Approximately 48.2% of New Mexico registered voters have already cast a ballot  in the 2025 general election. According to the Secretary of State’s office, 663,874 votes were cast via early or absentee voting before early voting ended on Saturday. The 663,874 figure is lower than four years ago when roughly 785,000 votes were cast early in 2020. In 2020, 928,230 votes, representing 68.7% of all registered voters, were cast in the 2020 general election. Notwithstanding, a strong Election Day turnout will likely propel the state past 2020 turnout levels.

Saturday, November 2, was the last day of early voting in New Mexico before Tuesday’s November 5 general election.  A record number of New Mexicans had already cast their votes.  Approximately 41% of New Mexicans or 563,000 voters had participated in absentee or early voting, with 47.1% registered as Democrat, 36.7% registered as Republican and 15% registered as independent or decline to state.

Bernalillo County posted one of the highest early vote turnout rates in New Mexico this year, as more than 60% of registered Democrats and Republicans alike in the state’s most populous county voted before Election Day.  Other counties with high turnout rates so far include Santa Fe, Valencia, Sandoval and Los Alamos, where 68% of registered Democrats have already voted.

Republicans voted at a slightly higher rate than Democrats statewide, as about 55.9% of registered Republicans cast their votes before Election Day compared to roughly 52.1% of Democrats. Democrats still cast about 64,000 more votes than Republicans statewide, since Democrats entered this year’s general election with a significant voter registration advantage.

According to Secretary of State’s Office, of the state’s more than 1.3 million registered voters, about 42.9% are Democrats and 31.6% are Republicans. The remaining voters either declined to state a party affiliation, are registered Libertarians or are affiliated with a minor political party.

Brian Sanderoff, President of Research & Polling Inc.,  which does polling for the Albuquerque Journal, had this to say about the early voting trends:

“Perhaps the most interesting thing we’ve seen thus far is that Republicans are voting at a higher rate than Democrats, showing that 47.5% of the Republicans have already voted, compared to 45% of the Democrats and 26% of the independents. … So Republicans are voting at a higher rate than Democrats who have voted thus far. … Among the people who vote, more will have voted before Election Day than on Election Day. … People in New Mexico have become very accustomed to voting before Election Day.”

Counties with legislative battles are more likely to vote in higher numbers.  Sanderoff said this:

“Sometimes legislative battles can drive competition.  The legislators are at ground zero, they’re knocking on the doors there, and they can really play a much more efficient role in driving turnout.”

Voters who still have an absentee ballot can drop it off at any polling location.  The ballot must be delivered by 7 p.m. on Election Day. You can track the status of your absentee application or ballot through the Secretary of State’s Ballot Scout module at sos.nm.gov/trackmyballot.

The link to relied upon or quoted news sources are here:

https://www.sos.nm.gov/sos-static/election-day-november-5-2024.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/election/new-mexico-readies-for-election-day-with-more-than-663-000-votes-already-cast/article_3343d236-9adb-11ef-880f-bb7daed10aab.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.abqjournal.com/election/early-voting-ends-saturday-heres-what-you-need-to-know/article_7fd7c6a0-9867-11ef-80d7-57b2b77a5d37.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics/us-elections-united-states/early-voting-wraps-up-in-new-mexico/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The political day of reckoning is finally here. The most contentious and closest race for United States President will finally come to an end. With any luck, we will no longer have to endure the crude, unhinged campaign behavior, and repeated nasty lies of a politcal dotard that has a cult following.

New Mexicans can take great comfort that as of today, November 5, gone will be all the nasty, negative political ads, especially those repeatedly aired by Democrat Gabe Vasquez and  Republican Yvette Herrell attacking each other. We will finally stop having to see and hear Herrell say with a smirk on her face “I wish we could have ended all abortions in this state”.  With any luck we will not be hearing from her ever again.

On the November 5 general election ballot for voter approval will be two proposed City Charter Amendments placed on the ballot by the Albuquerque City Council back in June.

The first charter amendment would give the City Council the power to remove the fire chief and police chief, without cause, by a 7-2 vote and would require an employment contract for both positions.  The current charter requires no employment contracts and requires cause to remove the police and fire chiefs with a 6 vote majority and the positions are considered at will employees serving at the pleasure of the Mayor but requiring majority approval of the city council.

The second charter amendment creates a process to fill vacancies on a city committee intended to resolve separation of powers issues between the Mayor and City Council. The Intragovernmental Conference Committee is made of three members: the appointee from the mayor’s office, an appointee from City Council and a chairperson, who is selected by the council and mayor’s appointees.  The charter amendment forces the mayor to appoint a member to the Intragovernmental Conference Committee within 60 days of any vacancy. There is no such requirement imposed on the City Council.  As it stands, both the Mayor and City Council have total discretion as to when and who to appoint.

A third charter amendment was also passed by the City Council in June to be placed on the November 5 ballot, but it was vetoed by Mayor Tim Keller and it will not be on the ballot. The third charter amendment would have eliminated all run off elections between the two top vote getters for Mayor and City Council.  Whoever secured the most votes of all the candidates running would have won the election out right. If there is a tie between the two top vote getters, then and only then would there be a runoff.

Links to relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/election/checks-and-balances-heres-how-abq-voters-can-increase-city-councils-power/article_84951716-8a4c-11ef-aef8-573645542d7f.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/checks-balances-heres-abq-voters-140100151.html

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/voters-will-have-chance-to-decide-on-several-charter-amendments-after-city-council-vote/article_e5cf80a8-2d21-11ef-b343-7b977b5b2b9c.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/albuquerque-city-council-votes-on-amendments-to-city-charter/

https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/albuquerque-city-council-passes-proposal-for-city-charter-changes/

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

Simply put, the two Charter amendments placed on the November 5 ballot amount to nothing more than a power grab by the Albuquerque City Council to dilute the authority of the Mayor and gain more control over the Mayor’s appointees of Chief of Police and the Chief of the Albuquerque Fire and Rescue Department. City Councilors are motivated by their desire to remove APD Chief Harold Medina.  As it stands now, both Chiefs are appointed by the Mayor subject to approval of the City council, both are at will employees who serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and can be terminated by the Mayor at any time and without cause.

Harold Medina was appointed chief of Albuquerque Police Department by Keller in 2021. During the last year, city councilor’s have been highly critical of APD Chief Harold Medina with more than a few expressing that the Mayor remove him as Chief.  In 2024 Chief Medina generated a lot of headlines.  In February, Medina crashed a department truck into a vintage Mustang while fleeing gunfire near the International District and was reprimanded by the Internal Affairs Division for his handling of the crash, notably for not turning on his lapel camera and violating APD policies and procedures. APD is also under an ongoing investigation by the FBI for alleged corruption related to APD officers’ dismissing DWIs for briberies.

The relations between Mayor Tim Keller and the more conservative majority city council have deteriorated because of the sure frustration the conservatives on the council have experienced in not being able to stop the Keller progressive agenda with overriding vetoes. The conservative leaning city council has shown significant resistance to Mayor Keller’s progressive agenda as going too far. 

A few city councilors have attempted to force the termination or resignation of Chief Medina. Councilor and former APD officer Dan Champine said he believes the frequency at which Medina has been in the news drove the proposed charter amendment giving the Council more power. Champine said this:

“If you had a police chief that was doing his job and was showing improvement within the department and with the public and with crime and safety within our city, I don’t think it would have raised this question or shown this issue.”

Repeatedly the conservative city council has attempted to repeal ordinances and resolutions enacted by the previous more progressive city council and to limit the authority of Mayor Tim Keller.  Prime examples include the following:

1. A resolution to repeal or limit mayoral authority during a public health emergency.
2. A resolution baring the city from mandating covid-19 vaccines for the municipal government workforce.
3. Resolution directing the city administration to consider and “push to renegotiate the terms of the federal court approved settlement agreement.”
4. Repeal of a quarter cent tax increase in gross receipts tax enacted a few years ago.
5. Repealing or attempting to amend the City’s “Immigrant Friendly” policy calling it a “Sanctuary City” policy and requiring  APD to assist and cooperate with the federal immigration authorities.

The two charter amendments are not the first time that the conservative city council has attempted to reduce the authority of Mayor Tim Keller by City Charter Amendments. The relations between Mayor Tim Keller and the more conservative majority city council deteriorated so significantly that on April 27, 2023 first term City Councilors Democrat Louie Sanchez and Republican Renee Grout announced legislation proposing a City Charter amendment for a public vote that would have made the Mayor of Albuquerque a member of the City Council.  They wanted to transfer all the mayor’s executive and city management duties to a city manager chosen by the city council. According to the proposed legislation, the mayor would have been “recognized as the head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes”.   

The city council is trying to get city voters to change in a very dramatic way how the Mayor appoints at will employees  in order to carry out a personal vendetta against a Mayor and a Chief they do not like and who they perceive are  ineffective and unpopular.

