Stupid is as Stupid Does

This third post in this weekend's trilogy ties together the cultish aspects of Trumpism with "the end justifies the means" mindset of those who revel in Trump's retribution upon his enemies. 

Trump's supporters just aren't that smart.

No surprise, Trump isn't that smart either. 

A Trump supporter would immediately argue with me. They'd be angry and insulted with the label I hung on them, and incredulous that I would think that someone who was a billionaire and president of the United States wasn't, by definition, smart. I guess if defrauding the government, cheating your customers, stiffing your contractors and still bankrupting your businesses several times is smart, then I suppose I'm wrong. Trump's fortune was originally based on inheriting his father's real estate business. Fred Trump's unethical shenanigans have been well-documented, and his ill-gotten gains should have gotten him thrown in prison for fraud. Donald took over the family business by screwing over his siblings and several times almost lost it all. It's been said that if he simply put his inheritance into a money market fund he'd have a fortune many times larger than what he supposedly has now. It's no secret that prior to his deification as a business god on The Apprentice Trump ran business after business into the ground, bankrupting several casinos and losing millions on bad real estate deals. If he can be considered smart in any category, it's his choice of smart lawyers and accountants. Even when businesses he ran went belly-up, he managed to secure a paycheck for himself. Once The Apprentice created his reputation as a consummate deal-maker, banks fell over each other to loan him money, even when he became a serial defaulter. He became too big to fail. He was obviously not a good businessman, but his supporters were too stupid to see that. 

Once in office Trump's stupidity in the realm of government became obvious. He may have been politically aware enough to get elected by telling people what they wanted to hear, but he had no idea how things worked, whether in government, economics or international relations. One example of his willful ignorance is tariffs. He persisted in his belief that foreign governments pay tariffs and that a trade deficit meant that we were losing money. In his second term he imposed tariffs with little regard to any discernable strategic objective, and held on to his lack of understanding like a security blanket. His constant blustering about the 2% NATO spending goal was another example. Should NATO nations take on more responsibility for their own defense? Of course. But the 2% figure was not "dues" or payments where the United States was picking up the slack, but was a percentage of GNP that each NATO member was supposed to be spending on their military. Of course our percentage was higher since we had a military presence throughout the world, where most NATO members' militaries were concentrated close to home. Surely someone was attempting to correct him -- maybe not, he doesn't like to admit he's wrong. That's just two easily checked examples of him insisting on a view that isn't factual. It's not even a matter of interpretation. He's just wrong. 

Which brings us to the stupidity of Trump supporters. 

Most of what Trump says can be easily checked. Referring to my examples in the previous paragraph, they will celebrate as a "win" Trump's actions on tariffs when high school level economics will debunk everything he says. His ramblings about NATO spending can be checked with a 20 second Google search. They high-five each other over Trump victories that didn't happen. How many MAGA folks think the current budget bill eliminates taxes on Social Security and tips? (Spoiler alert: it doesn't -- it does contain some new deductions that are supposed to balance out those taxes). How many Trumpists believe that Trump brought peace to Israel and Iran after dropping bombs on Iran? 

Trump lies. Of course his apologists will either deny that he's lying, or will claim that all politicians lie, so it's no big deal that Trump does. Usually they just ignore the lie and engage in some "whataboutism" and point out some lie that a Democrat supposedly told. Sometimes the lie is so obviously transparent, so obviously a lie, so easily checkable, that anyone who believes it has to truly be stupid. I sometimes see posts or tweets doing a victory lap about some supposed Trump accomplishments and think "None of that happened". Do Trump voters not have internet access? Or are they just stupid? To be clear, I'm not talking about whether a particular policy is good or bad, or that I disagree with projected results, but whether or not something actually happened! 

I'm sure that Trump supporters believe  that they are very smart and discerning. The evidence would suggest otherwise.

Hail Caesar

Yes, it's a cult, as I have said many times, but there are aspects of Trump's agenda where he has been consistent about his intentions, and his supporters have been consistently for those policies. Unlike his changeable war vs. peace policies, or his view of the stock market -- these policies were no surprise. One of them is immigration.

There's no serious argument being made that our immigration and border security was "just fine" under President Biden, or for that matter under any previous president. People are highly motivated to leave the dangerous situations in their home countries, and they're going to come here. If the hoops are too high, too numerous, too expensive, they're going to find ways to come here outside the system. Instead of finding ways to balance controlling the border with expediting an immigrant's request to stay here, Trump's simplistic answer was to "close the border" and attempt to deport all non-citizens, whether they were here legally or not. A large percentage of his supporters were in favor of this before voting for him, and are still in favor of it now that they see how it's being carried out. 

Deporting people who are here illegally is perfectly legal. An argument can be made that they took a chance by entering illegally or overstaying their visa and that they brought the situation upon themselves. Of course, this isn't the moral, or even practical argument, whereby many people who do not have legal status have been contributing members of their communities for decades, working hard, paying taxes and are indistinguishable from anyone who was born here. The legal vs. illegal absolutists, however, are not interested in morality, they come down firmly on the side of the law, and have no sympathy for those who are breaking it, no matter the mitigating circumstances.  You don't have to be a racist to hold this position, but there is considerable overlap between racists and law and order absolutists on this issue. But are they really concerned about following the law?

Of course the fact that they voted for a convicted felon who was under indictment for more serious crimes than the one he was convicted for -- who saw all his legal troubles go away after being elected -- cast doubt upon their respect for the law. The methods that the administration is using to deport non-citizens (and in some cases, citizens) is itself illegal. Contrary to what Trump would have us believe, not every person being deported is here illegally. Most of the people who have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have had some kind of legal status which allowed them to remain here. Some were awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims, others were permitted to stay under a program called Temporary Protected Status. Even Permanent Legal Residents (holders of Green Cards) have been detained and deported. ICE is picking up legal residents as they reported for their annual ICE check-in, or at the courthouse where their asylum claim was being heard. Few if any of these people are receiving any kind of due process before being disappeared into an ICE facility. None of this is legal but the Trump supporters don't care. All they care about is that deportations are being done, that Trump's agenda is being carried out, and legality is irrelevant. 

