As Elon Musk runs the country and attacks the government, Donald Trump seems to be OK with it because he took over the Kennedy Center. Also: Law Dork in the media.
"And it is a plan to destroy the federal government."
Chris, this begs the question. Why do they want to do this?
Destroying the federal government seems likely to create a massive backlash. If Trump's goal is to become a true dictator, in part by installing loyalists through the government and using restructuring as a smokescreen, wouldn't it be smarter not to piss people off so much, so quickly?
If Musk's goal is to reduce the federal budget and then divert funds to himself and other billionaires through government contracts and federal tax cuts, wouldn't it be smarter to not go so far as to kill the cow and create a massive backlash?
I get that they ran on eliminating government waste and they need to deliver on their promises, but they are masters of making a show of things without actually doing much of anything so why push it so far and create a massive backlash?
Or, do they see the threat to the country of the spiraling national debt, and among other goals, are they actually trying to balance the budget and think this is really going to work?
Having spent time in corporate environments, I recognize some of the tactics. CEOs often solve budget problems by doing across the board cuts (like ordering that each department cuts 25% of its employees, for example), and then let the department managers "figure it out". For various reasons, I don't think that will work with government, not without massive backlash. And one hire for every four departures is like a 75% employee headcount cut when coupled with the buy-out offers to get employees to resign.
I realize the "massive backlash" I refer to has not as of yet happened, but their 75% cut leading to "destroying the federal government "hasn't happened yet either.
"Or, do they see the threat to the country of the spiraling national debt, and among other goals, are they actually trying to balance the budget and think this is really going to work?" No.
The rest of it, while, I get wanting to have that discussion, is what cable TV and talk radio is for. I don't want to get inside his head. I'm just telling you what's happening.
In corporations, employee wages are often a significant part of the budget. In the US government, they are on the order of 5% IIRC, and a small reduction in headcount essentially does nothing to move the needle, which would require addressing sacred cows of defense and entitlement spending. Meanwhile, the reported current house GOP budget plan is to add many, many trillions more to our debt rather than reduce it. So no, this does not appear to be to be a good-faith effort to balance the budget.
To expand on that note about corporate backgrounds - we're also dealing with an administration composed of and backed by people who spent the last 45-ish years marinating in the idea that "running the government like a business" is an inherently Good Idea with no downsides. Evidence of, for example, increased costs due to ham-fisted across the board RIFs in the 1980s and 1990s are basically unknown outside of (and sometimes inside of) government bureaucratic circles. For backers of the Trump presidency, the logical connection between efficient government programs and government employees operating those programs has been broken by years of Norquist-ratchet budgeting.
If they really wanted to pay off the national debt, they would raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations! Instead, the current dream is to pass a 4 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and to “balance” that with deep cuts on everything, especially anything that supports the poorest and sickest. Who needs Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or SNAP, right? 🤡
This has all the hallmarks of a soft coup d'état. It's a purge of those who respect and uphold the law, coupled with Chaos riding atop the wave of anti establishment feels that got them in power. This isn't about what's right for the American people or government efficiency. This is a power grab.
In a system that provides socialism for the rich and laissez faire for the poor, we also have Originalism for people who want abortions and complete disregard of separation of powers for those who think they can manipulate a puppet emperor.
I think there are useful opportunities in pointing out to businesses that they depend on federal government largesse and exploitation of immigrant labor, so they have every reason to preserve access to both.
Well, we won't have to worry about government shutdowns any more. He's just going to RIF all those whose work stops because they are "non-essential." Well, of course, unless Congress specifically has legislated otherwise. How many laws on the budget specify that there should be any people to answer the phones or do data entry and multiple agencies, including (of course) Social Security and Medicare. Or process passport applications? Or keep toilets unclogged in the National Parks? Just an EO that says that during a shutdown the "essential" employees get paid. Each department decides who is essential or not during a shutdown. Anyone who checks the box "are you a Democrat" is automatically deemed unessential. Or that loyalty test already out there: Do you believe January 6 was an inside job.
Trump takes over Kennedy Center: At last, Big Don brings his traveling medicine show to NYC’s big stage—hilarity for all as he appears in blackface to sing about Dixie and peddle Trump Tonic.
Somewhat off topic question: Could the so-called “major question doctrine” be used to challenge some of the more sweeping acts of destruction, like decimating USAID or shutting down the CFPB?
"And it is a plan to destroy the federal government."
Chris, this begs the question. Why do they want to do this?
