Tariffs

What is a Tariff?

A tariff is a tax imposed on products imported from another country. Usually tariffs are narrowly focussed to counter protectionist policies in another country, or when a foreign company is flooding the market with cheap, subsidized goods that our domestic companies cannot compete with. If American companies are ascendant in a certain category, tariffs are unnecessary in that category. 

Who Pays For a Tariff?

The importer pays the tariff. This effectively raises the cost to the importer, who can pass the cost on to the consumer, or accept a lower profit on their sales. The exporter isn't paying the tariff, but they are still affected since the high price for the end user will effect sales. 

What is the Goal of a Tariff?

Ideally, a tariff is set to counter prices for foreign made goods that are well below the cost of American products. Often the low price is the result of government subsidies in the originating country, resulting in an "unfair" price difference. The tariff brings the foreign and domestic products closer to parity, with the goal of supporting American business. Foreign countries may impose tariffs on American goods as a way to jump start their own home grown industries. 

What is "Balance of Trade"?

The dollar value of imports and exports are rarely equal. When what we buy from another country's businesses exceeds what our businesses sell to that country we have a trade deficit with that country. When the reverse is true we have a trade surplus. 

What Is Trump Doing?

Since his first term Trump has not understood what trade imbalances were. He has consistently described trade deficits as "losing money" to the country with whom we had a trade deficit. He has drawn the conclusion that because we have trade deficits, these countries are "not being fair", or are "ripping us off". Trump's tariffs take two forms. The first takes the form of punishment for actions the other country has taken that he doesn't approve of, or a negotiating tactic to bring them in line with his goals. An example would be his perception that fentanyl is pouring over our northern and southern borders -- tariffs on Canadian and Mexican products are used to twist our neighbors' arms to get them to step up their border security; even if in this case hardly any fentanyl comes in from Canada. The second, which he calls reciprocal tariffs, are a response to trade deficits that we have with the targeted nations. 

How Are the Trump Tariffs Calculated?

The tariffs are not, as first assumed, mirror images of tariffs being imposed on U.S. businesses. The tariff rates are based on the ratio of imports and the trade deficit between the United States and the target country. For example, if we export 25 billion to Tariffland, and import 35 million, the deficit is 10 billion, so the formula is 10 ÷ 35. Trump is dividing the resulting percentage by 2 (to be kind, he says), so  28.57%  ÷ 2 = a 14.28% tariff. One article called this calculation "childish", I would add "foolish" and "ignorant", maybe "simplistic". 

How Crazy Is All of This?

Trump thinks tariffs are the answer to most of our problems. It's the hammer when every problem looks like a nail. Some of Trump's supporters are reverse engineering his senseless policies by attempting to pin some kind of rationality on the irrational. Trying, through convoluted illogic, to hallucinate some kind of reason why any of this makes sense. You'll grow old trying to find any kind of policy coherence in anything Trump does. There are more holes in his "logic" that anyone could count before the heat death of the universe. The reason for any of this is Trump's personality. One aspect is his simplistic thinking. He can't conceive of complex systems or relationships. It's why he seems incapable of considering how interconnected our economy is with the rest of the world. He has no empathy for others. He doesn't care that his plans will cause inflation or cause businesses to shut down -- not his problem. Finally, despite his opulent lifestyle, he can't help painting himself as the victim that "everyone" is out to bring down. He sees other countries, not as partners who can mutually benefit from cooperation, but as enemies out to "rip us off". These personality traits have been front and center throughout his life, demands loyalty, but is not loyal to others. His own needs are the first, if not the only things he considers. 

It all makes sense when you put it all in context of one man's twisted psyche.

Cops on Television

We watch a lot of cop shows on television. And there's a lot of them out there. There's no shortage of American cop shows and I've seen a fair number of U.K. and even New Zealand cop shows. Some of them present idealized pictures of police life, others set forth a grittier version of the job. The good ones are fairly realistic regarding the tough choices that police officers make, painting that life in shades of grey, instead of black hats and white hats. I'll get to the one thing that all police shows do that I dislike in a few paragraphs, but first I want to talk about Blue Bloods. 

