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. 

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.

Oval Office Clown Show

 Many in the Trump Cult are criticizing Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for "disrespecting" President Trump, and for not realizing the precarious position that his country is in. From where I sit, it's Trump and JD Vance (or whatever his name is) who were disrespectful and bullying.

The meeting was moving along just fine, until this remark by Vance:

"For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing"

Vance (or whatever his name is) was attempting, in his ass-kissing, Putin-loving way, to denigrate a previous president, making it look like Biden's approach caused the invasion -- Trump often says that the invasion wouldn't have taken place if he had been president at the time. Zelenskyy kept his cool, but he wasn't about to allow this guy school him on the reality of the war. He replied with these words:

“OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was...President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the –” (Trump and Vance both interrupted him at this point.)

Zelenskyy was making the point that the invasion started, albeit a low-key, not a full scale invasion, in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. That same year separatists in eastern Ukraine received support from Russian forces. His point was that the Russian war had begun eleven years ago, and had included Trump's first term. (Trump occasionally makes the point that Obama donated "pillows and blankets" [actually, non-lethal aid and support]  while he donated javelin missiles - so he's very aware that the war was going on then)

Zelenskyy continues:

“Yes, but during 2014 ’til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”

Zelenskyy is hammering home his rebuttal to Trump and Vance that he has tried diplomacy, that there was a ceasefire that Putin violated. He's asking rhetorically about what type of diplomacy they think will work with Putin. Vance (or whatever his name is) responds:

“I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country..."

Well, that's specific. He goes on:

"Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”

This is where Vance (or whatever his name is) starts in with his insistence that Zelenskyy should be groveling more. They go back and forth about this; Zelenskyy then gets a word in:

“First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless –”

Trump jumps in here. Zelenskyy made the point that we in the United States are safe behind our oceans, but that there will come a day when Putin even comes for us. It looks to me like Zelenskyy is using the word "feel" in the sense of feeling a punch, not feelings in the sense of emotions. (Remember that just a few years ago Zelenskyy needed an interpreter -- English is not his first language.) But Trump apparently thinks he is referring to his feelings, his emotions and lashes out at Zelenskyy, insisting that he not "tell us how we're going to feel". Trump is really triggered here, and it seems like he's mad that Zelenskyy is expressing anger at and distrust of, Putin. 

It really goes off the rails after this. Trump talking over and interrupting Zelenskyy, with Vance (or whatever his name is) jumping in to offer support. Finally, a reporter breaks in to ask a question:

"What if Russia breaks the ceasefire?”

And it ends up with Trump, who lives in his own fantasy world where everyone loves and respects him, answers:

“What, if anything? What if the bomb drops on your head right now? OK, what if they broke it? I don’t know, they broke it with Biden because Biden, they didn’t respect him. They didn’t respect Obama. They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt … All I can say is this. He might have broken deals with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden. He did, maybe. Maybe he did. I don’t know what happened, but he didn’t break them with me. He wants to make a deal. I don’t know if you can make a deal.”

And there it is folks...

Trump's Ego Regarding Ukraine

Why does Trump act as if he cares whether there is "peace" between Ukraine and Russia? He has made it clear that he believes that our allies are nothing but parasites who are taking advantage of us, using the United States to protect them militarily and prop up their economies. It was my opinion that he would veto any military aid to Ukraine that Congress approved and just let Russia overrun them if the European nations couldn't make up the difference. I neglected to take into account his mindset that everything comes down to financial transactions and his massive ego. 

Of course he would want to get Ukraine to "pay up". In Trumpworld, it's always a zero sum game. There's no consideration that it might be bad for the whole world (which incidentally, includes us) if we allow Russia to conquer Ukraine. That it would be in our own national interest, even if we don't commit our own troops, to support Ukraine's resistance to this invasion. No, Trump looks at it like Zelenskyy is a tenant behind on his rent. Let's not overlook the fact that the agreement that didn't happen required Ukraine to sign over 50% of the revenue from the extraction of some minerals with nothing in return....forever! 

