It's no secret I want no part of this, but it's worth turning a more objective eye towards Donald Trump's proposed first 100 days in office. I'll roughly follow the article and take representative clips from it as prompts.
First, and perhaps most important, is Trump's relationship with all the establishment Republicans. Many have denounced him or at least refused to endorse him. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. There's some possibility, I think, that Congress breaks into 3 parties: Democrats, Trumpians, Republicans. Whether this happens or not will absolutely influence at least the next 2 years and possibly his whole presidency. A 3-party split could end up with more do-nothing, though it would come with a lot of finger pointing and I expect anyone up for re-election in 2 years would have a pretty rough time.
FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
I don't hate this idea. In fact, I'd want the same. How many Senators and Representatives will willingly vote to give up their own power though? Starting here could help underpin a 3-party split.
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
Government jobs are notoriously safe and hard to be fired from. A hiring freeze, it seems to me, would serve to erode the incoming talent pool. I assume he includes You're Fired! in the attrition bucket, but I don't know how effective that is in this particular workforce. Or maybe it's intended to remove employees not aligned with the Trump direction.
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
Lol ... umm. I get where he's going with this, but this can't seriously become a requirement, can it? The long game is to de-regulate. But, regulations aren't just made for funzies, they are made to attempt to address issues. And just throwing them out for the sake of throwing them out seems unsustainable or will lead to weird workarounds, like condensing multiple regulations to combo regulations or whatever.
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
This seems fine. Will it work the other way too? Doesn't this seem at odds with how his team is already operating?
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
I will admit to being under-informed here. From a quick search it appears there's no serious environmental concern, so I assume the objections are more of the "we should be investing in sustainable sources" category. I do agree we should do more of that, but I don't have anything particularly smart to say about it.
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
What is America's water and environmental infrastructure problem? Flint, MI had serious water issues, but that's a relatively one-off scenario. Environmental infrastructure problems seem to go right back to the climate change ... oh wait, that's a Chinese hoax.
To recap, a set of actions that are either impractical or downright harmful.
Trump also promised to take the following actions.
FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
I would assume unconstitutional ones would already not stick, so this seems like a non-statement. What this is really saying is he'll cancel every action, memo and order he doesn't agree with. But, calling them unconstitutional just panders to his base.
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
And he will. And the Republican congress will play along. The single good news is that it'll be largely status quo since Scalia was a very conservative.
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
This is interesting. He's essentially threatening sanctions against cities that don't get in line. Sanctuary cities instruct their police not to actively seek out the immigration status of people. And the major ones are all democratic, so this would be politically divisive and oppressive. Curiously, his new home town of Washington DC would be affected too; wouldn't that shut the city down? Many programs affecting at-risk populations would lose funding. Depending on how federal funding is defined, would it affect federal income tax deductions too? This amounts to bullying cities into submission by exercising federal power instead of letting local governments decide how best to run themselves (exactly what Republicans argue shouldn't happen). This is classic Trump.
FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back
Criminal in the sense that they are illegally here AND committed a crime? This is already happening, about this many were deported under the Obama administration as well; after committing crimes. This is Trump trying to sound tough, but really just coasting down an already paved road.
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
....except that how many problems in the USA were caused by such immigrants? It's tempting to say "don't let them in, just to be safe", but there are downstream consequences: bad foreign relations, resentment among those denied, a narrative that the USA is shirking responsibility for the destabilized Middle East, those people ending up in places where they're more likely to be influenced by extremists, and so on.
So he's "getting tough" by being a bully, and sounding like he's "getting tough" by doing stuff that's already the norm or is a scapegoat action.
He's also promised to work with Congress to do several things:
Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act
I don't think the number of brackets is the reason our economy does or doesn't grow, but that seems like part of the simplifications. Dropping tax rates sounds great until the federal government has a lot less money. I guess this goes with the attrition in the government jobs, but the income hit happens a lot faster. This is the same plan that didn't pass evaluation by non-partisan think tanks. Also, Trump is famous for borrowing against too much optimism and then getting burned.
End The Offshoring Act
I wonder how this works for software....