I don't really know what it's like to be a police officer. My father was a cop for 21 years, but because of a medical condition he wasn't a "street cop" for most of that time. He spent the majority of his time in uniform at a desk. My brother was a sergeant, supervising a squad of homicide detectives. He joined the NYPD after I had moved away, so I never heard much about his job. (One thing he did say was that the ubiquitous portrayal of detectives disrespectfully ordering uniformed officers around was the most unrealistic part of television police. Uniformed officers have a separate chain of command from the detectives). I learned a few things recently after serving on a grand jury that investigated a police shooting, but I don't know anything, not experientially. 

The television show Blue Bloods in my opinion does a good job of presenting multiple sides of an issue. The main characters, all one family, include the NYPD police commissioner; his father, a former police commissioner; one son who is a detective; another son who is a uniformed officer and later a sergeant; a daughter who is an assistant district attorney; and several grandchildren. Other characters include the Deputy Commissioner for Public Relations, and a Lieutenant who is tasked with keeping the commissioner informed of how the cop on the street thinks. The different characters are archetypes, representing different positions on the continuum. Controversial topics are handled even-handedly, characters change their minds sometimes. Even though the show does have a pro-police bias, other points of view are considered. But I watched an episode last night that was very disturbing. 

The episode starts with four officers responding to a call at a housing project. It turns out to be nothing, but as they're leaving they're taunted and insulted by various men. They look pretty rough, and I assume that we're supposed to think they're gang members. None of the men lay a hand on any of the cops, throw anything at them, or threaten them in any way. They're just smack talking as some of their friends record the whole incident on their phones. One of the officers turns, clearly angry, but is dissuaded by his partner. The cops don't take the bait and just get in their cars and leave. The whole scene shapes up as an illustration that there is tension between the police and the neighborhood residents. A normal Blue Bloods might have one of the regulars intervening in a crime at the project and winning over one or two residents. Or even having one of the men involved in a scheme to provoke a cop to violence in order to sue the city. Not this episode. 

The next few scenes focus on the reaction of the Police Commissioner and his team to his police being "humiliated" after the video of the incident makes its way across social media. They bring in the captain whose precinct the incident took place. The "rip him a new one" for allowing his officers to be humiliated without doing anything about it. The captain pushes back at first, maintaining that his officers did the right thing in not escalating. The PR guy takes the position that while embarrassing, the cops handled the situation correctly. He is definitely in the minority. Every other character takes the position that they could have come up with some violation as a pretext to "cuffing" a few of them. 

The next morning the scene shows an assault on the housing project, tanks, helicopters, what looks like hundreds of cops, including ESU's (NYPD's version of SWAT). The PR guy is horrified. The commissioner and the rest of his team are adamant that this is the only appropriate response. They conduct the same raid on another housing project the next morning. It's unclear whether everyone that they have arrested, so many that they can't fit them all in the cells, but keep them in the vans, have committed a crime. It's unlikely that they have. A side note that I guess is supposed to justify the whole thing is that one of the cops recognizes a guy she tackled as he tried to run away as a suspect in a brutal multiple murder the year before. Violate the rights of hundreds to catch one bad guy? Sounds familiar. 

One of the commissioner's sons, a sergeant in the precinct where the first incident took place briefly expresses some concern, but in the end even the PR guy comes around. The assistant DA daughter is off on a subplot of her own and there are no lawyers or judges objecting to these actions, just "community members" justifiably upset, which the cops laugh off. Ironically, it's the detective brother, who is usually the designated asshole on this show, who gets to display some empathy for once. 

This was the most disturbing episode of this show that I can recall. I don't remember seeing this exact thing happen lately -- at least not as a response to some shit talking -- but it mirrors what I see as a general cop attitude. How many times have we heard about cops who have escalated a situation because someone sassed them? Or argued? Or demanded their rights? I'm all for showing an officer of the law proper respect, and not looking for trouble, but when you've been stopped, they have all the power. It's up to them to interpret your actions and determine to their satisfaction that you are complying. Even if you file a complaint against illegal force, there's nothing you can do while you are in the situation.

This brings me to a general observation about cop shows. In most media portrayals of law enforcement the cop who "does what it takes" to catch the bad guy, to solve the crime, to get some justice for the victim, is the hero. We reflexively cheer the cop who won't be bogged down by silly rules or unscrupulous lawyers. Suspects are dragged with little to no evidence and are berated. Doors are kicked in, and imaginative ways are devised to conduct warrantless searches. Anyone who demands a lawyer is assumed to be guilty. Often, demands for a lawyer are ignored and the cops keep interrogating. These characters are not the ones playing rogue cops who will get their comeuppance at the end of the hour, no, these are the good guys, the stars, the heroes of the story. 

We are being conditioned to admire and excuse extra-legal actions by law enforcement, as long as they catch the bad guy. 

This is a political blog, so of course I'm tying this to politics. Right now many things are happening in the federal government, perpetrated by the president and his administration, that are illegal and even  unconstitutional. Some of these things, it could be argued, are necessary, or at least have some support. Illegal immigration had to be gotten under control, criminal immigrants here illegally should be deported, government waste and fraud needs to be rooted out, but many of our fellow Americans are perfectly fine with achieving these goals illegally. It's a whole different argument whether these actions are effective, or even desirable, but even if they were, if they indeed made life better for all Americans, is it worth turning us into a dictatorship to do so? It will take longer than just to the end of the hour for the resolution.

Whiskey Pete

"Whiskey Pete" Hegseth -- what can I say about him that would convey the depth of his incompetence? His view of the mission of the military, despite his own service (National Guard officer commanding a unit guarding detainees in Iraq) appears to a be a combination of romanticized views of the Crusades pushed by White Christian Nationalists, video game imagery, and the "kill 'em all, God will sort 'em out" rationale of several recently pardoned war criminals.

He has stated that his goal is to make the military more efficient and effective "warfighters" and restore a "warrior ethos", yet one of his first moves was to eliminate the group that studies and makes recommendations on how to respond to future threats. What his actual goal has been, is to eliminate any hint of "wokeness" (defined as "stuff we don't like" that doesn't align with White Christian Nationalism). In this he is simply echoing one of the goals of his boss, Figurehead President Trump, who, in breaks from exacting retribution on his enemies, his also eliminating any "wokeness" from the federal government. Somehow, by getting rid of otherwise competent transgender service members and firing top generals and admirals who aren't warrior enough (translation: white male) this will transform our military into a cadre of warriors feared throughout the world. I am not a veteran, and many who served may believe that I have no right to an opinion about this, but I don't want our military to observe a "warrior ethos". I don't want our soldiers and sailors and airmen to be warriors -- screaming barbarians out for individual glory, undisciplined, with no concept of a chain of command -- I envision our military as protectors of our sovereignty and defenders of freedom. If you're truly buying into a warrior mindset, are you also accepting the related concept of the warrior caste, a warrior aristocracy? Trump's first tern Chief of Staff, retired General John Kelly certainly seemed to think that civilians had no right to question the military. Here's a link to a great article about why the term "warrior" is inappropriate for a modern military: Warrior vs. Soldier

In addition to Whiskey Pete's repulsive mindset, he's incompetent. By now we should all be used to incompetence being a feature, rather than a bug, of Trump's administration. His first administration was the very definition of incompetence. Trump arguably didn't think he'd be elected and had no idea how things worked. This time around, he still doesn't really understand how things work, but the difference is that he doesn't care and wants to break things. He's got people on his staff from Project 2025 who can write the executive orders for him to sign and compliant cabinet secretaries who will let Elon Musk gut their departments. Expertise will just get in the way. Hegseth is where he is 95% due to his loyalty to Trump and 5% due to his military service which gives an illusion of experience. Running an entire military is orders of magnitude more involved than commanding a platoon with a few dozen soldiers with one mission (in Hegseth's case, guarding prisoners of war in Iraq). In other words, Hegseth lacked relevant management experience. In a normal administration a Secretary of Defense would have extensive government experience, and understanding of the necessity to utilize the knowledge of the experts under their command. A First Lieutenant with a few years command of a limited mission with no background overseeing large organizations is the very definition of unqualified. 

Of course, this week's debacle where the plans to bomb another country were discussed over a non-secure messaging/chat app that accidently included a journalist was a stark illustration of what a cluster fuck decision making in the Department of Defense and this administration is. The ass covering and contradictory lies would be hilarious if the potential for disaster wasn't present (and only narrowly averted). One attempt at explanation blamed the editor from The Atlantic for "hacking into" the chat, as if the possibility that operational security was so flimsy that a journalist with zero technical proficiency was able to sneak into confidential government planning was somehow better. They tried to smear Goldberg, accusing him of fabricating the whole thing, (simultaneously denying that any classified information was discussed on the chat that Goldberg supposedly made up) -- then had to backpedal after he published the whole chat. They went for hair splitting, claiming that they weren't "war plans", since it wasn't technically a war. 