Trump's ego was a variable that I shouldn't have overlooked. The Nobel Peace Prize has been something that he has lusted after since President Obama was awarded his. He really, really thought he would receive the honor after the so-called Abraham Accords in his first term -- reciprocal recognition by Israel and several Arab nations who were not at war with each other. He made much of the fact that no new wars were started during his first term, as if that was a unique achievement and as if we weren't still at war in Afghanistan during his whole term and fighting against ISIS during much of it. Or that the military, under his orders, hadn't been engaged in multiple actions and assassinated a high ranking general from a nation with which we were not at war. Despite all that, he wanted to be thought of as a peacemaker. Aside from his position that we shouldn't even be involved with the Russia-Ukraine war, he wanted to be able to take credit for ending it -- cementing his self image as one who ends wars, not starts them. During the campaign Trump boasted that he could end the war in 24 hours, even before he took office. That didn't happen. But the bragging telegraphed that this non-economic issue was important to him. A problem, if not the problem, was that he had no idea what he was doing or what it would take to bring the two sides together. 

So he decided to not get the two sides together. 

He has sided with the aggressor, who not only launched a major invasion three years ago, but had annexed Crimea in 2014 and had been engaged in a barely below the radar war in eastern Ukraine, ostensibly supporting Russian speakers there. He has started "negotiations" that has excluded Ukraine, claiming that Ukraine should be "thankful" for whatever "deal" Trump extracts from Putin.  Not only has he sided with the aggressor, he has publicly stated that Ukraine started the war! Then, Trump "welcomes" Zelenskyy to the Oval Office, mocks his attire, and expects him to grovel before the mighty Americans, thankful for whatever crumbs we can throw him, and acquiesce to Putin's dismembering of his country. Zelenskyy was in no mood to be lectured to, or listen to Putin's talking points from the mouths of Trump and Vance, after presiding over a fight for the life of his country. 

Trump and Putin want Ukraine to simply give up. Much is made of how Ukraine would have collapsed long ago if not for American and European assistance. (Although Trump would have you believe it was virtually all American) This may be true, but much should be made of how a small nation like Ukraine has held off Russia, a huge and powerful nation, for three years of full-on war, and over ten years before that of small scale attacks. Russia is being bled of resources. Vice President Vance (or whatever his real name is) snidely suggested that Zelenskyy was having problems staffing his army, yet Russia has resorted to using North Koreans as cannon fodder. 

Trump and Vance behaved disgracefully, but totally within character.

Cults Love Dictators

Trumpism is a cult. I've written about this before, but I believe that the cultish aspects of the MAGA base have expanded since his inauguration last month.

As I wrote about my own cult experience, no one who is in a cult thinks they're in a cult. No one sets out to join a cult. Once you're in, you rationalize behaviors that would have horrified you pre-cult. You make excuses for your cult leader and either deny that you ever believed differently or you portray yourself as an enlightened convert. The goalposts representing success change along with the cult leader's moods. Trumpism is no different. 

Trump was re-elected in large part due to a widespread belief that, despite any of his other defects, the economy was in better shape with him in charge. This makes sense if you squint and cover one eye. The traditional measures of economic health were all good from 2017 -- 2019, including low inflation, low unemployment, and robust stock market performance. During Biden's term two out of three of those were still true, but high inflation gave the understandable impression that the economy was in free fall. There were reasons for inflation that had nothing to do with any presidential action (and some that did), but people's short memories apparently wiped out all of 2020 as Trump's bungled Covid response, lack of coherent leadership, and undermining his own team had equally terrible effects. These effects naturally carried over into the early parts of Biden's term. It was hard to argue that Trump wasn't better for the economy with people who didn't understand basic economics. 

Maybe some people actually believed what they were saying, but I have concluded, for the vast majority, the talk of economics was mere cover for their cultish support for Trump, right or wrong. They were going to vote for him no matter what he said or did; pointing to the economy was no more than a way to make it sound as if they were making a reasoned decision. Hand in hand with this faux reasonableness was the demonization of anything associated with the Democratic Party. Trumpists and other Republicans have convinced their people that Democrats are communists and pedophiles. They have convinced their base that Joe Biden, a moderate, middle of the road, plain vanilla politician, was a raging dictator. 