Destroying the federal government seems likely to create a massive backlash. If Trump's goal is to become a true dictator, in part by installing loyalists through the government and using restructuring as a smokescreen, wouldn't it be smarter not to piss people off so much, so quickly?
If Musk's goal is to reduce the federal budget and then divert funds to himself and other billionaires through government contracts and federal tax cuts, wouldn't it be smarter to not go so far as to kill the cow and create a massive backlash?
I get that they ran on eliminating government waste and they need to deliver on their promises, but they are masters of making a show of things without actually doing much of anything so why push it so far and create a massive backlash?
Or, do they see the threat to the country of the spiraling national debt, and among other goals, are they actually trying to balance the budget and think this is really going to work?
Having spent time in corporate environments, I recognize some of the tactics. CEOs often solve budget problems by doing across the board cuts (like ordering that each department cuts 25% of its employees, for example), and then let the department managers "figure it out". For various reasons, I don't think that will work with government, not without massive backlash. And one hire for every four departures is like a 75% employee headcount cut when coupled with the buy-out offers to get employees to resign.
I realize the "massive backlash" I refer to has not as of yet happened, but their 75% cut leading to "destroying the federal government "hasn't happened yet either.
"Or, do they see the threat to the country of the spiraling national debt, and among other goals, are they actually trying to balance the budget and think this is really going to work?" No.
The rest of it, while, I get wanting to have that discussion, is what cable TV and talk radio is for. I don't want to get inside his head. I'm just telling you what's happening.
Understood, and thanks for doing that!
In corporations, employee wages are often a significant part of the budget. In the US government, they are on the order of 5% IIRC, and a small reduction in headcount essentially does nothing to move the needle, which would require addressing sacred cows of defense and entitlement spending. Meanwhile, the reported current house GOP budget plan is to add many, many trillions more to our debt rather than reduce it. So no, this does not appear to be to be a good-faith effort to balance the budget.
And, defense, immigration, and law enforcement, IIRC, are already the exempted areas.
To expand on that note about corporate backgrounds - we're also dealing with an administration composed of and backed by people who spent the last 45-ish years marinating in the idea that "running the government like a business" is an inherently Good Idea with no downsides. Evidence of, for example, increased costs due to ham-fisted across the board RIFs in the 1980s and 1990s are basically unknown outside of (and sometimes inside of) government bureaucratic circles. For backers of the Trump presidency, the logical connection between efficient government programs and government employees operating those programs has been broken by years of Norquist-ratchet budgeting.
Good points. I agree that rules out the balance budget possibility.
If they really wanted to pay off the national debt, they would raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations! Instead, the current dream is to pass a 4 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and to “balance” that with deep cuts on everything, especially anything that supports the poorest and sickest. Who needs Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or SNAP, right? 🤡
This has all the hallmarks of a soft coup d'état. It's a purge of those who respect and uphold the law, coupled with Chaos riding atop the wave of anti establishment feels that got them in power. This isn't about what's right for the American people or government efficiency. This is a power grab.
In a system that provides socialism for the rich and laissez faire for the poor, we also have Originalism for people who want abortions and complete disregard of separation of powers for those who think they can manipulate a puppet emperor.
I think there are useful opportunities in pointing out to businesses that they depend on federal government largesse and exploitation of immigrant labor, so they have every reason to preserve access to both.
Well, we won't have to worry about government shutdowns any more. He's just going to RIF all those whose work stops because they are "non-essential." Well, of course, unless Congress specifically has legislated otherwise. How many laws on the budget specify that there should be any people to answer the phones or do data entry and multiple agencies, including (of course) Social Security and Medicare. Or process passport applications? Or keep toilets unclogged in the National Parks? Just an EO that says that during a shutdown the "essential" employees get paid. Each department decides who is essential or not during a shutdown. Anyone who checks the box "are you a Democrat" is automatically deemed unessential. Or that loyalty test already out there: Do you believe January 6 was an inside job.
Trump takes over Kennedy Center: At last, Big Don brings his traveling medicine show to NYC’s big stage—hilarity for all as he appears in blackface to sing about Dixie and peddle Trump Tonic.
Now that the bar is only a micron off the floor, I'm just glad when the latest buffoonery doesn't actually kill anybody.
Limbo lower, fat man!
Somewhat off topic question: Could the so-called “major question doctrine” be used to challenge some of the more sweeping acts of destruction, like decimating USAID or shutting down the CFPB?
No, respectfully. This is the opposite of the major questions doctrine. Congress *has* spoken; they created and funded the agencies!
* putting aside the many fundamental issues I have with the barely-a-doctrine doctrine itself