The whole "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) purge is another example. Trump supporters tend to believe that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are discriminatory against white people and are a waste of taxpayer money. It was no surprise that DOGE targeted these programs as part of their assault on government. There's certainly arguments to be made that these programs as well as foreign aid and numerous other programs shouldn't be taxpayer funded. However, all of these expenditures, all of these gutted agencies were established and funded by law. Trump has embarked upon a mission to unilaterally remake government. The role of the president is to implement and execute the law, not to decide what the law is. But is the Trump base concerned about the Constitution being ignored? It sure doesn't seem that way. 

The political philosophy of the Trump base is evidently "the end justifies the means". They are willing to abandon the law, the constitution, and democracy in order to see Trump achieve his goals. 

Still A Cult

The Trump Cult. I've written about it before, and I'll write about it again. It offends those who are part of it. But every day I find new reasons to believe that Trumpism is indeed a cult, no different than any religious cult you care to name. 

Cults share several common characteristics. The most obvious is that a cult possesses a charismatic leader. Let's not get confused about what "charismatic" means. It doesn't mean "likeable", and certainly doesn't mean in possession of any of the traditional leadership abilities. In this context it means that the leader has great confidence, despite any evidence to the contrary, that he is always right, and has all the answers. He is somehow able to convince his followers that this true. This is manifestly true of Trump. How many times has he uttered some version of "I alone can fix it"? When pressed for a rationale for his actions, or for any basis for his plans and policies, he often answers with some variation of "because I know best". And his followers accept that answer. 

One of the clearest indicators that Trumpism is a cult is how quickly his followers pivot to a new position when Trump changes his mind about something. During the 2024 campaign the most common rationale Trump voters gave for supporting him was that they thought he would be better for the economy. They pointed to low inflation during Trump's first term compared to the high inflation of the first half of Biden's term, conveniently forgetting the economic chaos during Trump's last year in his first term. Democrats, including myself, pointed out how the 2021-2022 inflation was largely due to factors outside of a president's control (with some of the causes originating during Trump's tenure). Attempts to explain this to Trump voters got no traction -- they usually just repeated their position that Biden caused inflation. But when Trump was elected and his promise of not only ending inflation (which had by this time receded to normal levels) but rolling back prices had now come due, he said that it "was hard" and that there was little a president could do to control prices. And his people barely blinked before reciting the new mantra. 

Trump Cultists' acceptance of Trump's view of "the stock market". During Trump's first term the various methods of tracking stock market activity showed a steady increase in value, resulting a "record high" around every month. Trump and his followers ignored the fact that the trend simply followed the trend that had begun in the Obama administration, but claimed that this was evidence of how great the "Trump economy" was. When the trend continued into Biden's term, Trumpists generally ignored the stock market, until, following Trump's re-election, he claimed that the newest record high was due to anticipation of his soon-to-be second term. Not content to spew a little bit of nonsense, when the stock market fluctuated and lost value in the wake of his nonsensical and inconsistent tariff "policy", suddenly it was "Biden's stock market", or the stock market wasn't a reliable gauge of the strength of the economy. Now, since Trump stopped talking about tariffs and has paused just about all of them, the stock market has steadied and we're seeing record highs again. And once again, Trump is claiming the stock market as his, as are his sycophants. And none of them see the contradiction in any of these statements. 

One of the few Trump positions that I agreed with was his pledge to end "forever wars". He was very much against foreign involvement when he was campaigning. During his second campaign he doubled down on this, even though "not starting any new wars" didn't prevent him using the military to bomb Syria, assassinate an Iranian general, and keep us mired in Afghanistan. With his eye on a second term he made no secret that he wanted us to end our support for Ukraine in its war with Russia, claiming that, the consummate deal maker that he was, he could end the war in 24 hours -- even before he took office. We all know that that did not happen, yet his cult seems to have no problem with that. Just as the followers of the "peace president" suddenly became concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapons program and were all for a war with Iran when just a few weeks before were against any foreign military involvement. 

It's no secret that Trump desperately wants a Nobel Peace Prize. It galls him that President Obama received one (although I have no idea why they gave it to him) and his constantly hinting that he should be so honored. He is always on the lookout for conflicts where he can insert himself and claim to have solved. But he failed to get a result in the Russia-Ukraine war. He failed to get a result in Israel's destruction in Gaza. He exaggerated his role in India's and Pakistan's latest saber rattling. Who knows if he had anything of substance to contribute to the paper cease fire between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- which apparently has already ceased to cease. Trump's cultists take Trump's claims at face value, even when it's obvious that it's not factual. Let's not forget that the peace loving, noninterventionist MAGA clan had no trouble morphing into cheerleaders for dropping bombs on another country in someone else's war, and accepting Trump's claim to be a peacemaker as the dust from the airstrike that he ordered had yet to settle. 

One of Trump's most insidious goals was to undermine any trust in mainstream media. I won't try to claim that legacy media always gets it right or are never biased. But Trump has succeeded in convincing his cult that mainstream media is totally biased against him and prints or broadcast virtually all negatives about him. He has conveniently taken the organizations that have the experience and resources to shine a light on his words and actions out of the game. Replacing them for Trumpists are a spider web of podcasters and bloggers who are Trump cultists themselves. Any media coverage that isn't backing up whatever Trump is doing is suspect in their eyes -- and usually just assumed to be lies. 

Finally there's the politicians and the billionaire class. Many of them know that Trump lies, and that his "policies" are at best the ramblings of a lunatic. The politicians also know that due to his cultish influence over his followers, he can easily end the political career of anyone who stands against him. Wealthy business owners know that cozying up to him will make them more money. Both categories know that opposing Trump has a cost that they're not willing to pay and they enable his actions. 

What's ironic is that the Trumpists think that we're the cultists. They call us deluded. They call us deranged. They say opposition to Trump means we hate America.

They're willing to cheer on the flowering of authoritarianism.

Stolen Election?

In the lead up to the 2020 presidential election, Trump began his mission to undermine voter confidence in election results early. Months before the first votes were cast he was calling the election rigged, claiming that the only way he could lose would be if the election were somehow stolen. When results started coming in on Election Day evening indicating that he would lose, he doubled down, refusing to concede and embarked on a three month crusade to overturn the results. He and his supporters cited what they thought were anomalies, and threw around accusations that the voting machines were programmed to change votes. A recurring theme was that neither Trump nor his cult thought it was possible that Biden, who campaigned virtually for much of the year, had the support to beat Trump. To this day, Trump has never admitted that he legitimately lost to Joe Biden. 

Fast forward four years and Trump comes back and defeats Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris concedes and Trump is inaugurated a second time on January 20, 2025. There is no "Stop the Steal" movement spurred on by Biden and Harris, no one storms the Capitol, Biden attends Trump's inauguration and life goes on. Except...

...many Democrats and other progressives begin to claim that Harris "actually" won the election and that it was somehow stolen by Trump with the help of Elon Musk and other tech bros. This was not something originating with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or with elected Democrats, but was more of a grass-roots phenomenon. A Substack article by This Will Hold lays out some technical information as well as some of the names involved in changes to the vote tabulation software and Dissent in Bloom points to some irregularities in Rockland County New York. You can read these articles yourself and see if you're convinced that the information that we currently know (or think we know) means that the election was stolen and that Harris won. I don't think that it does. Here are a few supposed red flags from This Will Hold:

"Data that makes no statistical sense. A clean sweep in all seven swing states.
The fall of the Blue Wall. Eighty-eight counties flipped red—not one flipped blue.
Every victory landed just under the threshold that would trigger an automatic recount. Donald Trump outperformed expectations in down-ballot races with margins never before seen—while Kamala Harris simultaneously underperformed in those exact same areas."

If one were to accept these results at face value—Donald Trump, a 34-count convicted felon, supposedly outperformed Ronald Reagan.

This sounds very similar to some of what the Trumpists were saying in 2020 when "bellwether" counties unusually didn't predict the winner. Whoever crafted the statement that I quoted seems blissfully unaware of what independents and fence-sitters were thinking. They have apparently underestimated just how much the high inflation of 2020-2022 hurt the Democrats -- how many people turned a blind eye to Trump's negatives while convincing themselves that he was better for the economy. How the chaos of Biden's withdrawal from the general election and Harris' anointing as successor turned off persuadable people. How Biden's paralysis on immigration and Harris' guilt by association swung many people to Trump's side. Let's not forget that for many people, Trump's felony convictions are a non-issue -- they think it's a politically inspired "witch hunt". 

Do I think it's possible that our elections were subverted and stolen in the way that is suggested? Sure, anything is possible. Do I think that speculating about scenarios that might be plausible make it so? Absolutely not. This is what the paranoia of right wing podcasters engendered after the 2020 elections. Fantasize about what could've happened and then make the leap to it absolutely did happen with barely a break for lunch. Plausibility does not equate to certainty. Do I think these allegations merit an investigation? Absolutely. Do I think that blog posts suffice as investigations? Nope. 

What thinking like this does is further erode confidence in our elections and discourages civic engagement. If you really believe that one side has made it impossible for them to lose, why even bother voting. 

Department of Government Chaos

It's no longer even remotely arguable that the inaptly named "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) has not achieved its mission. 

It's mission, as laid out my Trump and Musk, was to root out not only government inefficiency, but waste and corruption. The original goal was to cut $2 trillion from the budget. This was, on the face of it, a ridiculous target. The total budget for 2024 was around $6.9 trillion, so they were claiming that they could easily trim 29% of government spending simply by making government more efficient and less wasteful, and by identifying corruption. It didn't take long for the target to be reduced to $1 trillion. According to DOGE's own website, they have made close to $150 billion in cuts, which sounds like a lot, but is only around 2.2% of annual budgeted expenditures. Even that $150 billion number is highly suspect. There are numerous claims of savings that involve contracts that had already been cancelled, counting expenditures that are already set to expire, and making ill-informed guesses about expenditures that may not even happen. Over 60% of the alleged savings contain no details -- so probably not real. 

The goal of identifying and eliminating corruption, no matter how you define it and how you count it, simply has not happened. We have a president who has no problem accusing people of imaginary crimes. Do we really think that any actual corruption that had been unearthed wouldn't have resulted in highly publicized "perp walks" led by the increasingly misnamed Department of Justice? What about waste? I have no problem believing that there is a lot of waste in the federal government. But how has waste been defined? Apparently the Trump regime definition is "anything that they don't like". Any Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and the employees associated with those initiatives are being classified as wasteful. From a policy perspective, an administration has the right to decide what they will prioritize, but claiming that a whole category of government programs, approved and funded by Congress (and signed by the president) is wasteful is disingenuous. 

Then there is "efficiency" -- it's right there in the name. To make something efficient you look at how you're doing it. Are there superfluous steps? Are there unneeded handoffs? Is the procedure unnecessarily complex? You then trim the process down to the elements that get you to the intended result. This might involve cutting staff. Although the typical businessman's knee-jerk response is almost always to cut payroll, which usually results in bad customer (or in this case, taxpayer) service. DOGE has gone through various departments and cut staff indiscriminately, while the core statutory requirements of the department are unchanged. Sounds like a recipe for inefficiency to me. 

All of this chaos, without any significant, or even insignificant savings. (And I'm not even getting into the Constitutional issues here). 

Trump, without any thought, had deputized someone with no knowledge of how government works to essentially remake the entire government. Should we be surprised at the chaotic results?

Congressional Creative Accounting

We're at a place where the only meaningful check on Trump's influence in Congress is fiscal conservatives (yes, they still exist), Tea Party types who want to make the Trumpublican budget worse for lower income Americans by cutting even more social programs. 

I briefly addressed the book-cooking end run around the filibuster in Nobody Likes the Filibuster Until They Do, but I didn't see much about it in the mainstream media until Ezra Klein's New York Times podcast from the other day. Here's a quote from the transcript of the podcast:

But let’s not fall for dumb budget tricks. The bill is full of tax cuts the Republicans have slapped expiration dates on. The way it’s written right now, it wipes out taxes on overtime and tips and car loans, but only for four years. That will all expire in 2028. But we know they have no intention of allowing those tax cuts to expire. They want to run in 2028 on the fear that Democrats will let them expire.