This one seems to appeal to unions but go against the global grain. Tariffs are a protectionist concept, the argument against them is that the scope of trade can increase, and thus successful firms can be even more successful. I don't understand this enough, except to say it seems to go against what both political parties have pushed for 30 years.
American Energy & Infrastructure Act
So he's going to give tax incentives to companies so they can make more money that they are taxed on so the net tax revenue is zero? Seems like a losing proposition for the fed? This is a very vaguely worded entry, to the point that I can't really tell what it even means.
School Choice And Education Opportunity Act
I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. It almost sounds like families would be given money to help fund whatever choice they make? Or that anyone doing education would get federal support? Unless they are in a sanctuary city? Is this really just a way to let parents teach their kids whatever they want?
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act
This one's already backpedaled. Trump realized there were parts of Obamacare that worked, and he said he liked those. It's almost like he wrote this list without a clue of what's actually in play today? There's also a point about cutting the red tape at the FDA. The whole point of the "red tape" is to make sure drugs are effective, safe and consistent. The process is perhaps even long by design, to give time for issues to pop up on something we're going to start giving to an entire population.
Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act
This one I can get behind. Again, we have to figure out how the debt-accruing tax cuts are going to cover paying for it.
End Illegal Immigration Act
Writes a blank check on behalf of another country, spends our money if their citizens break our rules and makes laws in case employers go against their own economic incentives of hiring local.
Restoring Community Safety Act
Establishes more police, I guess? With more guns and more training? Or something?
Restoring National Security Act
Oh good, it mandates that we do things that we're already trying to do. Cuz without Trump, who would defend our cybers? And what the fuck, how do you expect to "ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values"? And just what values are those? What the fucking fuck?
Clean up Corruption in Washington Act
Yeah, but at the same time exploring appointing ass-hats like Ben Carson to lead Education, Arpaio to lead Homeland Security, Giulani to be your Attorney General, ... and it goes on like this. I mean, blatant slanted cronyism. Maybe I don't know what corruption is?
There it is. Either he has no clue about stuff, or says things that are already happening, or blatantly lies about the intent of the outcome. Hooray. Is it 2020 yet?
First, and perhaps most important, is Trump's relationship with all the establishment Republicans. Many have denounced him or at least refused to endorse him. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. There's some possibility, I think, that Congress breaks into 3 parties: Democrats, Trumpians, Republicans. Whether this happens or not will absolutely influence at least the next 2 years and possibly his whole presidency. A 3-party split could end up with more do-nothing, though it would come with a lot of finger pointing and I expect anyone up for re-election in 2 years would have a pretty rough time.
FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
I don't hate this idea. In fact, I'd want the same. How many Senators and Representatives will willingly vote to give up their own power though? Starting here could help underpin a 3-party split.
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
Government jobs are notoriously safe and hard to be fired from. A hiring freeze, it seems to me, would serve to erode the incoming talent pool. I assume he includes You're Fired! in the attrition bucket, but I don't know how effective that is in this particular workforce. Or maybe it's intended to remove employees not aligned with the Trump direction.
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
Lol ... umm. I get where he's going with this, but this can't seriously become a requirement, can it? The long game is to de-regulate. But, regulations aren't just made for funzies, they are made to attempt to address issues. And just throwing them out for the sake of throwing them out seems unsustainable or will lead to weird workarounds, like condensing multiple regulations to combo regulations or whatever.
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
This seems fine. Will it work the other way too? Doesn't this seem at odds with how his team is already operating?
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
I will admit to being under-informed here. From a quick search it appears there's no serious environmental concern, so I assume the objections are more of the "we should be investing in sustainable sources" category. I do agree we should do more of that, but I don't have anything particularly smart to say about it.
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
What is America's water and environmental infrastructure problem? Flint, MI had serious water issues, but that's a relatively one-off scenario. Environmental infrastructure problems seem to go right back to the climate change ... oh wait, that's a Chinese hoax.
To recap, a set of actions that are either impractical or downright harmful.
Trump also promised to take the following actions.
FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
I would assume unconstitutional ones would already not stick, so this seems like a non-statement. What this is really saying is he'll cancel every action, memo and order he doesn't agree with. But, calling them unconstitutional just panders to his base.
SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
And he will. And the Republican congress will play along. The single good news is that it'll be largely status quo since Scalia was a very conservative.
THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
This is interesting. He's essentially threatening sanctions against cities that don't get in line. Sanctuary cities instruct their police not to actively seek out the immigration status of people. And the major ones are all democratic, so this would be politically divisive and oppressive. Curiously, his new home town of Washington DC would be affected too; wouldn't that shut the city down? Many programs affecting at-risk populations would lose funding. Depending on how federal funding is defined, would it affect federal income tax deductions too? This amounts to bullying cities into submission by exercising federal power instead of letting local governments decide how best to run themselves (exactly what Republicans argue shouldn't happen). This is classic Trump.
FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back
Criminal in the sense that they are illegally here AND committed a crime? This is already happening, about this many were deported under the Obama administration as well; after committing crimes. This is Trump trying to sound tough, but really just coasting down an already paved road.
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
....except that how many problems in the USA were caused by such immigrants? It's tempting to say "don't let them in, just to be safe", but there are downstream consequences: bad foreign relations, resentment among those denied, a narrative that the USA is shirking responsibility for the destabilized Middle East, those people ending up in places where they're more likely to be influenced by extremists, and so on.
So he's "getting tough" by being a bully, and sounding like he's "getting tough" by doing stuff that's already the norm or is a scapegoat action.
He's also promised to work with Congress to do several things:
Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act
I don't think the number of brackets is the reason our economy does or doesn't grow, but that seems like part of the simplifications. Dropping tax rates sounds great until the federal government has a lot less money. I guess this goes with the attrition in the government jobs, but the income hit happens a lot faster. This is the same plan that didn't pass evaluation by non-partisan think tanks. Also, Trump is famous for borrowing against too much optimism and then getting burned.
End The Offshoring Act
I wonder how this works for software....
This one seems to appeal to unions but go against the global grain. Tariffs are a protectionist concept, the argument against them is that the scope of trade can increase, and thus successful firms can be even more successful. I don't understand this enough, except to say it seems to go against what both political parties have pushed for 30 years.
American Energy & Infrastructure Act
So he's going to give tax incentives to companies so they can make more money that they are taxed on so the net tax revenue is zero? Seems like a losing proposition for the fed? This is a very vaguely worded entry, to the point that I can't really tell what it even means.
School Choice And Education Opportunity Act
I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. It almost sounds like families would be given money to help fund whatever choice they make? Or that anyone doing education would get federal support? Unless they are in a sanctuary city? Is this really just a way to let parents teach their kids whatever they want?
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act
This one's already backpedaled. Trump realized there were parts of Obamacare that worked, and he said he liked those. It's almost like he wrote this list without a clue of what's actually in play today? There's also a point about cutting the red tape at the FDA. The whole point of the "red tape" is to make sure drugs are effective, safe and consistent. The process is perhaps even long by design, to give time for issues to pop up on something we're going to start giving to an entire population.
Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act
This one I can get behind. Again, we have to figure out how the debt-accruing tax cuts are going to cover paying for it.
End Illegal Immigration Act
Writes a blank check on behalf of another country, spends our money if their citizens break our rules and makes laws in case employers go against their own economic incentives of hiring local.
Restoring Community Safety Act
Establishes more police, I guess? With more guns and more training? Or something?
Restoring National Security Act
Oh good, it mandates that we do things that we're already trying to do. Cuz without Trump, who would defend our cybers? And what the fuck, how do you expect to "ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values"? And just what values are those? What the fucking fuck?
Clean up Corruption in Washington Act
Yeah, but at the same time exploring appointing ass-hats like Ben Carson to lead Education, Arpaio to lead Homeland Security, Giulani to be your Attorney General, ... and it goes on like this. I mean, blatant slanted cronyism. Maybe I don't know what corruption is?
There it is. Either he has no clue about stuff, or says things that are already happening, or blatantly lies about the intent of the outcome. Hooray. Is it 2020 yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment