A quartet of questions for policymakers

Some issues need rational discussion, and those who can make decisions should consider giving them higher priority.

Some public policy questions keep rolling around in my head. Two deal with foreign policy, and the other two with federal taxes. I’d like to see them move up on the priority scale among people in a position to act on them. They’re not all that complicated, and you may have wondered about them as well.

1) Why doesn’t Congress appropriate more military and economic funding for Ukraine?

Ukraine deserves to defend itself against Russia’s expansionist attempt. To allow Putin and Russia to succeed would violate more than 75 years of Western defense of Europe against both Soviet and then Russian nationalist threats. The U.S., until the last few years, has been a pillar of that support for NATO.

President Trump shows himself at least sympathetic, and maybe favorable, toward Putin’s plan. It’s hard to believe most members of Congress share that attitude.

America’s allies in NATO have stepped up to bolster Ukraine’s defenses with arms and economic support. That aid appears to rankle Trump. Consequently Ukraine’s Zelensky is turning more and more to European countries for the help he desperately needs.

Trump’s claim to be working toward a brokered peace appears more hollow as time goes on. Russia’s invasion is now in its fifth year.

Are Congressional Republicans so abjectly fearful of the President that they are willing to let Russia succeed?

2) Why doesn’t Congress simply declare war on Iran?

For decades Congress has abdicated its constitutional power to make war to the presidency. The last time Congress issued a war declaration was after the Pearl Harbor attack at the start of America’s entry into World War Two. That was nearly 85 years ago.

Almost all Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, appear to at least acquiesce in Trump’s military action against Iran. If they truly support the President, they should have the courage to reclaim their constitutional war powers, as the Founders intended, and make the battle an official war.

The reason they don’t is probably because they fear retribution from their constituents, most of whom polls show disapprove of the “police action” against Iran. So most of them remain silent while the President does as he wishes. Trump refrains from asking Congress for a war declaration for the same reason; he fears it would not pass.

As with so many other issues, most Republican members of Congress fear risking antagonizing either the President or their constituents who voted them in. Their timidity—willing neither to officially support Trump or to oppose him on the issue—is disappointing.

3) Why should Donald Trump, his family, and his businesses be forever exempt from government probes into his federal taxes up to now, unlike everyone else in the United States?

The summary backstory of how the possibility came about is as follows:;

Donald Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service in January 2026 for $10 billion over a leak by an IRS contractor of some data from his federal tax returns for 1995 and 2005. (Leaks of tax returns of a few other wealthy people also took place.) Trump claimed that the leak caused him financial and reputational harm and public embarrassment, and negatively impacted his public standings and business operations. He also said the leak unfairly portrayed him in a false light and damaged his voting support in the 2020 election.

His personal attorneys and the IRS fewer than 3 1/2 months later settled the lawsuit. In the settlement was an agreement that the U.S. is “forever barred and precluded” from examining or prosecuting Trump, his sons, and the Trump organization’s tax filings prior to May 2026.

The contract leaker had earlier been prosecuted and received a sentence of up to five years.

During his several presidential campaigns, Trump had said dozens of times that he would release his tax returns, as all his presidential predecessors since Richard Nixon, and his Democratic opponents, had done. Thereafter he backtracked, either postponing the release or giving reasons why it wouldn’t be possible for him to do so.

A logical connection between the leak and the settlement is hard to figure out.

Bottom line: as President, Trump sued his own IRS for $10 billion, and reached a settlement with his own Department of Justice that permanently protected him, his family, and his businesses from any inspection of their tax returns up to the May 2026 date of the settlement.

ANY member of Congress—whether Democrat, Independent, or Republican—who sees no problem with that should undergo an olfactory exam immediately.

4. Why not take a look at Jeff Bezos’ proposal to completely eliminate federal income taxes on households in the lower half of Americans’ income scale, and reduce federal spending to make up for the lost revenue?

Bezos recently made the proposal in an interview a few weeks ago. He noted that taxes paid annually by the lower half of American income earners—about 76 million households—represent only three percent of federal income tax revenue. Taxes paid by the upper one percent on the scale equal about 40 percent.

Three percent of federal income tax revenue is about $75 billion. Bezos thinks Congressional appropriators could find enough spending cuts to make up for the revenue reduction, without seriously harming important government programs.

He didn’t say so, but one way to do that might be to eliminate a number of tax loopholes, with which the federal tax code is rife. Increasing tax rates on the wealthy could also be considered, but going the loophole route would probably be more palatable to members of Congress.

Bezos’ proposal deserves a look. At a time when President Trump and his Congressional supporters are considering a $900 billion annual increase in defense spending, Bezos’ suggestion is not out of line.

And Bezos doesn’t take increasing taxes on the wealthy off the table. He says that option would not necessarily need to be coupled with the tax reduction proposal for the bottom half of earners, but he’s not opposed to making it a topic of discussion.

The lower half of income earners make less than about $56,000 a year. Reducing their federal income tax liability to zero would leave more money in their pockets, and they would no doubt spend it on necessities.

Private consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the American economy; a boost to that figure would boost the nation’s economic growth, a goal for most members of Congress. For years Republicans have claimed that tax cuts would increase investment, especially from those with higher incomes. The same should be said for tax cuts for those with lower incomes as well.

Those are my questions. Maybe someday before long they’ll get some answers.