Voters are encouraged to Vote No on both charter amendments.

During the last few weeks of the presidential election, the Trump campaign began to run ads proclaiming the economy was so much better during Trumps 4 years as President than Biden’s 4 years as President.  Republican MAGA Trump supporters have taken to social media, especially FACEBOOK, posting all sorts of charts and statistics comparing the cost of goods and services, such as grocery items and gas,  when Trump was President and the past 4 years under President Joe Biden. The cost  of goods comparisons are offered as proof of how bad the economy has been under President Joe Biden and proof that the economy was so much better under President Donald Trump.

Trumps end-of-campaign arguments to voters choosing between him and Democrat Kamala Harris have focused on the old standby in U.S. politics that was first used by Ronald Reagan when he ran against Jimmy Carter asking voters “whether they are better off now than they were four years ago?” Truth is, Trump is again lying about how great the economy was under his presidency relying solely on increases in consumer prices, such as groceries and gas, and ignoring all the other areas of the economy.

The national news outlet Reuters on October 30, did a succinct comparison of the Trump Economy versus the Biden economy. Following is an edited version with added commentary and analysis:

PANDEMIC EFFECTS

“Trump asks for comparisons of economic conditions now under Biden versus 4 years ago when he was President. The truth is that the country was in the thick of a pandemic then, which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people not only here in the United States but worldwide, [something Trump never mentions as his Administration floundered to respond to the crisis and as he denied the seriousness of the pandemic.]

In 2020, the last year of Trump’s presidency, U.S. life expectancy fell by 1.8 years because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The National Center for Health Statistics review of the year reveals more than 350,000 people died from the virus, which made it the third-leading cause of death.”

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

“In 2020 under Trump, the U.S. economy experienced one of its worst-ever quarters, when Gross Domestic Product plunged at a 28% annual rate from April through June. Despite a startling rebound in the three months that followed, largely the result of federal deficit spending on benefits approved by both parties to keep households afloat through the health crisis, the U.S. economy was smaller in the final full quarter of Trump’s term,  the fourth quarter of 2020,  than it was at the end of 2019.

Data just released on October 20, 2024 on Gross Domestic Product (GDP)  showed the economy continues to grow above trend and close to the 3% rate Trump in his first term set as a barometer of success. After adjusting for inflation the economy overall is 11.5% larger now than it was at the end of 2019, when output under Trump reached its peak. Growth rates were comparable: From the third quarter of 2023 to the third quarter of this year, inflation-adjusted output rose 2.66%; in the comparable pre-COVID quarters, comparing the third quarter of 2019 to the third quarter of 2018, the economy expanded 2.8%.”

INFLATTION

“For many Americans, the outbreak of inflation from 2021 through last year was something they had never experienced. At its peak prices were rising faster than at any point since the 1980s, an era when economic malaise undercut the reelection campaign of Democratic President Jimmy Carter [hence the Reagan mantra “are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?]

High prices have been a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign, and one which Harris has had trouble rebutting even as inflation itself has declined. The fact that “disinflation” has occurred without the usual blow to economic output and employment is seen by policymakers as a historic victory, but seems to have registered only weakly, if at all, with households.”

INCOMES

“A major political point that has registered weakly among U.S. consumers is that incomes on the whole have kept pace with all that inflation. Economic surveys have consistently found that this doesn’t really matter when it comes to attitudes about the economy. High prices are high prices, and if food costs 10% more consumers don’t really care if their wages went up enough to cover it and then some.

Nor do averages capture every household’s experience. Still, while the bumps along the way were dramatic as federal spending boosted incomes for a while then rising prices cut into purchasing power, inflation-adjusted income per person was about 10% higher as of the third quarter of this year than it was in the third quarter of 2019.”

UNEMPLOYMENT

“Perhaps no economic statistic shows the U.S. success in skirting the worst economic impacts from the pandemic more than the unemployment rate. Federal Reserve officials have noted that  the labor market was strong under Trump before the pandemic. It snapped back afterwards under Biden as well.  Ignoring the sharp up and downs of the pandemic years, the unemployment rate was slightly lower on average from 2022 through this year than it was from 2017 through 2019.

The US economy added 254,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%. That’s a huge boost for a labor market that has shown signs of weakness. Economists had projected 140,000 jobs were added in September and that the unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%. The jobs report has moved back into the spotlight now that the Federal Reserve has all but declared victory on inflation and is focused on keeping the labor market healthy.”

WEALTH

“Not every American invests in the stock market and not everyone owns a home. But for those that do the post-COVID years under Biden have added steadily to household net worth.”

THE MISERY INDEX

“Combining the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation into a thumbnail description of economic trouble has been used by politicians as a way to pummel the opposition, particularly during times of high inflation. With the decline in inflation, it is back to roughly where it was during much of Trump’s pre-COVID time in office.”

The link to the quoted news source with charts and graphs is here:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-trump-really-want-compare-now-four-years-ago-2024-10-30/

COMPARING TRUMP’S ECONOMY TO BIDEN’S ECONOMY IN 17 MAJOR INDICATORS

According to a Washington Post research article comparing Trumps economy versus Bidens economy, Biden has delivered an impressive recovery. Biden was given the advantage over Trump in  11 categories, and Trump was given the advantage in 5, and they tied in 1. Below is the full unedited article followed by the link to it:

HEADLINE: TRUMPS ECONOMY VS BIDENS ECONOMY

By Washington Post Staff reporters  Heather Long and Aden Barton

“It’s the economy, stupid!” is the mantra that’s been uttered every presidential campaign season since James Carville coined it in 1992. What’s unique this year is that both President Biden and former president Donald Trump have clear economic records now, and they each claim to have the superior one — and even, in Trump’s case, the best in history.

The truth is that the U.S. economy has had spectacular moments — and real train wrecks — under both men. Trump inherited a lukewarm economy that he pumped up with massive tax cuts and extra government spending. The result was a hot growth spurt and a lot of new jobs, until the pandemic hit and 23 million people were suddenly out of work.

Biden inherited a nation still living through the dark days of covid-19. He injected a large dose of government spending and investment and spurred a rapid, widespread rebound. The economy grew fast, added more than 15 million jobs and even saw a renaissance in manufacturing and a surge in start-ups. But the pandemic’s hangover effects also included the worst inflation in 40 years and this still smarts.”

[DATA  SCORE CARD]

[There are] …  many facets of the Trump and Biden economies with the caveat that presidents only have a limited influence over the actual economy which are driven by marker forces.  Judging by the data alone, Biden produced better results, but deep psychological impact of inflation has led most voters to say they trust Trump over Biden on the economy.

1. INFLATION VERUS WAGES

 “During Biden’s presidency, inflation has stung. One of the clearest ways to see this is to compare the rise of prices with that of wages. During Trump’s term, wages for rank-and-file workers rose 15.4 percent — almost twice as much as inflation did. This helped people feel as though they were getting ahead. In contrast, under Biden, wages for rank-and-file workers have barely kept up with the 19 percent jump in prices. What’s more, the supply chain glitches and price surges of 2022 set a lot of workers back. The good news for Biden is that, for the past year, wages have been growing faster than overall prices, and this trend is likely to continue. More Americans should start to feel better soon.”

Advantage: Trump

2. TOTAL JOBS ADDED

“So far, under Biden, an impressive 15.7 million jobs have been added to the economy. Yes, the president benefited from a pandemic bounce-back. Businesses were going to bring back some workers no matter who was in the White House. But the rehiring was very rapid (helped along by the Biden stimulus), and, now, the economy has 6 million more jobs than it had pre-pandemic. Under Trump, job growth was also strong; 6.7 million jobs were added before the pandemic. But when you factor in the pandemic, Trump’s economy shed millions of jobs”.

Advantage: Biden

3. ECONOMIC GROWTH 

“The data doesn’t support Trump’s claim that he had the “greatest economy in the history of the world” but he did preside over several years of 2.5 to 3 percent annual growth — well above the norm of about 2 percent. Of course, the pandemic recession hit during Trump’s final year in office, pummeling his record. Growth under Biden has been strong — surging to nearly 6 percent in 2021, 1.9 percent in 2022 and 2.5 percent in 2023. Indeed, the U.S. economy has been the envy of the world for its robust post-pandemic surge, as Biden likes to remind people.”

Advantage: Biden, slightly

4. HOME BUYING

 “The American Dream is to own a home. Under Trump, the share of households owned climbed to almost 66 percent, up from about 64 percent when he took office. Under Biden, the rate has remained around 66 percent. The influencing factor here has been mortgage rates (which presidents don’t control). Under Trump and early in Biden’s presidency, mortgage rates were low, and many Americans took advantage of them to buy homes. In 2022 and 2023, though, mortgage rates jumped as the Federal Reserve battled inflation by raising interest rates. At the same time, in many parts of the country, home prices were also rising rapidly. As a result, 2023 became the most unaffordable year to buy a home since the early 1980s. Younger Americans are especially concerned that they will never be able to afford one.”

Advantage: Trump

5. JOBS

 “The fruits of economic growth are not distributed equally around the country. To assess the geographic winners and losers during each presidency, we compared county unemployment for 2019 (a strong Trump year) with 2023 (a strong Biden year). The results are interesting: More counties overall did better under Biden, but counties in certain swing states, especially Michigan and Nevada, did better under Trump.

 Ironically, liberal California had a stronger labor market under Trump, while a host of Republican Southern states are doing better under Biden. It’s not entirely clear why this is, but states’ idiosyncrasies probably play a role. In California, the tech sector has atrophied recently, and, in Texas, more workers joining the labor force have pushed up the unemployment rate.

 Both Trump and Biden favor place-based industrial policies — Republican tariffs, for instance, and Democratic subsidies for semiconductors and green energy. And some counties and states benefit more from these policies than others.”

Advantage: Biden

6. AFRICAN AMERICAN WORKERS  

“Both Trump and Biden presided over tight labor markets, which gave all workers more bargaining power. This helped narrow long-standing gender and racial gaps in the workforce. Female and Black workers saw strong employment gains under Trump, until the pandemic set working women back. Biden has tried to create employment opportunities for groups normally left behind. In April of last year, the Black unemployment rate reached an all-time low of 4.8 percent. And for the first time ever, in March of last year, the share of Black Americans who are employed exceeded the share of White Americans who are employed. Women have bounced back from the pandemic faster than men, partly because new work-from-home arrangements permit more flexible schedules.”

 Advantage: Biden, slightly

7.  U.S. MANUFACTURING 

 “Biden doesn’t get enough credit for boosting U.S. manufacturing. The huge amounts of federal money he has devoted to it have made a difference. Factory construction in the United States has jumped. Semiconductor companies are spending billions building factories in Arizona, Ohio, Upstate New York and Texas. Trump talked up manufacturing, but he had no noticeable effect on factory building. Indeed, the Foxconn factory he promised for Wisconsin never materialized.”

Advantage: Biden

8.  JOB CREATION BY INDUSTRY

 “Job growth was widespread under Trump, and it has been under Biden, as well. When the data is compared side-by-side, it shows that many more manufacturing jobs have been created under Biden (762,000 more). Manufacturing jobs are now at their highest level since the Great Recession. White-collar, health-care and government jobs have also surged in recent years. Construction was strong under both presidencies.”

 Advantage: Biden

9. HOME PRICES

 “Home values have been rising rapidly in recent years. When Trump took office, the median home sale price was about $320,000. By the end of his term, it had risen to about $350,000. At the start of 2024, it was about $420,000. This has been great news for the two-thirds of Americans who already own their homes. But it’s made younger Americans fear that they might never be able to afford to buy a home. Most of this increase has been caused by a supply shortage in the United States.”

Advantage: Biden

10.  AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

“Since the pandemic hit in 2020, new business creation in the United States has surged to its highest levels in decades. It started when people were stuck at home, out of work with little to do. But as the economy has rebounded, the boom has continued. Trump and Biden were both generous with government aid during the pandemic. But this trend appears to be mostly part of a broader reassessment of work (and life) that’s happened since the pandemic.”

Advantage: Biden, slightly

11.  ECONOMIC “VIBES”

 “Trump presided over a rise in “good vibes” about the economy. Many polls and consumer-sentiment indicators, including the monthly University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, showed that people were feeling good. Yes, he exaggerates his achievements, but people did seem to notice that the economy improved. Biden has not been as lucky. The 2022 inflation surge really shocked people. And while the rate of inflation has slowed, prices remain high, and this still makes Americans angry. Sentiment has rebounded a little in the past two years, but it remains well below pre-pandemic norms.”

Advantage: Trump

12. INEQUALITY 

“Real wages, meaning wages after inflation, have barely grown since Biden took office. But wage inequality — the differences in what various groups earn — has fallen dramatically. The reason it has is lower-income workers have received higher raises that kept up more with price increases. As a result, in just a few years, we have seen decades of wage inequality reversed. Nevertheless, many low-wage workers seem to prefer the situation under Trump because they did not have to contend with higher prices.”

Advantage: Unclear

13. ANNUAL INCOME 

“Americans often talk about how their household budgets are doing, while economists look at annual census data to see whether the typical household income, adjusted for inflation, is rising. Under Trump, household incomes rose to a high of $78,250 in 2019, from about $72,100 when he took office in 2017. But then the pandemic hit, followed by inflation. By 2022, the median household income had fallen to $74,580. The Census Bureau hasn’t released any more recent data, but economists at Motio Research estimate that median household income has climbed to about $79,000. This is good for Biden, yet many Americans still feel as though they are basically catching up to where they were before the pandemic.”

 Advantage: Likely Trump

14. HEALTH INSURANCE 

“In 2022, the share of Americans with health insurance rose to an all-time high of 92.1 percent (304 million people). Biden pushed to expand coverage by making government subsidies more generous for working-class Americans who buy insurance through the Obamacare marketplaces. This has been a clear change from Trump, who during his term repealed the law requiring people to have health insurance and saw the share of uninsured Americans rise.”

 Advantage: Biden

15. THE STOCK MARKET

 “Trump loved to point to the stock market’s rise as a sign he was doing well in office. The most popular stock index in the United States — the S&P 500 — gained about 70 percent during his first term. But stocks have also done well under Biden; not only has there been no recession, but the economy has continued to beat expectations. The S&P 500 is up about 50 percent so far since 2021 and this summer the major stock indexes keep setting records. (It’s worth noting that stock market performance under President Barack Obama was far better than under either Trump or Biden).”

 Advantage: Trump, slightly

16. CHILD POVERTY

“Child poverty dipped slightly during the end of Trump’s presidency and then plummeted under Biden’s when the expanded Child Tax Credit and other temporary stimulus measures were adopted. But it returned to pre-pandemic levels when those programs expired. Biden pushed for an extension, but the GOP-controlled Congress wouldn’t budge. The good news here is that we’ve learned what works to reduce child poverty: giving direct cash aid to families with children.”

Advantage: Biden

17. THE FEDERAL DEBT

“Trump and Biden alike worsened the federal debt. The pandemic required a lot of emergency spending under both administrations. But many trillions were added outside of the context of covid. Trump added $4.8 trillion in non-covid debt, and Biden chipped in $2.2 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Neither president can claim to have been fiscally responsible.”

Advantage: Biden, slightly

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/18/trump-biden-economy-charts-compare/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-trump-really-want-compare-now-four-years-ago-2024-10-30/

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/us-jobs-report-september-10-04-24/index.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS  AND COMMENTARY

The final score card analysis on comparing the Biden Economy years to the Trump Economy years is BIDEN 11, TRUMP  5, one measure defined as a unclear.

Biden was given the advantage over Trump in the following 11 economy categories:

1. Total jobs added. The economy gained more than 15 million jobs under Biden.
2. Economic growth.  Aside from the pandemic, Biden and Trump both oversaw stellar growth, but Biden is given the advantage.
3. Job creation. More jobs were created under Biden.
4. African American Workers. African American entrepreneurship increased more under Biden.
5.  U.S. manufacturing. Factory construction in the United States has jumped under Biden.
6. Job creation by industry. Many more manufacturing jobs have been created under Biden
7. Home prices and values increased under Biden. 
8. American entrepreneurship increased both under Trump and Biden but more under Biden.
9. Health Insurance. Under Biden, the share of Americans with health insurance rose to an all-time high of 92.1 percent 
10. Child Poverty. Child poverty plummeted under Biden when the expanded Child Tax Credit was enacted.
11. Federal Debt. Both Trump and Biden worsened the federal debt but Trump added $4.8 trillion more than twice what Biden added at $2.2 trillion.

Trump was given the advantage over Biden in the following 5 categories:

1. Inflation vs. wages.  Wage growth was much higher than inflation under Trump
2. Economic vibes. Trump presided over a rise in “good vibes” about the economy. Polls and consumer-sentiment indicators showed that people were feeling good about their financial status.
3. Home buying. Under Trump, the share of households owned climbed to almost 66 percent, up from about 64% when he took office. Under Biden, the rate has remained at  66%.
4. Inequality: Wage inequality went down under Biden, but low-wage workers have struggled with inflation.
5. Annual income. Under Trump, household incomes rose to a high of $78,250 in 2019, from about $72,100 when he took office in 2017. Under Biden median household income fell to $74,580.

The category of Inequality was the only category where neither Trump nor Biden were given the advantage.

FINAL COMMENT

Perception in politics is everything and be damned the truth. No U.S. President can do much when it comes to cost of goods sold, such as groceries and gas prices, which are at the mercy and dictated by market forces of supply and demand and corporations desires to increase profits.