Republicans use this trick a lot. If you look back at those 2017 tax cuts from Donald Trump’s first term, they used the same gimmick. And in this very bill, Republicans are canceling all those expiration dates.

I’d used the old “Fool me once” line, but I wasn’t fooled on this last time, and I’m not going to pretend to be fooled on it this time. But I do think it’s at least a little bit funny that the Republicans want budgetary credit for using that expiring tax-cut trick in the very same bill in which they’re also deleting their last set of expiration dates. One thing you’ll never hear me say about Donald Trump’s Republican Party is that it lacks chutzpah.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — Washington’s saddest advocacy group — if you take seriously the permanence the Republicans are actually seeking, the Big Budget Bomb will add about $5 trillion to the debt over the next decade. That is an insane number.

Do you remember when Trump promised to balance the budget?

I remember very clearly that the 2017 "tax cuts", which disproportionally benefitted corporations and wealthy Americans, were only able to pass due to creative accounting. They were required, by Senate rules, to demonstrate that the budget would be not add to the deficit over a ten year period. If the proposed tax changes added to the deficit the Democrats would be able to filibuster. The bill, as originally written would add to the deficit. The Republicans swerved around this rule by having the changes expire in eight years, making them revenue neutral over ten years. 

We're in the eighth year right now. 

So, in Congressional pretend-land, we're supposed to forget that the whole scenario that allowed the 2017 tax changes to take place, the thing that would keep the changes from causing the budget deficit and national debt to balloon, depended on these tax cuts expiring this year. They want us to view returning to pre-2017 levels as a tax increase while simultaneously seeing extending the current levels as a tax cut. 

Since the 2017 trick worked so well, they're trying it again, and since they're running the show (again) it will succeed. The current bill, as noted in the Ezra Klein quote above, is full of expiration dates in order to (1) Neuter the Democrats ability to filibuster and (2) Use some sleight of hand to make it seem like it's fiscally responsible. Does anyone believe that Republicans won't do everything in their power to extend the expiring cuts once again? Now it's much more blatantly partisan, with the so-called expiration dates timed to coincide with the 2028 presidential election season, designed to effectively dare the Democrats to vote against extension, making them look like they're against the working class. 

Speaking of Congressional magic tricks, the big items that are designed to fool non-billionaires, in addition to expiring in three years, aren't what they're cracked up to be. 

Elimination of taxes on Social Security benefits:

Currently, Social Security benefits are partially taxable if your adjusted gross income plus half of your benefits exceed a certain amount. This could result in up to 85% of one's benefits being taxable. This mainly applies to people who have started receiving benefits while still working, or if one spouse is receiving benefits while the other is working. The bill as currently written does not eliminate taxes on Social Security. It adds an extra standard deduction for seniors of $2,000 ($4,000 for married filing jointly). How this would affect any specific taxpayer would depend on how much their income plus benefits exceeds the cutoff. It effectively lowers taxable income by $4,000. (Adding actual elimination of taxability of a portion of Social Security benefits to the budget would cause it to be ineligible for reconciliation and therefore subject to a filibuster)

Elimination of taxes on tips: 

Before diving into this, let's clear up some misconceptions. It doesn't apply only to cash. "Cash tips" as defined in the Internal Revenue tax code include cash, credit/debit cards and checks. The bill as written intends to prevent people involved in businesses that typically do not rely on tips from reclassifying their income as tips. (That doesn't mean people won't try to do it, but it's not the intent). Rather than eliminating withholding taxes on tips (including FICA) the bill provides for a deduction of up to $25,000 on any reported tips. How this works in practice remains to be seen. Will servers start reporting the actual cash that they receive as tips that they haven't been previously reporting? Sure, they'll recoup (up to $25,000) any taxes they have paid over the year (less what they paid in FICA and Medicaid taxes), but their paychecks will be smaller and they won't have that under-the-table cash. This arrangement will help their future Social Security benefit calculations, but do people in general think about the future or are they focussed more on making ends meet today?

Both of the items I cited Expire at the end of 2028. 

As usual, the party that screams about fiscal responsibility doesn't hold themselves to the same standard. 

Nobody Likes The Filibuster Until They Do

Nobody likes the filibuster when the other guys are doing it, and everybody likes it when it prevents the other guys from doing things that you don't like. When Democrats were in the majority there was a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster in order to enshrine a right to abortion in legislation, as well as accomplishing other Democratic priorities. But since Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema were not in favor, it never got done. Now that the Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats in Congress love the filibuster. 

The Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any bill. However debate can be ended by a three fifths (60 vote) "cloture" (Cloture = ending debate). A filibuster is an attempt to extend debate indefinitely, therefore effectively killing a bill since it will never be voted upon. In practice the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill if it is determined that there are not 60 votes for cloture, which is why major legislation is said to require 60 votes in the Senate, allowing the minority to kill any bills they don't support. Or simply to hamstring the majority just because. As frustrating as the filibuster, and by extension the 60 vote requirement can be to getting anything done, I believe it serves an important function. 

I am well aware that the filibuster was long used by segregationists to stymie civil rights legislation. It's possibly one of the main reasons that this rule existed in the Senate. However, it is my belief that it serves as a brake on major changes that are supported by a slim or transient majority that might not represent a majority of the electorate. The founders couldn't think of everything (in fact they didn't include the filibuster in the Constitution, that was added later as part of Senate rules) but one thing that they included as part of the design of the new government was a framework to prevent things from preceding without due consideration. There were three branches. The executive and legislative had to come to agreement before legislation could pass and the judicial could override any legislation that was unconstitutional. Even within the legislative branch there were two houses of Congress which may not agree. (Originally Senators were appointed by state governments, not directly elected). Every part of the governing process served as an invitation to stop and think about what was happening and get buy-in from other stakeholders. 

We often hear the phrase, which I first heard from President Obama, "elections have consequences". It's true that whoever wins an election has the constitutional authority to carry out their agenda, but with majorities so thin that a case of the flu can leave the majority party without enough votes to pass their bill, and a president who won a majority of the electoral votes but beat out the main competition by a razor thin margin (with slightly less than 50% of the votes), should we be attempting a major restructuring of government, with changes affecting millions of ordinary Americans, on such a shaky foundation? And I'm not even factoring in the arguably unconstitutional power grab by the president who is attempting to rule by fiat. 