To be fair, something had to be done about the Houthis and their disruption of shipping. They made a big deal about Biden's actions being ineffective, but it remains to be seen if this week's mini-war is any more effective. 

What a mess...but not unexpected. 

Yes, They CAN take Your Social Security

While I hold out hope that this will never happen, especially since I started receiving benefits just this month, "they" can take your Social Security. Your protestations that you "paid into it" your whole working life are essentially irrelevant. 

"I paid into it" comments are usually made due to a lack of understanding of how Social Security works. I have written on this several times from multiple angles -- use the search function to find complete explanations -- but once money is deducted from your paycheck, it's no longer yours in any real sense. It was used to pay benefits to people who were retired while you were working. It's not set aside for you in an account with your name on it. What you receive in benefits upon retirement is calculated based on a formula that takes into account how much your earned over your lifetime. You may receive more or less than was deducted depending on how long you live. 

Since currently the total amount paid out each year in benefits exceeds what is collected through payroll deductions the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund is being depleted. It will be depleted in around 10 years. At that time revenue from payroll taxes will only cover around 80% of benefits. But even setting aside the depletion of the Trust Fund surplus, the Trust Fund itself is not a pile of cash -- it's Treasury Bonds that are in effect government IOU's. So, dipping into the Trust Fund balance to pay the difference between benefits and revenue means cashing in some of those Treasury Bonds (or collection interest on them). This means that the a portion of Social Security benefits are in reality coming out of the general fund budget even if for accounting purposes the general fund is untouched. 

Is it really outside the realm of possibility that this administration, which has thus far shown no deference to the rule of law or to the needs of ordinary Americans, could unilaterally decide to stop paying interest or allowing redemption of Treasury bonds by the Social Security administration? This would limit benefits now to 80% of revenue from payroll taxes. What would prevent Trump and his minions from altering the formula for calculating benefits so that benefits are reduced across the board? Congress has so far been unwilling to restrain his dictatorial actions and it remains to be seen whether he will defer to the courts when all appeals are exhausted. 

It's a nightmare scenario, but is it really outside the realm of possibility?

You Have TWO Pairs of Gloves?*

Whenever I engage with a Trumper I think back to the movie "Dumb and Dumber". Jim Carrey's character was a complete idiot, but in all his interactions he was convinced that everyone else was the idiot. I've lost count of the number of times I have been told to "educate yourself", "do your research" or been advised to "stop listening to CNN". They have assumed that because I haven't come to the same conclusion that they have, I am just mindlessly parroting what the perceived liberal media has been feeding me. This usually from someone who is repeating verbatim the opinion du jour on Twitter or the Joe Rogan Show. 

One of the blessings that is simultaneously a curse in the modern era is the proliferation of sources of news and opinion, and the ability for those sources to be seen and heard by millions. And not all of them are created equal. In my view, most of the "news" that you see spread on social media isn't news at all, but opinion and analysis. Sometimes you have to shovel away the muck of opinion in order to get to the news underneath. "News" is a piece of information -- often verified, but not always. "Trump has levied a 25% tariff on Nation X" is an example of news. You can look up Trump's quote, maybe even see a video clip of him saying it. It's a fact. "Trump's tariffs will cause inflation" is analysis. It's a prediction, the accuracy of which cannot be immediately assessed because it's predicting the future. It's relationship to facts can be judged by the level of expertise of the person making the prediction. Finally, "Trump's tariff's are idiotic" is an opinion. The opinion may be based on facts, based on analysis, but it's still not a fact. What I see from many people on social media, people who vote, is that they are basing their opinions, not on facts, not even on analysis, but on someone else's opinion. 

What I do on this blog is present my opinion. I do my best to base my opinion on facts and expert analysis, but my personal bias is bound to slip in; it can't be avoided. I do my best to withhold comment until I'm reasonably sure that something I intend to comment on is a fact. It's difficult at times, especially when I read something that overlaps with my own positions and I want to  believe that it's true. It's one of the reasons that I seldom share memes. On Inauguration Day this year it was reported that Trump issued a deluge of executive orders. Instead of reading about the EO's, I read the actual documents, formed my opinion based on my knowledge of the law and the Constitution and wrote about it. In some cases I had to look up previously reported facts or the actual text of the Constitution, but I formed my opinion independent of what any media outlets said about it. One of the things that I wrote, on Day One, was that Trump was acting dictatorially, and later, that we were in an actual dictatorship, something mainstream media was slow to opine, if they have broached the subject at all. 