All three times that Trump has run for President he has relied upon the “big lie” which is if you repeat a lie over and over again, the public will believe it to be true and perceptions based on lies become the truth. Such is the case with Trump and his MAGA movement.

Trump’s has repeatedly claimed throughout his campaign that the economy was the best in its history under his leadership. Sadly, when it comes to the United States economy, the ploy and use of the big lie has worked with the general public given how close the election is.

 

On October 29, exactly one week before the November 5 Presidential election, Vice President  Kamala Harris, in a short 30 minute  speech billed as her “closing argument” before next weeks election, delivered a very strong, forceful and convincing  case against Donald Trump’s return to the White House.  Harris made a sharp contrast with Trump and appealed directly to the few remaining undecided voters who could sway the election across the 7 tightly contested battleground states.

The Ellipse was chosen as the setting for Harris’ speech to emphasize what Trump did on  January 6, 2021 as he inflamed and incited his supporters to attack Congress to try and stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election win. With the White House as the backdrop,  the location was meant to remind Americans of the “gravity of the job” and what occurred on January 6, 2021. An estimated 75,000 people, if not more, attended the event at the Ellipse on the National Mall making it the largest event of her White House bid. It dwarfed the October 27  Madison Square Garden event held by Trump where 19,500 people attended.

Harris  said Trump  is  “consumed with grievance” while casting herself as focused on Americans’ needs.  Harris said this:

“America, we know what Donald Trump has in mind: more chaos, more division, and policies that help those in the very top and hurt everyone else. …I offer a different path.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The link to review the full transcribed speech is in the postscript below.

FIVE TAKEAWAYS FROM ADDRESS

Following are the 5 major takeaways from the Harris speech:

“WE KNOW WHO DONALD TRUMP IS”

Harris  portrayed Trump  as a vengeful “petty tyrant” who is only out for himself and “unchecked power,” arguing he would bring an “enemies list” to the White House while she would bring a “to-do list” of priorities. Harris said this:

“Look, we know who Donald Trump is! He is the person who stood at this very spot nearly four years ago and sent an armed mob to the United States Capitol to overturn the will of the people in a free and fair election!”

Harris said one of Trump’s “highest priorities is to set free the violent extremists” who led the January 6 attack on the Capitol, a reference to her opponent’s campaign pledge  to “absolutely” pardon the convicted felons “if they’re innocent.”   Harris railed on Trump’s phrase “the enemy within” to describe his political opponents and said this:.

“This is not a candidate for president who is thinking about how to make your life better. … Donald Trump has spent a decade trying to keep the American people divided and afraid of each other. That is who he is, but America, I am here tonight to say that is not who we are.”

PITCH FOR UNITY AND ‘LOCKING ARMS’

Harris framed herself as a unifier, arguing that while Trump demeans and threatens his adversaries, she would work with them. Harris said this:

“I don’t believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. … He wants to put them in jail. I’ll give them a seat at the table.”

The overture was ostensibly aimed squarely at Republican voters who oppose Trump but are still on the fence about voting for a Democrat. On the campaign trail, Harris has highlighted her support from former Republican U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney and more than 230 former White House officials from past Republican administrations. Harris said this:

“We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms.  It is time to turn the page on the drama and the conflict, the fear and division. It is time for a new generation of leadership in America.”

Harris made a promise to her skeptics and said this:

“I’ll be honest with you. I’m not perfect. I make mistakes. … But here’s what I promise you. I will always listen to you. Even if you don’t vote for me. I will always tell you the truth, even if it is difficult to hear.”

MESSAGE AIMED AT SMALL SLIVER OF UNDECIDED VOTERS

Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, in a statement on Harris’ speech, accused the vice president of “lying, name-calling, and clinging to the past” to hide the failures of the Biden-Harris administration. This coming from a spokeswoman speaking for a man who does nothing but lie, engages in name calling and who does nothing but cling to the past.

Ahead of the speech, the Harris campaign said the closing argument was aimed at two different audiences of undecided voters, totaling about 3% to 5% of the electorate, who could swing a razor-close election.

One camp is the “persuade to participate” voters.  This includes young voters, voters of color and others who are inclined to vote for Harris but still need to be motivated. The group includes so-called “low-information voters” who don’t closely follow the daily news of the campaign.

The second group consists of more engaged traditional swing voters the  independent and Republican voters from suburban areas who may have supported Nikki Haley in the Republican  presidential primaries against Trump but aren’t on board yet with Harris.

Harris campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon told reporters this:

“These are very much the people we’ve been talking to all along,. … And there’s no doubt that we think we have opportunity to peel away support from Trump from the past.”

LAST-MINUTE INTRODUCTION

Harris remarked on the unusual circumstances of the election. She became the Democratic nominee after Biden dropped out of the race a very short 100 days ago.

She’s put together a snapshot campaign to try to introduce herself to voters,  yet with Election Day just days away, some still say they don’t enough about her. Harris said this:

“I recognize this has not been a typical campaign. … I know that many of you are still getting to know who I am.”

Harris said she is someone who has spent most of her career outside of Washington “so I know that not all the good ideas come from here.”

She touted her record as a prosecutor who has taken on “tough fights against bad actors and powerful interests. … It’s what my mother instilled in me: a drive to hold accountable those who use their wealth or power to take advantage of other people, a drive to protect hard-working Americans who aren’t always seen or heard and deserve a voice.”

“MY PRESIDENCY WILL BE DIFFERENT”

Harris used her address to try to answer one of the most recurring questions of her campaign: how her presidency would be different than Biden’s four years in office. Harris said this:

“I will bring my own experiences and ideas to the Oval Office. My presidency will be different, because the challenges we face are different”

Harris said that when Biden and her entered the office in January 2021, the top priority as a nation was to address the COVID-19 pandemic and revive the economy. She said:

“Now our biggest challenge is to lower costs − costs that were rising even before the pandemic. And they are still too high. I get it”.

Harris has faced a challenge to try to chart her own course while still serving loyal to the president she serves  whose approval rating has remained low for much of his presidency.

Harris ended her speech with a patriotic tone, reminding Americans of those who fought in Normandy and for civil rights and equality for women and slammed Trump in the process and said this:

“They did not struggle, sacrifice and lay down their lives only to see us seed our fundamental freedoms. They didn’t do that only to see us submit to the will of another petty tyrant.  … These United States of America, we are not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators. The United States of America is the greatest idea humanity ever devised.”

Links to relied upon and quoted news sources are here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/us/politics/harris-speech-ellipse-trump.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/29/kamala-harris-ellipse-speech-takeaways/75925101007/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4960797-vice-president-harris-speaks-at-ellipse/

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-crowd-size-washingtion-dc-rally-1976987

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-10-29/3-takeaways-from-kamala-harris-ellipse-speech

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is no doubt that the Harris speech, along with her debate performance against Trump, will be remembered as her finest hours during a very difficult election. She looked and sounded like a President.

Her closing argument speech was in sharp contrast to Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City a day earlier and it underscored her argument against him. Speakers at Trump’s event made offensive, crude and racist remarks about minorities and Harris. Trump called his event a “love fest” when it was nothing more than a “hate fest” and a display of  American Fascism.

POSTSCRIPT

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Kamala Harris’s ‘Closing Argument’ Speech at DC National Mall

John Kelly is a retired Marine general who worked for Trump in the White House from 2017 to 2019 and was Donald Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff. John Kelly is warning that former President Donald Trump meets the very definition of a fascist. Kelly said  that while in office, Trump suggested that Natzi leader Adolf Hitler “did some good things.” Kelly made the remarks in interviews with both The New York Times and The Atlantic.

Kelly said in his interview with The New York Times and after reading the definition fascism aloud, including that fascism was “a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader,” Kelly concluded Trump “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. … He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government. … I think he’d love to be just like he was in business.  He could tell people to do things and they would do it, and not really bother too much about whether what the legalities were and whatnot.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/trump-fascist-john-kelly/index.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-kelly-swinging-trump/story?id=115061457

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-john-kelly-said-about-trumps-praise-of-hitler-and-fascist-tendencies

WHAT IS PROJECT 2025?

The CBS national news agency published  on line a remarkable  report written by its staff reporters Melissa Quinn and Jacob Rosen entitled “What Is Project 2025; What To Know About The Conservative Blue Print For A Second Trump Administration”. The article outlines what the voting public needs to understand and what Project 2025 really stands for if Trump is elected to a second term. It is clear that Project 2025 is Trump’s conservative blue for a second term reflecting an American Fascist Agenda to give Trump unfettered presidential power. The link to read the entire 920 page Project 2025 is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise

EDITOR’S NOTE:  A highly condensed summation of Project 2025 and what it proposes is contained in the Postscript to this blog article.

Following is the edited article “What Is Project 2025; What To Know About The Conservative Blue Print For A Second Trump Administration” with deletions and additions and adding caption highlights with campaign news updates followed by the link to the full article:

“Voters in recent weeks have begun to hear the name “Project 2025” invoked more and more by [Vice President Harris] and  Democrats, as they seek to sound the alarm about what could be in store if former President Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.

Overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the multi-pronged initiative includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch.

Trump and his campaign have worked to distance themselves from Project 2025, with the former president going so far as to call some of the proposals “abysmal.” But Democrats have continued to tie the transition project to Trump   … [given the extent of former Trump administration officials who have contributed to  Project 2025] . ” 

WHAT IS PROJECT 2025?

“Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project that is composed of four pillars:

1. A policy guide for the next presidential administration.
2. A LinkedIn-style database of personnel who could serve in the next administration,
3. Training for that pool of candidates dubbed the “Presidential Administration Academy;” and
4. A playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office.

It is led by two former Trump administration officials: Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and now the project’s associate director.  Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, but includes an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups.

Much of the focus  and criticism of  Project 2025 involves its first pillar , [a policy guide for the next presidential administration] …  that lays out an overhaul of the federal government. Called “Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise,” the book builds on a “Mandate for Leadership” first published in January 1981, which sought to serve as a roadmap for Ronald Reagan’s incoming administration.   The recommendations outlined in the sprawling plan reach every corner of the executive branch, from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Homeland Security to the little-known Export-Import Bank. 

The Heritage Foundation also created a “Mandate for Leadership” in 2015 ahead of Trump’s first term. Two years into his presidency, it touted that Trump had instituted 64% of its policy recommendations, ranging from leaving the Paris Climate Accords, increasing military spending, and increasing off-shore drilling and developing federal lands. In July 2020, the Heritage Foundation gave its updated version of the book to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

[FORMER TRUMP OFFICIALS]

The authors of many chapters are familiar names from the Trump administration, such as Russ Vought, who led the Office of Management and Budget; former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller; and Roger Severino, who was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services. Vought is the policy director for the 2024 Republican National Committee’s platform committee, which released its proposed platform on Monday.  John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is a senior advisor to the Heritage Foundation, and said that the group will “integrate a lot of our work” with the Trump campaign when the official transition efforts are announced in the next few months.

Candidates interested in applying for the Heritage Foundation’s “Presidential Personnel Database” are vetted on a number of political stances, such as whether they agree or disagree with statements like “life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death,” and “the President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hindrance from unelected federal officials.”

The contributions from ex-Trump administration officials have led its critics to tie Project 2025 to his reelection campaign, though Trump has attempted to distance himself from the initiative.”

WHAT ARE THE PROJECT 2025 PLANS?

“Some of the policies in the Project 2025 agenda have been discussed by Republicans for years or pushed by Trump himself. [Among those policies are]:

• Less federal intervention in education and more support for school choice work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults on food stamps.
• A secure border with increased enforcement of immigration laws.
• Mass deportations and construction of a border wall.” 

ABORTION AND SOCIAL ISSUES

“In recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services, the agenda calls for the Food and Drug Administration to reverse its 24-year-old approval of the widely used abortion pill mifepristone. Other proposed actions targeting medication abortion include reinstating more stringent rules for mifepristone’s use, which would permit it to be taken up to seven weeks into a pregnancy, instead of the current 10 weeks, and requiring it to be dispensed in-person instead of through the mail.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that is on the Project 2025 advisory board, was involved in a legal challenge to mifepristone’s 2000 approval and more recent actions from the FDA that made it easier to obtain. But the Supreme Court rejected the case brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations on procedural grounds.

The policy book also recommends the Justice Department enforce the Comstock Act against providers and distributors of abortion pills. That 1873 law prohibits drugs, medicines or instruments used in abortions from being sent through the mail.

[BIBLICAL BASED TENANTS]

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, [Project 2025] states that the Justice Department “in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills.” The guide recommends the next secretary of Health and Human Services get rid of the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force established by the Biden administration before Roe’s reversal and create a “pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”

In a section titled “The Family Agenda,” the proposal recommends the Health and Human Services chief “proudly state that men and women are biological realities,” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.”  Further, a program within the Health and Human Services Department should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.”

During his first four years in office, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military. Mr. Biden reversed that policy, but the Project 2025 policy book calls for the ban to be reinstated.”

ELECTION NEWS UPDATE; FURTHER ASSAULT ON WOMEN’s RIGHTS

 On September 25, Trump cast himself as a “protector” of women at a Pennsylvania rally  and claimed that American women won’t be “thinking about abortion” if he’s elected.

The plea to ignore Trump’s own role in undoing national abortion rights protections is a clear signal that Trump is keenly aware of what polls show: His Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, has a clear advantage among women voters, nationally and in key swing states. Trump has kept the race close by countering with a lead among men.

The Supreme Court’s overturning Roe v. Wade by the conservative majority, with three members appointed by Trump, has led to a patchwork of state-level abortion regulations, including restrictive laws in several of the battleground states that could decide the 2024 election. Democrats have performed strongly in elections where abortion has taken center stage since that 2022 Supreme Court decision, and abortion rights supporters have won a series of statewide referendums on the issue, even in deep-red states.

Trump claimed in  Indiana, Pennsylvania that  women are “less safe,” “much poorer” and are “less healthy” now compared to when he was president and vowed to end what he described as their “national nightmare.” Trump said this:

“I always thought women liked me. I never thought I had a problem. But the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me. … I don’t believe it. … Because I am your protector. I want to be your protector. As president, I have to be your protector. I hope you don’t make too much of it. I hope the fake news doesn’t go, ‘Oh he wants to be their protector.’ Well, I am. As president, I have to be your protector.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/politics/donald-trump-women-voters-protector-abortion/index.html

TARGETING FEDERAL AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES AND POLICIES

“[Project 2025] takes aim at longstanding federal agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The agency is a component of the Commerce Department and the policy guide calls for it to be downsized. 

NOAA’s six offices, including the National Weather Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, “form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity,” the guide states. 

The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, should be dismantled and its agencies either combined with others, or moved under the purview of other departments altogether, the policy book states. For example, immigration-related entities from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Health and Human Services should form a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency staffed by more than 100,000 employees, according to the agenda.

If the policy recommendations are implemented, another federal agency that could come under the knife by the next administration, with action from Congress, is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The agenda seeks to bring a push by conservatives to target diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in higher education to the executive branch by wiping away a slew of DEI-related positions, policies and programs and calling for the elimination of funding for partners that promote DEI practices.

It states that U.S. Agency for International Development staff and grantees that “engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda” should be terminated. At the Treasury Department, the guide says the next administration should “treat the participation in any critical race theory or DEI initiative without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, as per se grounds for termination of employment.”

The Project 2025 policy book also takes aim at more innocuous functions of government. It calls for the next presidential administration to eliminate or reform the dietary guidelines that have been published by the Department of Agriculture for more than 40 years, which the authors claim have been “infiltrated” by issues like climate change and sustainability.”

IMMIGRATION

“Trump made immigration a cornerstone of his last two presidential runs and has continued to hammer the issue during his 2024 campaign. Project 2025’s agenda not only recommends finishing the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but urges the next administration to “take a creative and aggressive approach” to responding to drug cartels at the border. This approach includes using active-duty military personnel and the National Guard to help with arrest operations along the southern border.

A memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that prohibits enforcement actions from taking place at “sensitive” places like schools, playgrounds and churches should be rolled back, the policy guide states. 

When the Homeland Security secretary determines there is an “actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens” that presents “urgent circumstances” warranting a federal response, the agenda says the secretary can make rules and regulations, including through their expulsion, for as long as necessary. These rules, the guide states, aren’t subject to the Administration Procedure Act, which governs the agency rule-making process.”

ELECTION NEWS UPDATE: IMMEDIATE ROUNDUP AN DEPORTATION OF 11 MILLION PEOPLE

On November 11, Trump speaking from Aurora, Colorado during a campaign rally, told supporters that he plans to revive the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, The  226-year-old law was used to detain Japanese Americans during World War II.  The Alien Enemies Act would give Trump  as president unprecedented ability to target foreigners for removal, without a hearing or due process, based solely on their place of birth or citizenship.

Trump has pledged that on day one of his presidency he will order the immediate deportation of the 11 million people who have entered the United States illegally.  Trump said he wants to immediately invoke the  226 year old wartime law that grants the president unilateral authority to deploy federal law enforcement for rounding up and deporting immigrants as soon as he enters office.

His “Operation Aurora” which is named after the Colorado city he has denigrated as a “war zone” from “migrant crime” would also dispatch “elite squads of ICE, border patrol, and federal law enforcement officers to hunt down, arrest, and deport every last illegal alien gang member until there is not a single one left in this country,” he said.