But the economy was what Trumpists pushed as the rationale for re-electing Trump. I doubt anyone listed siding with Putin over Ukraine and systematically dismantling the government as good reasons to put him back in the White House. But here we are. People who were calling Biden a dictator for trying to cancel student loan debt are cheering on Trump for governing by fiat. People who loudly claimed to be Constitutional absolutists (at least when it came to the Second Amendment) are perfectly fine with an attempt to repeal part of the Fourteenth Amendment by way of Executive Order; those who were losing their minds over a years-old clip of Harris wanting to hold social media companies accountable, claiming it was a First Amendment infringement, are happy with Trump suing media companies, freezing out the Associated Press and deciding what news organizations can cover him; the people who screeched about Trump being held accountable for his alleged crimes were now drawing up lists of "enemies". 

The rank and file of the Trump base sees nothing amiss with an unelected "special government employee" rampaging through the government, firing people with no due process, bypassing both the union and their immediate supervisors. They shrug as whole agencies are gutted; agencies whose mission and funding had been authorized by Congress (and incidentally approved by whoever was president at the time). There's no process, no oversight, and certainly no "auditing for fraud and corruption". They don't blink when Trump claims that only he has the authority to decide what the law means or when his appointees testify that some court rulings can be ignored. There's a word for an individual who takes all government power and authority unto himself. 

The Trump Cult is not interested in facts or logic. The claims by Trump that he would solve inflation and lower prices has been abandoned, so they have acted as if that were never "a thing". They act as if now rooting out "fraud and corruption" are the most important issue facing the nation, despite zero evidence that anything other than the defunding of programs Trump doesn't like has been accomplished. They have convinced themselves that cozying up to Putin, a brutal dictator, aligns with our national values. 

It's always been a cult. Now it's a cult that supports a dictatorship.

Is There An Upside to All This Chaos?

There are two aspects to the actions taken by Trump in his first month (is it really only a month?) in office: one is whether he has the legal authority to do what he is doing and secondly, whether any of it is a good idea. I have addressed the legal angle in several posts on the subject of dictatorship, but is any of it good for the country?

Eliminating inefficiency, fraud and corruption is, of course, a good idea. In several of the companies where I have been employed over the years "process improvement" has been on the table. One of the things that you look for is whether any particular step in a process "adds value” — does the action make things better? Trump promised to have Elon Musk head up the "Department of Government Efficiency", and that's what he did (although whether he's actually the administrator or not changes from day to day depending on which regulations he's trying to break), but is what Musk is doing the best way, or even "a" way, to eliminate inefficiency, fraud and corruption?

No.

First of all, what's going on isn't an audit. A legitimate audit is usually done by an auditor. In order to be able to determine whether something is being done illegally or inefficiently, you have to have some knowledge of what legal and efficient look like. If you want to identify fraud and corruption, it's essential that you know how a properly functioning organization runs. A certified public accountant (CPA) will know how to follow the money as it makes it way through an organization, following the paper trail, comparing invoices to ledger entries and budgets. Whether an agency is efficient requires a thorough knowledge of the organization — what it's goals are and whether the daily actions of the employees and executives align with those goals and whether they are achieved in the most direct manner, avoiding steps and handoffs that don't add value. 

Musk's band of pirates isn't doing any of that. 

None of them, including Musk himself, are accountants. None of them have any experience or understanding of the role of the agencies and departments that they are "auditing". This would be a problem if what they really were doing were audits to identify inefficiencies, fraud and corruption, since they wouldn't know what any of that looked like. What they are doing is (1) eliminating any programs which they have been told to target because Trump doesn't like them, e.g. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs; or foreign aid and (2) Firing as many employees as they can without regard to whether these are essential jobs or not. The ultimate goal is not rooting out inefficiencies, fraud and corruption, but conducting a right wing culture war jihad, with a side dish of dismantling the government. 

Chaos is not a bug, but a feature of DOUCHE...I mean DOGE.

While Musk is taking a blowtorch to half the federal agencies, Trump himself is engaging his Retribution '25 Tour. As promised he is punishing anyone who had anything to do with the various investigations and prosecutions into his actions that led to indictments and felony convictions. Career attorneys have been unceremoniously fired, transferred or demoted. FBI agents have been treated the same way. The new Attorney General and FBI Director have talked about prosecuting those same people, as well as various political opponents. Patel, the FBI Chief even has an enemies list! 

Let's not overlook the insanity on the international front. Neighbors and allies are being hit with punitive tariffs for essentially looking at him funny. He seriously talks about annexing Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland, not to mention buying Gaza and turning it into a resort. His representatives chide Germany for not tolerating Neo-Nazis. We knew he liked cozying up to dictators, but this week he accused Ukraine of starting the war in which they were invaded by Russia and is conducting "peace talks" without them. 

Lastly, he's been in office slightly more than a month and he's talked multiple times about running again in 2028 and has referred to himself as a king. 

The chaos is so pervasive and all-encompassing that its tentacles potentially affect every aspect of our lives. Is there an upside to all this chaos? 

No.

This Isn't An Audit

Much time was wasted this weekend arguing with Trump Cultists about Elon Musk's March to The Sea. Of course the cult thinks it's great, because that's what Bhagwahn Rajneesh Trump wants. He could announce tomorrow that everyone's taxes are going up 100% and they'll all cheer. 

One of their arguments is that seeking out fraud and corruption is a good thing, and it's about time somebody took action. It's hard to argue against that; nobody thinks fraud and corruption are good things! But is that what's happening?

The ongoing purge is wrong in two broad categories. The first is that the president, who certainly has the authority to look for inefficiencies, fraud, and corruption in federal government, and take corrective action, does not have the power to unilaterally dismantle whole sections of the government, or refuse to spend funds that have been appropriated. The second is that, despite the high minded claims to root out fraud, no fraud is being discovered, and Musk and his team are not competent to find it even if it were there. What is happening is that programs whose mission Trump and Musk disagree with are being dismantled under cover of a hunt for fraud. 

Despite the claims of the so-called Unitary Executive proponents, the president doesn't have unlimited and unfettered authority over the departments and agencies that make up the federal government. Every department and agency of the United States government has been created by an act of Congress, and are funded by appropriations approved by Congress. These actions have the force of law and come about the same way any other law does: by being passed by a majority of both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Article II Section 3 of the Constitution directs that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That includes keeping Congressionally created departments and agencies up and running. 

Federal agencies exist to turn laws into reality. A bill might be passed to provide aid to a certain country. Somebody has to secure that aid, pay for it, arrange for transport to the target country, and account for it. Another bill could create penalties for some specified action. How will those penalties be enforced? How will violations be tracked? Often the scope of a Congressional action is so large that interpretation on the part of the regulatory agency is necessary. The president, as titular head of the executive branch can direct an agency's priorities, does not have the authority to eliminate that agency or refuse to spend appropriated funds. 

A properly conducted audit requires an auditor; someone who understands the flow of money through an organization. Additionally, the auditor should have an understanding of the laws governing the organization that is being audited. Real audits take time when done right. Red flags spur further investigation, not a knee-jerk assumption that something shady is being perpetrated. While I am not an auditor, I work with auditors and am aware of many audits that have taken years to complete. What is going on with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency is not an audit. What it is, is a bunch of pimply faced computer geeks running loose, without security clearance, doing quick and dirty searches for what they think are suspicious transactions. Or maybe not even that. What has come out so far is not fraud or corruption - at least no one has been charged with fraud or corruption - but is a search for programs within the agencies that rightists loathe - Diversity, Equity and Inclusion offices as well as any program that protects consumers. 

Thousands of federal employees are being fired without cause, with little thought given to how important those jobs are. Thousands of IRS employees are let go during tax season; the team who oversees our nuclear arsenal were fired, until it was realized they were essential but couldn't be reached because their contact information was no longer available. Employees are being locked out of their computer access and their physical offices on the authority of a "department" that didn't exist less than a month ago. 

I started this article by mentioning the enthusiasm with which the Trump Cult is celebrating what their cult leader is doing. In the months before the election the two biggest reasons that I saw given for voting for Trump were the economy and immigration. These were reasonable, but in my opinion, mistaken, rationales for supporting Trump. Even though inflation is caused by many factors with little influence by whoever the president is, many voters will always blame the president for a bad economy. And while immigration was not handled well by Biden, he could be forgiven for wanting to take action with Congress, instead of by EO. The Trump Cult literally believed that their Messiah would reverse inflation and bring prices back down. I may have missed it, but I don't recall people clamoring for the government to be dismantled. In fact, Project 2025, which does call for a deconstruction of the administrative state, was disavowed by Trump. But now, since dismantling the government is what Trump is doing, his cult has decided that dismantling the government is what they wanted all along, and are completely fine with his illegal, unconstitutional, power grab. 

 

But The Trains Will Run on Time

The Trump Cult said we were exaggerating when we called Trump and his team Nazis. They said that we were overreacting, that we were suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome". But here we are, less than a month into Trump's comeback term, and we have somehow gotten to the point where the president makes unilateral decisions without checks and balances. 

The nation's founders, despite including various undemocratic features in our Constitution, were very clear on one thing: they did not want a king. They defined "king" as someone in whom all decision-making authority was vested. It didn't matter if this king held the title of "president", unchecked power was what they were to guard against. In modern terms, since the kings we have in the 21st century are mere figureheads, we would term one in whom absolute power is concentrated a dictator. In order to prevent a dictatorship they devised a government structure where power and authority was spread among three theoretically coequal branches. The national legislature (Congress) made the laws, the executive branch (headed by the president) executed and enforced the laws and the judicial branch interpreted the laws. The system by which the three branches keep the others from assuming absolute power is generally referred to as checks and balances. Congress writes laws, but they must be approved by the president, whose veto can be overridden my a Congressional supermajority. Presidential appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can be removed by impeachment and conviction by Congress. Laws can be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 

There is a constitutional theory, mainly propounded by conservative legal scholars, called the Unitary Executive. This theory posits that all according to Article II of the Constitution executive branch agencies and departments are overseen and directed solely by the president, with Congress having no role in oversight or control. Trump, in his usual ignorant manner, has summarized this theory as "I have an Article II which means I can do whatever I want". The problem is that Congress has created agencies and departments and imbued them with a specific mission, and regularly appropriated funds for the executing of that mission. Some of these agencies have been termed "independent", in that they were envisioned as being able to conduct their mission unencumbered by partisan considerations or change in administration. The advocates of the Unitary Executive believe that all of that is unconstitutional; that the president has complete authority over all departments and agencies. This theory is at odds with the law. If an agency is established by law, and funds are appropriated for it's operation, the president, according to Article II Section 3, is to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed...", not pick and choose what laws to follow and which ones to ignore. 

What Trump is doing with his blizzard of executive orders (EO's) is to announce that he is not bound by the law or the Constitution, and that he has the power and authority of a king, a dictator. This is completely separate from the issue of whether his policies are actually good ideas. That's a discussion for another day. The fact that his ideas, whether good or bad, are being pursued unilaterally, without following previously passed laws or appropriations, is what makes what is going on a dictatorship. A lot of ink has been spilled about Elon Musk's installment as the unquestioned arbiter of what is inefficient in government. I saw an article the other day about what Trump should do to rein in Musk. But the problem isn't Musk, it's Trump himself. Musk is merely acting on illegally delegated authority from a president who is illegally exercising authority that he does not have. 

One of Trump's first moves was to fire Inspectors General in most federal departments. It's the job of these officials to identify corruption and other problems in their departments. I am unclear whether it is within their purview to proactively conduct audits. In Nebraska the Auditor of Public Accounts, an independently elected official (i.e. not controlled by the governor) conducts audits of all government agencies. I can tell you from experience that they are extremely detailed and leave no stone unturned. If there is not a similar federal position, there should be. Instead, we have a team of people who have no experience in, or understanding of, government, who wouldn't know if something was inefficient or not, unilaterally shutting down government agencies with no oversight whatsoever. Whether or not government is bloated and inefficient isn't the question, it's whether budget trimming should be done in the dictatorial manner. 

I brought up checks and balances earlier. It remains to be seen what action the judicial branch will take, but the Republican Congressional majority has decided that they will be doing nothing. They're okay with allowing a president to assume dictatorial powers, as long as they kinda-sorta agree with the broad outlines of his "plan", and as long as they stay on his good side, and therefore in the good graces of his cultish supporters. 

Whether you think USAID is a waste of money, or agree that the Department of Education should be eliminated, or CFPB should go, or woke communist transgender gun takers must be stopped, are you really fine with the United States becoming a dictatorship? 

Oh well, at least the trains will run on time.