With little consensus for an alternative way forward, Trumpism aggressively fills the vacuum.

While Trump's popularity is declining in the polls, the Democrats don't poll that well either. I still think if more Democrats get elected, it could strengthen checks and balances protecting us from sliding into one party rule.

As for ideal policies, there seems to be little consensus among the American people about a way forward.

I have my own agenda, of course. My own agenda calls for less consumptive, automobile dependent lifestyles and the city planning needed to facilitate that. My agenda also doesn't really blame anyone for our situation. Our situation is caused by the people, in mass and our culture. I don't think we can blame the rich, government or any one scapegoat. Still all the "they(s)" are partially to blame.

My own agenda calls for slowing down the rat race, but not going back to the past. I still embrace most technological advance and even new construction. I think our modern society is pretty good, but we just need to slow our personal treadmills down a bit while not necessarily fighting the changes that our accumulative treadmills bring to society.

The rat race is pushing change even if we slow our demands down a bit. We can slow down to possibly make life less stressful, but we still need to accept change.

Problem is, there seems to be little consensus on whatever big direction this country should go.

Democrats usually come closer to my ideas, but my ideas are somewhat unique and not mainstream. There may be no actual "mainstream" since people are all over the map in terms of what they want. The Democrats at least help to prevent us from sliding into one party, one person rule.

Comparing Bellingham's Magnolia Street bike lane to Holly Street bike lane. Magnolia might be better, but Holly faces different circumstances.

Simple bike lane along Magnolia Street. Maybe Bellingham should have made the new Holly Street bike lane simply like this?

I'm okay with the new Holly lane, but it does seem to be generating lots of criticism on social media.

Holly is a different kind of street than Magnolia. It carries more traffic. Due to more retailing along Holly, there is quite a bit of activity, along the street, from both parked cars pulling in and out as well as pedestrians darting about.

I'm no traffic engineer, but I think they are trying to slow down both car and bicycle traffic on Holly for safety.

Holly is the type of street that an organization called "Strong Towns" calls a "strode." A strode is the cross between street and road.

Strong Towns defines street as one for slow speeds with lots of activity along it, such as parking, retailing, walking and so forth. A road has more limited access and is designed for faster traffic. Holly is, in a way, the worst of both. It's a major crosstown route for cars, but it's also a congested retail street. This makes it a difficult situation.

Maybe just the simple Magnolia style bike lane is good enough, but who knows. It's a predicament.

I can imagine some folks just frustratingly saying (like the stereotype of Trump supporters) to just go back to all lanes for cars to funnel more traffic through. People might see trying to change this as just a waste of money.

Of course much of making our world greener could be viewed as just spending more money. If it prevents accident, however, it saves money.

Both Democrats and Republicans worry about creeping authoritarianism in USA for different reasons.

The CBS, Paramount, Skydance deal may be just another example of our slide toward a one person, one party rule. Everything based on what Trump wants.

Hopefully the midterms can bring Democrats into control of at least one federal institution; such as a house of Congress.

Many Republicans have also thought we were sliding toward more authoritarian society as well. They cite increasing regulation over the past few decades. More regulations have to do with increasing population density; for instance one can't burn trash in a backyard burning barrel in most communities. The nearby neighbors are more likely to complain.

There are a lot more environmental regulations than before. Here in Whatcom County, a big bone of contention is something called the "Water Adjudication." I hear farmers and other property owners complain about that on a talk show. It's the state is trying update water allocations in the county by taking an inventory for trying to figure out fair distribution of limited water among various interests. There are the interests of local tribes, the salmon, agriculture, industrial and residential use.

In the past, resources seemed unlimited when populations were smaller and technology was less powerful. There was less worry about salmon, for instance. The interests of the tribes were more ignored in decades past.

Changing ideas about things like gender and sexuality doesn't set well with many Republicans as well.

The world and culture is changing which creates changing of rules and norms to reflect different circumstances. Some folks do see this as also a side into more authoritarian society.

There are more rules against burning trash in a backyard burning barrel.