Trump made Colorado’s third largest city the face of his staunch anti-illegal immigration stance. He has referred to the Denver suburb as a “war zone” during campaign rallies and amplified false claims that gang members had “taken over” buildings in the city. Trumps claims that gang members have taken control of a set of apartment buildings have been debunked.

Trump has also said he wants to immediately deport 10 million undocumented immigrants.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-rally-harris-elections-live-updates-b2628050.html

https://www.denver7.com/news/politics/operation-aurora-trump-promises-nationwide-deportation-effort-during-colorado-rally

WHAT DO TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES SAY ABOUT PROJECT 2025?

“In a [July 5] post to his social media platform Trump wrote:

 “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Trump’s pushback to the initiative came after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a podcast interview that the nation is “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

But even before Roberts’ comments during “The War Room” podcast, typically hosted by conservative commentator Steve Bannon, who reported to federal prison to begin serving a four-month sentence … , Trump’s top campaign advisers have stressed that Project 2025 has no official ties to his reelection bid.

Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, senior advisers to the Trump campaign, said in a November statement that 2024 policy announcements will be made by Trump or his campaign team. “Any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions,” they said.

While the efforts by outside organizations are “appreciated,” Wiles and LaCivita said, “none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign.”

In response to a Trump’s post [that he has no knowledge of Project 2025], Project 2025 reiterated that it was separate from the Trump campaign and issued the following statement on the project’s X account:

“As we’ve been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy & personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement.” 

WHAT DEMOCRATS SAY ABOUT PROJECT 2025

“Despite their attempts to keep some distance from Project 2025, Democrats continue to connect Trump with the transition effort. …  President  Biden himself accused [Trump]  of lying about his connections to the Project 2025 agenda, saying in a statement that the agenda was written for Trump and “should scare every single American.”

Congressional Democrats have also begun pivoting to Project 2025.  Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman told CNN:

“Trump is all about Project 2025,”  on Monday. “I mean, that’s what we really should be voting on right now. It’s like, do we want the kind of president that is all about Project ’25?”

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina … told reporters Monday that the agenda for the next Republican president was the sole topic he would talk about.

“Project 2025, that’s my only concern,” he said. “I don’t want you or my granddaughter to live under that government.”

Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida called Project 2025 “MAGA Republicans’ draconian 920-page plan to end U.S. democracy, give handouts to the wealthy and strip Americans of their freedoms.”

WHAT REPUBLICANS SAY ABOUT PROJECT 2025

[Republican Florida Senator  Marco Rubio, Florida and Ohio Senator JD Vance] …. sought to put space between Trump …  and Project 2025, casting it as merely the product of a think tank that puts forth ideas.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN’s “State of the Union” this:

“It’s the work of a think tank, of a center-right think tank, and that’s what think tanks do   …  [Trump’s message to voters focuses on] restoring common sense, working-class values, and making our decisions on the basis of that.”

Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance [and Trump’s Vice Presidential candidate] raised a similar sentiment in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying organizations will have good ideas and bad ideas. Vance said this:

“It’s a 900-page document. … I guarantee there are things that Trump likes and dislikes about that 900-page document. But he is the person who will determine the agenda of the next administration.”

The link to the full, unedited CBS news report with photos and captions is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-project-2025-trump-conservative-blueprint-heritage-foundation/

THE BBC TAKE ON PROJECT 2025

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) had its own take on Project 2025 and published on line the following news article entitled “Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency” written by BBC staff reporter Mike Wendling. Much of the BBC report is a repetition of major points in the CBS news reports but it has the following noteworthy additions:

GOVERNMENT

“Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control,  a controversial idea known as “unitary executive theory”.

In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.

The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.

The document labels the FBI a “bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization” and calls for drastic overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including eliminating the Department of Education.”

IMMIGRATION

“Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border – one of Trump’s signature proposals in 2016 – is proposed in the document. However, more prominent are the consolidation of various US immigration agencies and a large expansion in their powers. Other proposals include increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.”

CLIMATE AND ECONOMY

“The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to “stop the war on oil and natural gas”. Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and security.

The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to exports.

But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.”

ABORTION

“Project 2025 does not call for a nationwide abortion ban. However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market.”TECH AND EDUCATION

“Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that facilitate access to such content would be shut down.

The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls “woke propaganda”.

It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including “sexual orientation”, “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, “gender equality”, “abortion” and “reproductive rights”.”

The link to the full unedited BBC article with photos and captions is here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do

DRACONIAN CUTS TO MEDICARE

The Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy reported that Project 2025 blueprint also includes draconian cuts to Medicare. The report states in part as follows:

The Project 2025 plan would convert federal Medicaid funding to block grants or per capita caps. Under the current federal-state financial partnership, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of states’ Medicaid costs, whatever those costs are. In contrast, under block grants and per capita caps, federal funding would be capped, with states receiving only a fixed amount of federal Medicaid funding either in the aggregate or on a per-beneficiary basis, irrespective of states’ actual costs.

The Project 2025 plan would eliminate many existing federal Medicaid beneficiary protections and requirements. For example, it would set time limits on Medicaid coverage and impose lifetime caps on benefits, which are now prohibited. It would also allow states to increase premiums and cost-sharing above current limits and to also presumably impose premiums and cost-sharing on beneficiaries like children and pregnant people who are now exempt. The plan would also eliminate mandatory benefits in Medicaid, which would allow states, for example, to drop coverage of nursing home care and the Early Periodic Diagnostic Screening and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit for children.

The Project 2025 plan would encourage the federal government and states to impose more red tape and make it harder for eligible individuals and families to apply for, enroll in, and renew their Medicaid coverage. It would allow states to impose onerous work reporting requirements. In addition, while there is no detail, the plan would require “more robust eligibility determinations” which would have the effect of reducing participation among people eligible for Medicaid. It also would “strengthen asset test determinations within Medicaid.” It is unclear if this entails not just more burdensome paperwork and verification associated with counting assets but also reimposing asset tests for populations such as children, parents and other adults who are not currently subject to such asset eligibility requirements.

The Project 2025 plan would establish an option for individuals to convert their Medicaid coverage into a voucher, presumably for the purchase of coverage in the private insurance market, even though such coverage would likely be far less affordable and provide a much less generous benefits package than what Medicaid provides today. 

Private insurance does not offer comparable, comprehensive benefits that Medicaid does, including EPSDT, LTSS and a prescription drug benefit that guarantees an open formulary. States would also be given the option to finance coverage through a high-deductible private insurance plan tied to a Health Savings Account instead of providing Medicaid benefits, under which individuals would have to pay for health care items and services themselves. There would be no guarantee that the funds deposited in their accounts would be sufficient to pay for deductibles and needed care, especially because individuals would likely have to pay for items and services at the highest self-pay prices.

The Project 2025 plan would appear to largely sweep away existing federal oversight of state Medicaid programs. For example, payment reforms could be made without state plan amendments or waivers. The only standards would be some broad federal indicators like “cost effectiveness and health measures like quality, health improvement and wellness.” However, in the case of reproductive health, the plan would instead impose new stringent federal requirements, including prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal Medicaid funding, prohibiting Medicaid waiver coverage of travel to obtain an abortion and cutting Medicaid funding for states that require abortion coverage in their private insurance plans (outside of Medicaid).”

https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/06/17/project-2025-blueprint-also-includes-draconian-cuts-to-medicaid/#:~:text=The%20Project%202025%20plan%20would%20eliminate%20many%20existing%20federal%20Medicaid,benefits%2C%20which%20are%20now%20prohibited

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

You always know when Donald Trump is lying. It’s when you see him open his big mouth and hear the words he speaks. When Trump said “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them” there is little to no doubt Trump is lying.

It stretches what little credibility Trump has left when he says “I have no idea who is behind it.”

The truth is Project 2025 was drafted, created and was enabled by former Trump administration officials. Those former Trump Administration officials  include Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management; John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office; Rick Dearborn, former White House deputy chief of staff for legislative, intergovernmental affairs and implementation; Ben Carson, former Housing and Urban Development secretary; Ken Cuccinelli, former deputy secretary of homeland security; Peter Navarro, former director of the White House National Trade Council and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy; Christopher Miller, former acting secretary of defense; Stephen Moore, an adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign; Russell Vought, former director of the Office of Management and Budget; William Pendley, former acting director of the Bureau of Land Management; Paul Winfree, former director of budget policy; Brooks Tucker, former chief of staff for the Department of Veterans Affairs; Roger Severino, former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services; Kiron Skinner, former director of policy planning at the State Department; and Bernard McNamee, former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The link to the quoted news source is  here:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-project-2025-truth-social-rcna160774

On one hand Trump says “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” and he then turns around and says “Anything they do, I wish them luck.”  He does not condemn Project 2025 in no uncertain terms when he knows full it was influenced and prepared by his own supporters and former Trump Administration officials.  

Simply put, Project 2025 is Trump’s extreme and dangerous blueprint for a second term. Project 2025 was written for Trump and by some of his closest advisors who themselves want to return to power. Project 2025 if implemented fully would give Trump limitless power over American’s daily life’s and let him use the presidency to enact “revenge” on anyone who has opposed him or whoever has gotten in his way. The recent Supreme Court decision giving Presidents absolute immunity ensures that Trump will believe he is above the law and all that he does are official acts ensuring he will never be prosecuted for crimes he commits.

Project 2025 was written for Trump by some of his closest advisors to promote an extreme conservative agenda, some would say a fascist agenda, during a second term. Major goals and highlights of Project 2025 include the following:

• Allow Trump to use the presidency for revenge and retribution and be a “dictator” on day one.
• Allow Trump to ban abortion nationwide with or without Congress.
• Allow Trump to repeal Obamacare, ripping health care away from tens of millions of Americans.
• Allow Trump to slash Social Security and Medicare.
• Allow Trump to raise costs for workers to line the pockets of his billionaire donors.
• Allow Trump to abandon our NATO allies and encourage Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
• “The Family Agenda” proposal proclaiming “that men and women are biological realities,” and that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them” is a clear attack on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The proclamation that the Health and Human Services Department should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family” is evidence that every effort will be made to reverse court decisions that allow for gay rights and marriage.
• Continue the vilification of immigrants and place roadblocks to any and all comprehensive immigration reform.

The words of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts should be taken both as a real threat and as the darkest warning there is when he said that the nation is “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” The message is loud and clear that unless Trump is reelected, the country can expect another January 6 capital riot which was brought on by the words and actions of Donald Trump himself.

______________________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

A condensed version of Project 2025 and what it proposes is as follows:

“Project 2025 envisions widespread changes to the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production. The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies or terminated. Funding for climate research would be cut and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed according to conservative principles. The project seeks to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care. The project seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide. It proposes criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and affirmative action by having the DOJ prosecute “anti-white racism. The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. It proposes deploying the military for domestic law enforcement. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy “finality” of those sentences.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

The link to a related blog article is here:

Der Führer Trump: The Once And Future Fascist Leader; Trump’s Appointed Joint Chiefs Of Staff Chairman And White House Chief Of Staff Proclaim Trump A Fascist; 20 Lessons Learned by Der Führer Trump From Hitler

 

 

 

On October 16, the US Department of Justice and City of Albuquerque (City), New Mexico, filed a joint motion seeking court approval to terminate certain portions of the consent decree covering the Albuquerque Police Department (APD). The joint motion follows the independent monitor’s 20th report, which was also filed on October 16, which concluded that the City and APD have reached 99% Operational Compliance the highest level of Operational Compliance ever achieved by APD. The federal monitor’s report indicates that APD’s compliance level reflects significant achievement in critical areas such as completing timely and high-quality use-of-force and misconduct investigations. These accomplishments take place against a backdrop of a 37% reduction in APD’s use of serious force in the last four years and 100% compliance in the Primary and Secondary Compliance levels

The joint motion asks the court to terminate 31 consent decree provisions with which APD has fully complied for at least two years. The provisions cover a range of topics, including:

• Use of electronic control weapons (commonly known as Tasers);
• Crisis intervention.
• Crisis prevention and

It is the third joint motion the parties have filed in the last year seeking to terminate a total of 183 paragraphs of the consent decree which amounts to 67% of the enforceable provisions of the settlement agreement.

APD has made substantial change in reaching compliance with provisions of the consent decree the parties seek to terminate, including:

• APD has properly trained all officers on using Tasers to ensure that officers only use these weapons when lawful and necessary.
• APD has trained specialized officers to respond to behavioral health crises and deployed those officers across the department. Albuquerque has also created a new agency called Albuquerque Community Safety to send trained mental health professionals to 911 calls involving behavioral health issues. Through these two initiatives, Albuquerque is working to ensure that people get the help they need.
• APD has improved supervision across the police department, ensuring that officers receive the guidance, direction and support they need to be effective and comply with the law.

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said this in a statement:

“Our joint motion to terminate additional provisions of this consent decree demonstrates that the Justice Department has come even closer to its ultimate goal of ensuring constitutional and effective policing in Albuquerque. … Real reform is not only possible, but evident in Albuquerque. Since this consent decree went into effect, the Albuquerque Police Department has made significant and sustained progress in implementing policing practices that respect civil rights and promote public safety. We have seen a 37% decline in use of serious force over the last four years, and continue to move reform efforts forward. The Justice Department will continue to work with the City and its police department toward our shared goal of constitutional and effective policing—the community deserves nothing less.”

U.S. Attorney Alexander M.M. Uballez for the District of New Mexico said this in a statement:

“This partial termination proves that the hard work of the men and women of the Albuquerque Police Department and the persistent advocacy from the community are achieving real results.  Where the existence of a consent agreement is a symptom of dysfunction, every paragraph terminated is evidence of progress. Effective policy, operational observance of those rules, and persistent compliance with reform have set up APD for success. The sustainment period which follows termination will ensure that APD delivers the police department the people of Albuquerque deserve.”

The link to the quoted news source is here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-city-albuquerque-new-mexico-seek-partial-termination-consent-decree

20^{th th} FEDERAL MONITOR’S COMPLIANCE REPORT FILED

It was on November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department and the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a stipulated Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement was the result of an 18-month long investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that found that the Albuquerque Police Department engaged in a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force”, especially when dealing with the mentally ill. The DOJ investigation also found a “culture of aggression” existed within the APD. Department of Justice investigators reviewed 20 fatal shootings by Albuquerque Police between 2009 and 2013 and found that in the majority of cases the level of force used was not justified because the person killed did not present a threat to police officers or the public.

The Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandates 271 police reforms, the appointment of a Federal Monitor and the filing of Independent Monitor’s reports (IMRs) on APD’s compliance with the reforms. There are 276 paragraphs in 10 sections within the CASA with measurable requirements that the monitor reports on. The ultimate goal of the settlement was to implement constitutional policing practices  and it was  aimed at making sure police officers follow policy and don’t use excessive force and deadly force.

The link to the 118-page CASA is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/justice-department/settlement-agreement.pdf

20^th Federal Monitors Report Filed

On October 16,  2024 Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger filed his 20th report. The 20th Independent Monitor’s Report covers the time period of  February 1, 2024, through July 31, 2024. The report is 72  pages long.  It is the shortest report filed to date with the previous reports averaging about 300 pages.  The link to read the entire 20^th  Federal Monitor’s report is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/final-imr-20.pdf

The 20^th Federal Monitor’s Report found that APD continued to sustain a 100% Primary Compliance rate, continued to sustain a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and increased Operational Compliance from 96% to 99%.

Under the terms and conditions of the CASA, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in all 3 identified compliance levels and maintains them for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. Originally, APD was to have come into compliance within 4 years and the case was to be dismissed in 2018. However, because of delay and obstruction  tactics by both APD management and the police union to implement in full the reforms, a 5 year delay resulted.

COMPLIANCE LEVELS EXPLAINED

The 3 compliance levels are explained as follows:

PRIMARY COMPLIANCE

Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.

SECONDARY COMPLIANCE

Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to and be effective in implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts such as reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.

OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 20^th Federal Monitor’s report contains the following succinct summary of the 72-page report:

“The 20th monitor’s report shows that APD continues to work to implement the requirements of the CASA fully, and the work has been shown in our analyses of their compliance process. During this reporting period, APD continued to meet CASA requirements. That work has moved the CASA compliance levels to rates higher than all previous reports. Primary compliance stands at 100 percent. Secondary compliance also is at 100 percent. Operational compliance stands at 99 percent.  These compliance levels are the result of focused executive-level commitment to compliance. As with any system, however, these processes require careful oversight of process, review, and reinforcement.

Although disciplinary practices have improved substantially, we have observed incidents in which Internal Affairs Professional Standards (IAPS) and Internal Affairs Force Division (IAFD)  sustain charges against a member, only to find it “exonerated” or “unfounded” by the Pre-Determination Hearing (PDH) officer. This may be an issue reflective of the substantial policy and process changes within APD.  [The monitor’s team] suggest that APD perform a substantial review of the current process and assess the cause of this intervention of external forces that change IAFD and IAPS findings.  APD has developed a proposed solution to deal with these processes, which we will assess fully in IMR-21.

We continue to note that CPOA appears to be understaffed, and this understaffing continues to result in excessive workloads and missed timelines for investigations. We do note that the City has funded additional positions for CPOA investigators. We suggest that the CPOA Director and the City’s Human Resources Department work together to fill these positions so that CPOA investigations can be completed within the timelines established by the CASA.”

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/final-imr-20.pdf

The 20^th Federal Monitors Report Concludes with the following one paragraph Summary at the end:

“During this reporting period, APD continued to meet CASA requirements. That work has moved the CASA compliance levels to rates higher than all previous reports. As noted, Primary Compliance stands at 100 percent. Secondary Compliance also is at 100 percent. Operational compliance stands at 99 percent. These compliance levels are the result of focused executive-level commitment to compliance and demonstrative of the hard work by the City of Albuquerque.”