In my online interactions with Trumpers I confine my comments to things that I know as facts, or to analysis that I have a high confidence in. Yet on a regular basis I'm treated to the ever-popular laughing emoji or suggestions that I'm a communist. Admittedly, social media conversations are the least of our national problems, but I intend to stay informed and speak my mind whenever possible. 

* The title is a reference to Dumb and Dumber, where Jeff Daniels' character complains about his freezing hands as he rides on the back on the little scooter. Jim Carrey's character offhandedly mentions the two pairs that he is wearing - to which he responds incredulously "You have TWO pairs of gloves!?"

Retribution

 It shouldn't be too difficult to understand the difference between Trump's legal troubles pre-election, and the retribution he intends to exact on anyone who stood against him. In the former, Trump took actions, for the most part in public view, that flouted the law, actions which begged to be investigated. What he is doing, and is promising to do yet, is searching for something to charge those who offended him. 

Trump has spent his whole life wriggling out from under legal consequences to his actions. In most cases he has simply waited out anyone who sued him, knowing that his own resources could allow him to do so. I'm not convinced that the charges against him in New York, for which he was convicted of 34 felonies, wasn't politically motivated, or the fact that each ledger entry, and each check written was a separate charge wasn't piling on, but they were certainly based on real actions that he had taken. The prosecutor also had to convince a grand jury to indict and a petit jury to unanimously convict. The charges of attempting to subvert a national election, however, were another matter. He very publicly was attempting to negate the results of an election and illegally retain power. He did it right in front of everybody. He was running schemes to disallow electoral votes in states he didn't win, he was going to court with fantasies about phantom voters, he convinced thousands of his supporters that the election was stolen and incited them to attack the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election. Federal grand juries in two jurisdictions and a state grand jury in Georgia ruled that there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. 

Trump was consistently adamant that the charges were bogus, characterizing them as a "witch hunt", as he did with his two impeachments and the Russia "Collusion" investigation. But, as with so many times in the past, he was able to wait out his accusers. Like he did with so many civil suits, his lawyers were able to win so many delays that none of the federal indictments came to trial before he was re-elected, effectively ending prosecution. Even the convictions in New York resulted in no meaningful penalties. Despite his playing the persecuted martyr card he got away scot free. 

But now he's threatening to use the power of the presidency to exact revenge on everyone whom he perceived to have wronged him. 

Aide from the threats to "go after" President Biden and his family, law firms that participated in any of his trials, the members of the January 6th Committee, former Special Counsel Jack Smith, and others who I can't remember right now, he has appointed as Attorney General, FBI Director and Assistant Director people who have made it clear that they're going after anyone on their "enemies list". This isn't, as Trump and his supporters maintain, simply a matter of holding people accountable. They are starting with the assumption of guilt and will "investigate" until they find something that they can twist into a crime. He has also started arresting permanent legal residents for speech he doesn't like and suing news organizations for printing things about him that he doesn't like. (So far, only one speech arrest of a green card holder that we know of: a Columbia student who organized protests against Israel's war in Gaza; a newspaper in Iowa is being sued under consumer protection laws for incorrectly predicting who would win in Iowa in the presidential election) In addition to legal action and threats of legal action, Trump has removed security details from protecting former government officials who have received credible assassination threats. 

Threats, legal action, and warrantless arrests. Dictatorship...it's what's for dinner.

Government Waste

Ask anyone if they are in favor of government waste, and you won't find anyone who supports it. The problem is -- how do you define waste? The current rampage whereby Trump has illegally delegated virtually unlimited authority to an unelected bureaucrat apparently defines waste as anything they don't like.

An article of faith of the Project 2025 crowd and other small government purists is that the regulatory agencies have effectively become an unconstitutional fourth branch of government. This view romanticizes the early days of the nation -- when we were a narrow band of virtually independent states composed mostly of farmers, merchants and tradesmen. We didn't even have a standing army worthy of the name. The country, in both population and land area has grown exponentially in two centuries. A framework needed to be created to deal with the increasing complexity of life. Lessons learned from the Great Depression as well as a push to build protections for ordinary Americans from the rich and powerful led to the creation of many of the regulatory agencies that populate the executive branch. 