I still think, if people are smart enough, we can navigate the changes that are happening due to technology, climate change and so forth, while preserving our system of representative democracy.

Things we still need are patience, the ability to compromise and respect for diversity in people and points of view.

Money, itself, isn't as real as the goods, services and assets that it buys. Money is just a number system.

As the national debt keeps going up, people worry that we may run out of money. In reality, we can just print more money, it's not a real commodity that runs out. It's not as real as the goods and services that it buys. It's the actual goods and services that we may not have enough of.

The problem with printing money is that doesn't create the goods and services, it just creates the money itself. Too much money causes inflation in the price of things since it means more dollars chasing the same number of goods and services.

The money, itself, isn't as real as the things it buys. Money is basically just an accounting tool. It's a way to regulate the economy. The actual flow of goods and services is what makes up the true economy.

Printing money doesn't create goods and services, but it can grease the wheels of the economy clearing up bottlenecks for facilitating the production and distribution of goods and services.

On the other hand, too much money can overprice things and plug up the real economy. Balance is what is needed for a finely tuned economy. There needs to be just enough money for things to run smoothly and not too much money to upset the balance.

The money, itself, is not a real commodity, it's just a tool for doing the math and keeping the economy humming.

A good question to ask is this. "Is our economy serving our best needs?" Money is just a tool of mathematics, it's not a god or even a real resource in itself.

Conspiracy and blame versus people taking responsibility for their own influence on the world around them.

I tend to think, for the most part, that ordinary people and culture are the cause of most of our problems; for instance car addiction leading to climate change, versus conspiracy of oil companies.

I know that it's both conspiracy and mass behavior of people that lead to our problems, but I tend to emphasize the people aspect.

Other folks find conspiracy, whether it's conservatives blaming everything on Biden or liberals blaming corporations.

During my high school years, the Watergate Scandal was unfolding. Before that, scandals were less in the news. Yes, people did blame government and business for things and there were conspiracy theories; such as the speculation about the Kennedy assassination.

Since Watergate, it seems like conspiracy and finger pointing has shifted into high gear. It seems like everything is a conspiracy these days. Institutions have less respect.

When I was growing up, it seemed like people had more respect for institutions and folks considered experts in our society. Scientists were more respected; for instance.

Now we hear conservatives speak of scientists, supposedly, being bought off by wealthy promoters of the climate change myth. Liberals talk of climate change deniers financed by the fossil fuel industry.

Trump has been a big fan of conspiracy talk, blaming things on Biden, Harvard elitists, Obama, George Soros and so forth.

These days, I do find it interesting that so many of Trump's MAGA supporters are now disappointed in the Trump Administration's attempts to quiet talk about the Jeffry Epstein case.

During Watergate, I remember, as the Watergate hearings were televised, that one of Nixon's aids testified before the Senate committee that the laws, which broken, were no big deal. He compared them to traffic violations.

I remember thinking, at the time, that reckless driving can lead to death, so, on a small scale, mere traffic rules can be important.

When someone is in government, the consequences of bad action is amplified to even more significance; for instance possibly killing thousands in a war, versus just a handful of people. I came up with the phrase, "power amplifies."

While blame can be laid on institutions and those in high places of power, I also think that the people, ourselves, the people in mass are also to blame for the problems.

Conspiracy theorists falling on their own swords.

Much of Trump's base is now unhappy that the administration is not revealing more stuff about the Epstein case.

This could be a case of folks who talk a lot about scandals falling on their own swords. Trump talked about many scandals, such as in Hunter Biden's laptop. Now that something might point toward him and many others in high places, his administration is trying to say, no more information here. Many of his followers aren't buying it.

I remember the days of Watergate, a scandal that broke new ground at a time when there was less talk about scandals. In more recent times, it seems like there's scandal everywhere, as in innocence lost. Now days, there is talk of scandal everywhere. During Watergate, there was the 18.5 minute gap in the Nixon tapes.

Lower interest rates might just push up existing asset prices pushing inflation. This might be why the Fed is cautious.

If Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell were to push for lower interest rates, it would likely push up the values of assets; such as stocks and real estate. This could inflate costs; such as housing costs. That is one reason why he is resisting pressure from Trump.

Another thing I heard, on a talk show, is that lower interest rates, for US bonds, would make them less popular, making it harder for the government to finance debt by selling bonds. It might have to resort to creating new money, also inflationary. The Bond Market can be a check on Trump.

Time to mention my idea of having two interest rates; a lower one for creating new wealth, such as for construction loans and a higher one for buying up already existing assets.

Democrats don't need to all stand behind one standard bearer; especially for the midterms.

There's debate as to whether the Democrats should lean left or toward the center in politics. I think, especially for the midterm election, they could do both depending on the region. Congressional and local races can play to the constituents of various diverse places. There doesn't have to be one standard bearer for the entire party.

This gets a bit more tricky for presidential elections, but still, the party of the big tent ought to be able to function with civility, given much diversity of opinion within.

Keeping the big tent.

I would guess that the majority of Americans are worried about our possible slide toward more authoritarian; one party, one person government. Still, the Democratic Party alternative doesn't do well in the polls.

I hope Democrats can retake seats in Congress if, for nothing else, to preserve our system of checks and balances.

I still think deep cultural changes are needed before we can more effectively address problems; such as climate change and income inequality. The world as a whole, including USA, needs less population growth and less consumption. Things like over dependency on private automobiles are an example of our problems at the grass roots levels.

People in large urban areas, where space is more limited, are already living in somewhat of a different culture. A culture of more public transit and lower footprint housing, for instance. Urban areas tend to elect politicians that lean farther to the left, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York City. There is worry that this brand of politics will not play well for elections across most of America where life is less urban.

More moderate Democrats still due better in polls across most of America, though some folks might disagree with me. Bernie Sanders has done fairly well in nationwide polling, I guess.

One solution to this problem is to have more autonomy for cities. The politics and culture of dense urban areas is different than that of rural areas. We are a large and very diverse nation so one size fits all solutions can't work across the entire nation. Cities often do tax themselves more to provide things like transit while the need for that is less evident in rural areas.

Still, we do need to figure out how to address things like climate change and inequality in diverse ways suited for each region. Technology is still a big part of the answer, but cultural and lifestyle changes are needed as well. These changes will be different, and in some cases only incremental, based on the differing needs of various places. We live in very diverse environments ranging from New York City to rural Wyoming.

Healthcare industry grows as populations age and more folks can access coverage. This could be in jeopardy however.

Healthcare spending has increased in the US and around much of the world. Aging populations, especially in wealthier nations, are part of the equation. Another big factor, in the US, is an increase in the percentage of population covered by insurance. According an article I saw in New York Times, 14% of US population had no health insurance in 2000. By 2023 that number had dropped to 8%; a benevolent trend.

Insurance coverage has increased mostly due to Medicaid expansion in most states due to Obamacare. The Obamacare exchanges and some other changes has increased coverage as well. Some of this improvement may be in jeopardy due to the budget.

Past growth of healthcare industry is reshaping the US economy. Below graphic I excerpted from.

What are the alternatives? Healthier lifestyles are part of the equation, but not all of the equation. The inevitable reality of death is also part of the equation. It may seem crude to say this, but here is a sound byte I recently thought of.

"Assisted dying is cheaper than assisted living."

Still, in spite of all this, my wish for people, including myself, is.

"May we have many more years."

Democrats and the public watches as Republicans struggle with the budget.

As I write this, who knows the fate of that Republican budget bill in the US House of Representatives?

Republicans tend to not listen to Democrats, but there is division within the house of Republicanism about this bill. Reservations ranging from it's Medicaid cuts to it's projected deficit increases related to the tax cut provisions.

Maybe Republicans, themselves, will delay giving Trump his victory of having the bill on his desk by the Fourth of July. The process may slow down so they can continue to refine the bill and hammer out compromises.

We'll see. We, the public and also the Democrats, watch from mostly being relegated to the sidelines.