Currently the Senate majority (53 Republicans) is attempting to circumvent the filibuster, and therefore the 60 vote threshold, in order to push through their budget which includes huge changes in the government. A process called reconciliation allows a bill that includes only spending or taxes to proceed with limited debate and no option of a filibuster. One of the requirements is that it be revenue neutral over ten years. The Republicans in 2017 were able to push through their tax plan in this manner. They were able to claim that it was revenue neutral over ten years by having it expire in 2025. Yet here we are seeing an attempt to extend it past this year, so the original terms have been thrown out the window. This year's subversion is using similar creative accounting -- having aspects of the plan -- those that benefit ordinary Americans and not billionaires and corporations -- expire at the end of Trump's term. 

Government policy should embody at least some consistency. Our allies have no idea how to interact with us as each administration seesaws back and forth; domestically we have no idea what the next day will bring -- inflation and stock prices (and with them our 401(k)'s) are at the mercy of a man ignorant of economic reality, and Congress, at least the majority, willing to acquiesce to his whims.  Even aside from questions of constitutionality, we need some bulwark against the tyranny of the (bare) majority. The filibuster is one of those checks.

Gerontocracy on Parade

There's a new book out that sheds an uncomfortable spotlight on President Biden's mental and physical condition during the last few years of his term in office. It alleges that Biden's inner circle, especially his wife Jill, hid the extent of his decline, and that Democratic office holders and party officials deluded themselves that everything was fine. If it's true, was it as bad as this book claims, is it just another excuse for the Democrats' failure to prevent Trump from regaining power? 

One of things most people know about Biden is that he stammers in certain situations, and that he rambles when telling a story. And he loves to tell stories that are exaggerated and embellished. I can empathize with all of those traits. Anyone who has heard me speak publicly would probably agree that I'm a fairly articulate and engaging speaker. But catch me without a script, and I'll ramble and repeat myself, losing the thread sometimes. If I'm in a meeting and have to address issues that I am not up to speed on, or don't have all the facts lined up, I'll stammer a little. To compensate I'll speak slowly, with frequent pauses, in order to make my point, sometimes causing others to interrupt and finish my thoughts. But give me a script (even in Spanish!), or even good notes, and I'm as polished and articulate as the next guy. Biden has always rambled, he has always embellished his stories, and he has never been a great public speaker. 

The debate with Trump is looked upon as the proof that he had lost it -- he looked terrible, acted confused, and gave rambling answers to questions. His slacked-jawed expression (as one anti-Trump friend of mine described it) made him look "out of it". Defenses from his allies that the debate was a one-time problem were not believed and led to his withdrawal from the presidential race. But I look at other appearances that same year -- notably a speech that same week, as well as the State of the Union speech where he dealt masterfully with Republican hecklers, and agree that the debate could be looked at as the exemption, not the rule. I look back at the notes that I took during that debate and what I observed at the time was that although Biden looked bad, he answered most of the questions about policy clearly. There was one answer that rambled a bit and ended with him petering off in a mumble that was not understood, and there was he and Trump arguing about golf handicaps, but, unlike Trump, he actually answered the questions. Trump was as rambling and incoherent, but he did it in a loud voice and a smirk on his face, and was not held to the same standard. 

There's a saying: "perception is reality". It's really not, but people's perception guides how they think and act. If people perceive that the president is weak and mentally debilitated, they will not have confidence in his ability to lead. The MAGA Cult believes that Trump is a strong leader, despite all evidence to the contrary, so that's the "reality" that they act upon. After that debate the suspicion that Biden wasn't up to the task became the perception that he wasn't which became the reality. 

The job of the president is like and unlike other management jobs. He isn't micromanaging all aspects of the government, but is providing leadership and guidance for his appointees to turn his vision into reality. The president might have to make life or death decisions quickly on the basis of incomplete or contradictory information in some situations, but most of the job involves the slow and plodding business of legislation, and the minutia of governing. The president shouldn't be, and can't be an expert on all things. The president's staff, including cabinet secretaries and agency heads, are doing all the work. (Does anyone think Trump is personally writing all of those executive orders?) Conservatives and other Republicans might disagree about whether Biden's agenda was right for the country, but no one can argue that he wasn't effective as president. He got things done. His biggest failure was his lack of an effective border policy. His decades in the Senate convinced him that it was the job of Congress to legislate the border policy, but unfortunately he was blind to how hyper partisan the legislative branch had become. His executive order to secure the border was effective, but too late to benefit him politically. 

So far it sounds like I'm arguing that Biden was fine and the concerns were unfounded. Not at all. Biden was not my first choice during the 2020 Democratic primaries -- then-Senator Kamala Harris was. But the majority of Democratic primary voters disagreed. (Sit down Sanders fans) Biden was the consensus choice, possibly viewed as the safe choice, to defeat Trump in the 2020 general election -- which he did. My opinion was that we needed a younger candidate -- I thought at the time that Biden's age would mean that he would be a one-term president, gracefully declining to run for re-election to make room for his Vice President, or encouraging an open primary. My age-related objection to Biden in the first place, and my hope that he would voluntarily limit himself to one term might be interpreted as ageism, but it's inarguable that people's faculties deteriorate with age. I thought it was too much of a gamble to bet that Biden would retain enough sharpness to be the leader we needed. And it's not just Joe Biden. Senator Grassley is 90 years old and frequently fails to make sense in his public pronouncements. Mitch McConnell, on two occasions froze, staring mutely for almost a full minute while his aids panicked. And does anyone really believe that Trump is in his right mind? Or makes any sense in his rambling, incoherent speeches or Truth Social posts? I'm going to be 67 next month, and even at my age I feel less sharp than I did ten years ago, and someone my age would be considered young running for president or sitting on the Supreme Court bench. 

The thing about power is that once you have it, you are loath to give it up. Trump whines about how the presidency is such a burden to him him, that he gave up his "beautiful life" to run for president. Yet, instead of gracefully walking away when defeated he fought to tooth and nail to pretend he really hadn't lost, and he here is, back in office. Joe Biden had his eye on the White House for a long time. He'd entered the primaries many times without getting very far. He served honorably as Vice President under President Obama, but was disappointed when Obama supported Secretary of State Clinton as his successor. I believe he could have beaten Trump -- as much as I thought Clinton would have made a great president, the irrational hatred that many had for her doomed her run -- but since he wasn't the nominee he should have just rested on his laurels as a lifetime public servant and enjoyed retirement as an elder statesman. But he decided to hang on to power past its sell-by date, leaving us with the chaos of of Democratic leadership having no choice but to endorse Harris, with Democratic primary voters being effectively disenfranchised. If Biden had dropped out even seven months earlier, there could have been an open primary season and a candidate that the Democratic electorate was clearly supportive of. It's possible that inflation and the border would have tanked any Democrat's chances, but as close as the election was, it could have gone the other way.

Democratic leadership, one way or the other, is going to have to take ownership of the whole debacle if they're ever going to get back in control of Congress, let alone the White House.

Whaddaya Want? A Cookie?

One of the things that Trumpists excel at is projection -- led by their leader Donald J. Trump. One example of projection that I hear all the time is that those of us who oppose Trump, whether we're liberals, progressives, mainstream Democrats, old school conservatives, libertarians, disaffected Republicans or just about anyone else, is that we don't really have reasonable, rational reasons for opposing him and his actions. They accuse us of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome", i.e. an irrational hatred of Trump and everything he does; or that we have bought into the left-wing (or sometimes fake media) narrative. They can't imagine that we can look at what he says and does and come to the conclusion on our own that it's dangerous, illegal, unethical or unconstitutional. They have convinced themselves, not only that we are mindless haters who refuse to see the greatness of their leader, but that they have come to their conclusions by careful weighing of the facts and appreciation of what they see as real accomplishments. 

What they don't consider is that for many anti-Trumpers, the Democratic Party isn't much better than the Republicans and we engage in criticism of the party leaders when warranted. We don't have a central figure whom we would support no matter what. A lot of us are as distrustful of the legacy/mainstream media as the Trumpers are. It's true that for many of us the default position is to distrust Trump, assume that he is lying, presume that whatever he is doing is some kind of self-dealing grift. But is that an irrational position to take? When someone who lies as much as Trump does, isn't the safe bet the bet that he's lying again? When he's taking actions that are arguably, if not obviously, unconstitutional, wouldn't the patriotic response be to oppose those actions? But I don't know how many times I have laid out my reasons for opposing some executive order, or expressing revulsion at some horrible thing Trump has said, only to be told "stop watching CNN" (MSNBC, or reading the New York Times) as if I was doing nothing but reposting memes. 

On the other hand, Trumpers have demonstrated that they will cheer for anything that Trump does no matter how bad. It doesn't matter if they were fanatical about inflation and free speech one week, they'd be all for inflation-causing tariffs and arresting people for posting on Facebook the next if Trump started singing a different tune. Indeed, Trump coming and out all but promising higher inflation and admitting that reducing prices was beyond his power has not dissuaded many of the faithful. When Trump changes priorities his followers will change theirs, even if the new priority is something that they would have been against if the other candidate had proposed it. 

In addition to the mindless adherence to whatever Trump says, there's the celebration of "accomplishments" that simply didn't happen. Elon Musk's team was promoted as a drive to increase government efficiency by rooting out waste, fraud and corruption. They haven't done any of that. By  redefining certain programs a priori as "waste" they have illegally eliminated thousands of positions within the government. There's no evidence whatsoever that they have uncovered any fraud or corruption. (If they did, you know that Trump would be crowing about it on social media) Yesterday I responded to a post that claimed that Trump had lowered drug prices and ended the conflict between India and Pakistan, neither of which happened. I've even heard that we should be giving him credit for "at least doing something", or more even more pitiful "at least he's trying". Sure, let's get him a participation trophy. 

There are so many things wrong with how Trump is doing his job that I often don't know where to start. But it's certainly not some imaginary "derangement" or a mindless parroting of some media "narrative" that causes us to point them out and to resist them to the best of our ability.

Freedom of Speech

I'm revisiting this post from last September. It was spurred by a friend (one of my few MAGA acquaintances) who was up in arms about the supposed antipathy to free speech by candidate Vice President Harris. This particular friend has been mesmerized by podcasters like Joe Rogan and got most of his information from "X", -- formerly Twitter. With some of Trump's recent actions, I thought it was apropos.  

A clip from a speech that Vice President Harris made in 2019 when she was a Senator running for president was making the rounds on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Typically the tweet starts with something along the lines of: "Kamala: I will censor content on X that I don't like", followed by a clip where she doesn't say anything like that. In the clip she is actually saying:

"We'll put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to counter this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”

I have not been able to find a text of the full speech, so I don't for sure what the context is for these remarks. It's also unclear what she intends by "hold them accountable". What is clear is that does not mention censoring social media platforms or shutting them down. I can draw some conclusions based on who she is speaking to and what was going on nationally. 

She is addressing the NAACP, a Black advocacy organization, and there had been a number of killings inspired by racial animus that had been abetted by social media posts. She specifically invokes the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. One can infer from her remarks that she is targeting online incitement to violence. I have seen arguments that what she is saying amounts to de facto censorship, if not censorship de jure. Free speech is not absolute. There are laws making certain narrow categories of speech illegal. Two examples are libel (although libel is more of a civil matter) and the previously mentioned incitement to violence. Individuals can be held to account in a court of law, but social media platforms cannot be. Why is that?

Section 230 of the 1934 Communications Act as amended in 1996 states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In other words, a social media platform is not responsible to moderate their content (except for child pornography and bootleg movies) and cannot be held responsible for what gets posted there, like a publisher of a newspaper or the producer of a television or cable program would. Both Trump and former President Biden were in favor of repealing Section 230. Trump was for this mainly (in my opinion) because Twitter (when it was still Twitter) was fact checking his tweets and was allegedly suppressing conservative and Trump-supporting content. I'm not sure what Biden's motivation were. (Side note: it's funny how the Trumpists were up in arms about how Twitter was "censoring" right wing speech, even though it was a private company that had every right to do so and now they're celebrating Musk who is doing similar things to left wing speech [which he categorizes as "propaganda"] because as a private owner he has every right to do so). In the larger context Harris isn't suggesting anything that Trump or Biden have already suggested (she's not really suggesting anything, since the clips that were circulating are from five years ago). What she said in that speech, right or wrong, unconstitutional or not, is mainstream, but as usual her opponents ignore this and brand her words as that of a communist. 

For all the hand wringing and pearl clutching by Harris' opponents, do they ever consider the anti-free speech actions of their avatar, Trump?

• In 2020, after Twitter began appending fact checks to his tweets Trump issued an executive order that effectively re-interprets Section 230 and involves the government in platforms' moderation policies. In other words, Trump did what his supporters allege that Harris' 5-year old words indicate she would do - if their interpretation is correct
• In 2017 Trump publicly mused about changing the libel laws to make it easier for the government to sue media organization. In effect, to give the government a cudgel to prevent criticism of the president
• In 2020 Trump sued Facebook and Twitter for not publishing some of his posts and tweets
• In 2017 Trump halted whistleblower protections
• Trump aides call the press the opposition party
• Trump repeatedly call the mainstream press the enemy of the people
• Trump campaign calls for holding the media accountable (wording sound familiar?) for trying to rig the election
• Trump has sued a pollster in Iowa who incorrectly predicted that Harris would win Iowa's electoral votes
• Trump is suing CBS over how they edited an interview with Harris
• Trump's administration is deporting people, otherwise here legally, for their speech
• Trump has threatened the tax exempt status of universities whose curriculum he doesn't like
• AP has been banned from covering White House press briefings because they continue to use the term "Gulf of Mexico"
• Trump is in the process of dismantling Voice of America

There's more, some more overt than others, but Trump's antipathy toward a free press should not be a surprise to anyone. 

If Harris' 5-year old speech is indicative of her current policy position and it means censorship, of course I'm concerned, (1) I don't believe that's the most logical, reasonable inference to be made and (2) Her election opponent has already engaged in more direct anti-free speech actions.

Trump's actions in his first 100 days have clearly indicated his intention to rule in an authoritarian manner. On his first day he declared that the 100 year old understanding of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to anyone who was born here was overturned, revealing his contempt for the Constitution. He has decided that due process is no longer a thing if you aren't a citizen, despite it being provided in the 5th and 14th amendments, with the 4th amendment, securing us from unwarranted searches and seizures next on the chopping block. 

But hey, Harris wanted accountability for Twitter, so we had to vote for Trump.

Government Efficiency

Is there anyone who believes that we shouldn't strive to eliminate waste, fraud and corruption in government? That we should ignore inefficient, ineffective programs? The problem with what's going on in the federal government right now is that "waste, fraud and corruption" has been conflated with "liberal programs that I don't like" paired with the typical businessman's reflexive labor cutting to solve any cash flow problem. 

This is what happens when we elect business owners. The purpose of any business is to make money for the owners. There might be side benefits, providing jobs, producing products that make people's loves better, or supporting charities, but turning the maximum amount of profit is the only real goal of any business. Anything that isn't contributing to the creation of profit is expendable. In many businesses the greatest expense is labor -- salaries and benefits, plus the employer's 50% of payroll taxes. And for many businesses the category that gets cut when profits are not what the owners think they should be is labor.  This often becomes a vicious cycle where there are fewer people trying to accomplish the same goals, resulting in a drop in productivity, not to mention lower morale and greater turnover. 

The Musk-directed chainsaw crew is rampaging through the government, firing large numbers of employees, often with no regard to what they do or the consequences of their work going undone. In some agencies all probationary employees are being summarily fired. They are easy targets since they lack the civil service protections that typically kick in after six months. If a careful review and analysis of each employee had been done and decisions on termination been made with regard to whether they were doing the job they were hired to do, or even whether the position itself was in line with the agencies mission, that would be understandable. What they are doing is just firing a lot of people because, according to the usual "businessman" math, that's where you save money. In many instances, at the IRS and Social Security Administration for example, the core responsibilities still have to be carried out, just with half the people. 

The other half of the equation is the elimination or reduction of agencies that Trump and Musk simply don't like. Every agency, and the budget for every agency, and its overall mission, has been set in place by a process that is constitutionally mandated. It's established by law. A president, as the head of the executive branch can set priorities and tweak the mission around the edges, but a president does not have the authority to unilaterally dismantle an agency or department or simply refuse to spend Congressionally allocated funds. The argument that is being made is that the whole mission of some agencies is wasteful. USAID is one example. There are some who are of the opinion that any tax dollars that are being spent in other countries is by definition wasteful, and that therefore eliminating that spending is targeting waste. That's a legitimate argument (albeit one that I disagree with), but it should be hashed out in budget negotiations. The president can make his case in his budget proposal and lobby members of Congress and if he prevails, the budget is cut or the agency shuttered. The position that because a lawfully constituted department of government is distasteful to a faction of the electorate doesn't make it inherently wasteful. 

What about fraud and corruption? Surely those are legitimate targets? I can't argue with the elimination of fraud and corruption. But wouldn't an administration that has no qualms about making unsupported allegations about its opponents be eager to gleefully perp walk legitimately corrupt officials before the cameras and brag about it? So far, not one. And all the fraud uncovered by Musk has turned out to be easily explained data points that he and his team failed to understand. Now he's leaving to go back to his sinking car company, with savings he's claimed at around 7% of what he promised he's find. Even that has been exposed as wildly inflated. Inspector Generals of the various departments, among their other responsibilities, are tasked with investigating fraud and corruption, but most of them were fired during Trump's first week in office -- what does that tell you about how serious this whole charade is?

Trump has unleashed an unqualified team, ignorant of government functions, to chaotically gut government operations. They have no experience in government, no background in forensic accounting, and no understanding of the downstream consequences of their actions. Their mission is unconstitutional and their delegation of authority illegal. 

But the government isn't "woke" anymore and the Pentagon is full of warriors now, so I guess it's alright.

Balance?