One of the least understood aspects of governing is that laws are not self-executing or self-enforcing. An example that affects most people is speeding laws. A law can be passed to create a maximum speed on our highways, but what then? Who puts up the signs to alert drivers to the limit? Who enforces it? What are the fines or other penalties? What infrastructure must be put in place to make sure it all happens according to the new law? If there are fines, where do they go? In this example, the local police enforce the speed limit and local courts exact the penalties. But what other powers do the police have? What discretion do the courts have? Who's paying for all of this? 

Legislative bodies pass bills that, with the assent of the executive, become law. But more often than not the laws do not address the on-the-ground, nitty-gritty, details of how these laws will be implemented. This is where the regulatory agencies come in. The agencies write regulations intended to execute and enforce the laws that Congress has passed. They clear up ambiguities in the original statute, address exceptions, and as a division of the executive branch, execute the will of the people as expressed through Congress. Departments and agencies propose a budget each year which is included as part of the president's budget that he sends to Congress. Congress then makes any changes, and sends it back to the president for his signature, upon which it becomes, effectively, the law of the land. (I am aware that in recent years this process has not been followed and "continuing resolutions" become the rule) Once that budget is in place, the agencies have a framework with which to guide their actions over the next year. They have been authorized to spend money on the projects and priorities that Congress approved and are now tasked with working out the details and delegating them to the appropriate staff. 

The president, as the head of the executive branch of government, has authority over the departments and agencies within the  executive branch. Congress, however, has limited that authority by legislating that some bodies would be functionally independent, with the president appointing an agency head and the Senate confirming, but limiting the president's ability to dismiss the department head. Other departments, notably the Department of Justice, are traditionally non-partisan and independent, but there is no law mandating that this is the case. The Department of Defense, though constitutionally under the direct authority of the president as Commander-in-Chief, traditionally does not take partisan sides. Even in the parts of the executive branch where the president's authority isn't limited, he still does not have the authority to ignore or circumvent the law. 

In recent years Congress has ceded a great portion of it's power and authority to the president. It seems like every year we're at the same place where it can't agree on a budget and the threat of a government shutdown looms. A crisis is averted time and time again by passing a so-called continuing resolution, i.e. funding the government at previously approved levels. Presidents of both parties have taken advantage of Congressional dithering by attempting to govern by executive order. The problem with executive orders is that they aren't laws. They can be, and are, reversed when a president of the opposing party is elected. Even in situations more "normal" that what we're seeing now, one of the first things a newly inaugurated president does is overturn some of a previous president's executive orders. Executive orders can be overturned, or affirmed, by Congress. What ends up happening though is that the order ends up being challenged in court, Congress once again choosing to give up its constitutional authority. 

Trump has illegally delegated to Elon Musk the task of rooting out waste, fraud, and corruption in government. But how have they defined "waste"? They haven't. I would define it as " inefficiency" -- which ties into the "...of government efficiency" that Musk's illegal operation is supposedly trying to implement. Nebraska Senator John Peter Ricketts recently gushed about meeting Musk, bragging about instituting "Lean Six Sigma", a process improvement framework, in Nebraska State government (which his successor, Jim Pillen, axed) This program critically examined various processes, looking for ways to streamline them, cutting out unnecessary handoffs and redundant steps. It looked at organizational structure to determine whether certain positions were sited in the right divisions. It was overseen by someone appointed by the governor, but implemented by people in the departments who knew the details of the work being done, not by outsiders who had no idea of how government worked, or what the public sectors employees were actually doing. 

 Musk's illegal operation, unconstitutionally delegated to him by Trump, is not looking for inefficiencies. They have no idea what an efficiently run agency would look like and don't appear to have any desire to find out. They are not even pretending to look for waste, fraud or corruption, and even when they say they've found some, it has generally meant that they have misunderstood or misrepresented the data. What they are doing is targeting any agency that has any regulatory or oversight authority that might interfere with his own government contracts by illegally closing them down, sometimes locking employees out of their offices. (Trump's executive order eliminating any position that has any connection to what he thinks is "woke" seems to be separate) Additionally they are firing thousands of employees who are in probationary status, allegedly for poor performance, even when they have not received any negative performance reviews. 

Not only is all of this illegal, but it is being done without any thought for the consequences. 

As for fraud and corruption, if there was any, wouldn't Trump being subjecting the corrupt officials and fraudsters to perp walks and tweeting about it nonstop? 

I'm all for rooting out government waste. But let's do it right. Get some auditors in there. Review the processes. Really look for inefficiencies. 

But that's not going to happen...that's not what the goal is.