APD BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION SCANDAL IGNORED

It was on Friday January 19, 2024 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed search warrants and raided the homes of 3 Albuquerque Police officers and the home and law office of prominent DWI criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III.  All 6 of those targeted with a search warrant are allegedly involved in a bribery and conspiracy scheme spanning a decade to dismiss DWI cases.

Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman ordered the dismissed 196 DWI cases because of the scandal due to the main witnesses’ credibility being called into question which in all the cases are APD officers. A total of 9 APD Police officers have been implicated in the scandal and 7  have resigned during the Internal Affairs investigation, one is on paid leave  and one has been terminated.

One by one, the accused Albuquerque police officers have been turning in their badges and resigning  rather than talking to Internal Affairs investigators about an alleged public corruption scheme involving DWI cases. The FBI and the DOJ  is investigating the allegations as a criminal matter. U.S. Attorney Alex Uballez has said the probe focuses on alleged wrongdoing by “certain” APD officers and others. No one has been charged in the case. The FBI’s investigation is ongoing. In both 19th and 20th Federal Monitor’s, there is absolutely no mention of the DWI bribery and conspiracy scandal.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The blunt truth is APD was expected to be found in compliance after the 19^th Federal Monitors report came out saying APD fell 2% short of being in full Operational Compliance but at 100% Primary and Secondary Compliance.  What called into question if APD would finally reach compliance was the Department of Justice and the FBI investigation into allegations that DWI officers took bribes to miss court dates which led to hundreds of pending DWI cases being dismissed by the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office. The APD Officers reportedly worked with prominent criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III, and his paralegal to get the cases dismissed.  Six of the nine officers implicated in the scandal have resigned from APD declining to be interviewed by APD Internal Affairs. No federal charges have been brought against any one over the scandal and the Department of Justice and the FBI say the investigation is ongoing.

It turns out that the biggest scandal of APD corruption did not even merit and acknowledgement nor a mention by the Federal Monitor in his 19th or 20th progress reports. What is truly disgusting and down right pathetic is that for the past 10 years APD management and the entire APD department was supposed to be the  under the watchful eye of the Department of Justice, the Federal Court and a Federal Monitor, yet the bribery and conspiracy scandal to dismiss DWI cases ostensibly went totally undetected by the Federal Monitor over the last 10 years during which it occurred.

Under Secondary Compliance, the Federal Monitor and his so-called team of experts were required to review supervisory, managerial and executive practices and the enforcement of policies among field personnel and how they were held accountable by management and executive levels for wrongdoing. No doubt the monitor will argue it was not his job to ferret out scandal, nefarious or illegal conduct of APD officers other than use of force, but that sure damn well was the responsibility of the Department of Justice. The public perception is that the DOJ reform process really has not accomplished much other than making the Federal Monitor a wealthy man.

Excessive use of force and deadly by APD is what brought the Department of Justice to this City in the first place and damaged APD’s reputation to an extent. The reforms were an attempt to restore public confidence to an extent. There is absolutely no doubt that APD’s reputation has been trashed to a major extent because of the bribery and dismissal scandal. APD is viewed by many as again having just another bastion of “dirty and corrupt cops” who have brought dishonor to their department and to the department’s professed values of “Pride, Integrity, Fairness and Respect”. 

This is so even before any criminal charges have been filed against anyone, before anyone else is fired from APD and before any action is brought against the police officers involved for government corruption and criminal conspiracy to dismiss cases working with a prominent criminal defense attorney.  Should the criminal defense attorney be charged and convicted of the crimes, he is likely facing jail time in prison as well as disbarment from the practice of law.

There is little doubt that this whole DWI dismissal bribery scandal has shaken the public’s faith in our criminal justice system and APD to its core. The only way that any semblance of faith can be restored and for people to begin trusting APD again is if all the police officers involved in this scandal are held accountable and the lawyers involved are held accountable.  That will only happen when there is aggressive prosecutions and convictions, the police officers are terminated, and they lose their law enforcement certification and disbarment occurs with the attorney.

HISTORIC MILESTONE

The announcement that APD, after almost 10 years,  is now essentially in full compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) is a major milestone for the beleaguered department plagued by scandal. The 20^th report from the monitor essentially continues to pave the road for APD to “effectively self-monitor”.   Notwithstanding,  the monitor’s 19^th Federal Monitors report  noted  that APD still needs to improve supervisory oversight of in-field activities, something not fully addressed by the released 20^th report. The monitor also said  the Civilian Police Oversight Agency, which focuses on police accountability, needs to address timeliness and staffing issues.

The resulting settlement agreement with the DOJ led to an overhaul of APD use of force policies, recruitment, training, internal affairs procedures and field supervision of officers.  The implementation of all the reforms took over twice as long as was originally agreed and required the expenditure of millions of dollars and oversight by an outside independent monitor. The Federal Monitor and his team have been paid upwards of $12 Million for their services and reports. The city has also spent over $40 to implement the reforms.

The Court Approved Settlement Agreement requires 95% Operational Compliance by APD. Operational compliance tracks whether officers follow policies and whether they’re corrected when they don’t. According to this latest report  APD is  at 99% Operational Compliance.  Since October 2019, APD has been and has remained at 100% Primary Compliance, meaning all required policies and procedures are in place. APD is also at 100% Secondary Compliance regarding the training of officers.

The achievement of 99% of Operational Compliance  allows  APD to to continue with implementation of the settlement terms directed towards a full  dismissal of the case. If compliance can be sustained at 95% or more in all 3 compliance levels for two years, the case can be dismissed. With the filing of yet another Motion to Self Monitor more provisions of the settlement APD should be able to move toward self-monitoring with all remaining sections that have not already been dismissed by the court.

REFORMS ACHIEVED UNDER THE CASA

On November 16, 2024, it will be  a full 10  years that has expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. It was originally agreed that implementation of all the settlement terms would be completed within 4 years, but because of previous delay and obstruction tactics  by APD management and the police officers’ union found by the Federal Monitor as well as APD backsliding in implementing the reforms, it has taken another 5 years to get the job done.

After 10 full years, the federal oversight and the CASA have produced results. Reforms achieved under the CASA can be identified and are as follows:

• New “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies have been written, implemented and all APD sworn have received training on the policies.
• All sworn police officers have received crisis management intervention training.
• APD has created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.
• The Internal Affairs Unit has been divided into two sections, one dealing with general complaints and the other dealing with use of force incidents.
• Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re-writing and implementation of new use of force and deadly force policies have been completed.
• “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police also receiving the training.
• APD has adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.
• APD has revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.
• The Repeat Offenders Project, known as ROP, has been abolished.
• Civilian Police Oversight Agency has been created, funded, fully staffed and a director was hired.
• The Community Policing Counsels (CPCs) have been created in all area commands.
• The Mental Health Advisory Committee has been implemented.
• The External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) was created and is training the Internal Affairs Force Division on how to investigate use-of-force cases, making sure they meet deadlines and follow procedures.
• Millions have been spent each year on new programs and training of new cadets and police officers on constitutional policing practices.
• APD officers are routinely found using less force than they were before and well documented use of force investigations are now being produced in a timely manner.
• APD has assumed the self-monitoring of at least 25% of the CASA reforms and is likely capable of assuming more.
• The APD Compliance Bureau has been fully operational and staffed with many positions created dealing directly with all the reform efforts and all the duties and responsibilities that come with self-assessment.
• APD has attained a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and a 99% Operational Compliance rate.

CITY SHOULD SEEK DISMISSAL OF CASE AND NOT WAITE ANY LONGER

Over the last 10 years, APD has devoted thousands of manhours, and the city has spent millions of dollars on the reform process, creating and staffing entire divisions and roles and rewriting policies and procedures.  APD has implemented oversight outside of the CASA requirements, implementing 6 month reviews of police shootings to identify shortcomings and possible solutions.

Despite the fact that the Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandates 2 years of sustained compliance of all 3 levels, it can be said that the spirit and intent of the CASA have now been fully achieved.  Given the extent of the compliance levels, the work of the Federal Monitor is done. The purpose and intent of the settlement has been achieved.

The city should seek to negotiate a stipulated dismissal of the case with the Department of Justice (DOJ) sooner rather than later.  Should the DOJ refuse, the City Attorney should move to immediately to dismiss the case under the termination and suspension provisions of the CASA by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case and force the issue with an evidentiary hearing and let the assigned federal judge decide the issue of dismissal.

The link to a related blog article is here:

APD Has Achieved Compliance Levels Mandated By Court Approved Settlement Agreement; City Should Seek Immediate Dismissal Of Case And Not Be Required To Waite 2 More Years