Sometimes a MAGA cultist that I have engaged with will inject a bit of whataboutism into the conversation and accuse me of being silent when Biden or Obama did something that he believes is worse than what I am pointing out about Trump. Fair point...or would be if the recent Democratic presidents actually did what they supposedly did, and if my "debate" partner had any idea what I spoke out for or against in regards to other presidents. 

It's certainly true that I didn't spend a lot of time publicly criticizing Presidents Obama and Biden. You won't find many of these blog articles slamming them for things I disagreed with. There's several reasons for that. One is that in most instances where other presidents deserved criticism, it was more like the politics-as-usual, garden-variety bad decisions in contrast to the burn-it-to-the ground "policies" of the current regime. Some of my more left-leaning friends and associates certainly were more vocal than I, and had plenty of words of rebuke and even vitriol for Obama, Biden, Clinton et al. Another reason is that whatever the MAGA acolytes think a Democratic president did, it's usually filtered through a right wing, tinfoil hat "thought" process that has minimal relationship to what's really going on. Spending time "researching" the veracity of conspiracy theories is something I used to spend time doing, but I have discovered that it's statistically unlikely that I will ever find confirmation of their hallucinatory view of national politics. 

A third reason is that, unfortunate as it may be to do so, in today's political climate you have to take sides. Years ago I was more center-right in my politics, and was even a registered Libertarian at one time. Even as my politics drifted leftward, I never became as liberal/progressive as some of my more vocal acquaintances, but starting during the Obama years I saw that of the two major political parties, the Republicans had become irredeemable and my vote and my voice was aimed at preventing them from accumulating more power. The way things are currently organized, the Democratic Party is the only real alternative. I decided to focus my political writing pointing out the danger that the Republicans were, and left criticisms of the Democrats to others. The ascendancy of Donald Trump solidified my decision to concentrate on articulating the menace to democracy Trump and the Republicans are. 

Trump is a unique threat to our nation, and anyone who questions my right to point it out can kiss my...

MAGAt in the Wild

Due to most people who support Trump's actions having deleted and blocked me on social media, and unfriending a few on my own, I rarely encounter any true believers. The people I know in person lean progressive for the most part, and we are in one of nebraska's Blue Dots! But I had a face-to-face conversation with a Musk/DOGE cheerleader today. 

We were at work, so we shouldn't have been discussing politics anyway, but a conversation about retirement led to a remark by my colleague about how DOGE's hunt for fraud, waste and corruption might ave Social Security for future generations. I could've let it slide, but I felt compelled to respond that what Musk is doing isn't rooting out fraud, waste, and corruption. He apparently believes that not only is DOGE doing good work, but that any pesky illegalities are worth it in order to "fix" things. I asked him if the trains were running on time yet. 

What is going on in the federal government is wrong, illegal and unconstitutional on multiple levels. I'll concede that government has been dysfunctional for quite a few years now. Not only are we at a place where neither of the two major political have any desire to compromise, to give even an inch to the other party, but factions within the parties often prevent anything from getting done. Budgets getting passed are pretty rare and we have to settle for "continuing resolutions" in order to keep the government from shutting down. Be that as it may, we do still have a Congress, and it's the job of Congress to decide how to allocate our tax dollars and to create or decommission government agencies and set their missions. It is the job of the president to execute, or carry out, the laws that Congress passes. It is not within the president's authority to unilaterally remake the government in his image. We have a word for that -- it's "dictatorship".  

The president certainly does have the responsibility to ensure that the agencies and departments of the executive branch are operating efficiently. This should involve a careful review of processes and procedures to identify things like duplication of responsibility or unnecessary handoffs. It would include a auditing expenditures on items like travel and office supplies. Done right it would be a sober, considered audit of whether each agency is carrying out its mission efficiently and effectively. What it's not is deciding that particular agencies are by definition wasteful. An opinion of many conservatives is that foreign aid, no matter what form it takes, is wasteful. There's certainly an argument to be made that we shouldn't be sending money to other countries -- an argument which I disagree with -- but an argument nonetheless. This is the rationale for the virtual elimination of one of the first DOGE targets, USAID. The president can certainly make the argument that USAID or any of the other targeted agencies should be defunded and eliminated, and present this position in his annual budget. It's then up to Congress to consider this and either include the changes in the new budget...or not. Moving fast and breaking things may be the way to proceed in a privately held company, but that's not the way our government was designed...by the Founding Fathers that conservatives seem to revere. 

The Congressional majority seems to be complicit in this slide into authoritarianism. Speaker of the House Johnson doesn't even want to entertain questions about Trump's plans -- he just wants to "trust his judgement". It has to be the height of insanity, or at least a dereliction of duty, to have faith in the intuition of a man who so clearly doesn't know what he's talking about much of the time. 

My coworker (he works in another division, not my team, so I don't have to deal with him every day) and I didn't discuss immigration, but I would not be surprised if he was a cheerleader for the illegal ICE sweeps that have been happening. There's no question that our border and immigration system and policies need a lot of work. Not only do multitudes cross into the country illegally every day, but our agencies that are tasked with processing asylum seekers and even for detaining those who are awaiting deportation, are woefully understaffed. There is a logjam years long to "do it the right way". Trump has decided to ignore previous agreements that have allowed immigrants to remain here while awaiting a decision and has revoked visas and started rounding up people who were here legally. Homeland Security is claiming that they're deporting "dangerous criminals" and "terrorists", and are even using the Alien Enemies Act that is supposed to be activated in wartime, to deport non-citizens. But they seem to be concentrating on the people who they already know about, those who kept their appointments with ICE, who were working, paying taxes, and checking all the right boxes -- the low-hanging fruit. I have a hard time believing that they're doing the difficult work of tracking down all the criminal gangsters -- who are surely not keeping their paperwork updated. There is no due process, which is guaranteed, even to non-citizens. Then there's the horrific case of the man who was sent to the Salvadoran prison "accidently", who the regime is claiming cannot be brought back. 

The number of things that Trump is doing that are without question unconstitutional, never mind all the possibly illegal, or just plain immoral, acts should horrify any American who loves their country. But for some in the Trump camp, it doesn't matter, as long as he "owns the libs". 

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.