Another Trump adviser with deep ties to Russia" - Josh Rogin - 08/10/2016
20. NPR - "Jared Kushner To Answer Questions About Meeting With Russian Bank Officials" - Jim Zarroli - 03/28/2017
21. The Washington Post - "Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump-Putin back channel" - Adam Entous, Greg Miller, Kevin Sieff & Karen DeYoung - 04/03/2017
22. Palm Beach Post - "Yachts of Trump financial backer, Russian oligarch seen close together" - John Pacenti - 03/14/2017
23. Bloomberg - "Giuliani’s Law Firm May Open in China After London Office Grows" - Nidaa Bakhsh - 11/26/2014
24. Politico - "Flynn’s Turkish lobbying linked to Russia" - Isaac Arnsdorf - 04/25/2017
25. ABC News - "Donald Trump's tax law firm has 'deep' ties to Russia" - Pete Madden & Matthew Mosk - 05/12/2017
26. The New York Times - "Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia" - Maggie Haberman, Mark Mazetti & Matt Apuzzo - 05/26/2017
27. CNN - "Sources: Trump shared classified info with Russians" - Dan Merica, Jake Tapper & Jim Sciutto - 05/16/2017
28. The Washington Post - "Explanations for Kushner’s meeting with head of Kremlin-linked bank don’t match up" - David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind S. Helderman & Tom Hamburger - 06/01/2017
29. Newsweek - "Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions" - Graham Lanktree - 06/02/2017
30. Newsweek - "Who is Felix Sater? Trump's Russian Ex-Real Estate Partner Set to Help in Laundering Probe" - Greg Price - 07/06/2017
31. The New York Times - "Trump Team Met With Lawyer Linked to Kremlin During Campaign" - Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo & Adam Goldman - 07/08/2017
32. NBC News - "Putin says Trump Appeared to Agree Russia Did Not Interfere in 2016 Election" - Chelsea Bailey - 07/08/2017
33. ABC News - "Trump signs Russia sanctions bill he blasts as 'clearly unconstitutional'" - Veronica Stracqualursi - 08/02/2017
34. The New York Times - "Trump Praises Putin Instead of Critiquing Cuts to U.S. Embassy Staff" - Peter Baker - 08/10/2017
35. CNN - "Exclusive: Top Trump aide's email draws new scrutiny in Russia inquiry" - Manu Raju & Marshall Cohen - 08/24/2017
36. The Washington Post - "Top Trump Organization executive asked Putin aide for help on business deal" - Rosalind Helderman, Carol Leonnig & Tom Hamburger - 08/28/2017
37. BBC - "Trump: Putin and I had 'good discussions' at Apec summit" - 11/12/2017
38. Politico - "The Hidden History of Trump’s First Trip to Moscow" - Luke Harding - 11/19/2017
39. The Guardian - "Trump commerce secretary's business links with Putin family laid out in leaked files" - Jon Swaine & Luke Harding - 11/05/2017
40. The New York Times - "He's a Member of Congress. The Kremlin Likes Him So Much It Gave Him a Code Name." - Nicholas Fandos - 11/21/2017
41. CBS News - "State Dept. gives Congress list of Russia sanction targets" - Kylie Atwood - 10/27/2017
42. The Washington Post - "White House says there’s no need for new Russia sanctions" - Carol Morello - 01/29/2018
43. CNN - "Trump furious over leak of warning to not congratulate Putin" - Kaitlan Collins & Jeff Zeleny - 03/21/2018
44. CNN - "Trump decided to abandon plans for more Russia sanctions" - Jim Acosta, Michelle Kosinski, Pamela Brown, Elise Labott & Kevin Liptak
45. Yahoo! Finance - "Putin: Trump and I 'regularly talk over the phone'" - Tucker Higgins - 06/05/2018
46. CNN - "Trump says Russia should be reinstated in group of leading industrialized nations" - Allie Malloy & Nicole Gaouette - 06/08/2018
47. The Washington Post - "Trump associate Roger Stone reveals new contact with Russian national during 2016 campaign" - Manuel Roig-Franzia & Rosalind Helderman - 06/17/2018
48. ABC News - "Special counsel eyeing Russians granted unusual access to Trump inauguration parties" - Matthew Mosk & John Santucci - 06/28/2018
49. CNN - "Washington Post: Trump associate interacted with alleged Russian spy before election" - Clare Foran - 08/04/2018
50. CNBC - "Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to brief lawmakers on Thursday about easing sanctions on companies linked to Putin friend" - Tucker Higgins & Ylan Mui - 01/09/2019

(Latest update: 01/25/2019)