I mean, the order itself doesn't do a whole lot other than set a ball rolling for a report. If you thought Trump was going to (try to) slash a whole bunch of agencies, as I did, I don't think it adds much. If you thought the basic institutional structure of the federal government would survive Trump unscathed, then, sure, start panicking now.
But Paul Ryan has already been panicking for a while.
I think Trump is either impeached or reelected. I feel pretty sure about that.
Or walks away because he's bored or frustrated. I put that below reelected and above impeached, though all are plausible.
I don't think so. Walking away will be interpreted as fleeing to avoid impeachment by nearly everybody. Trump has to know that.
Not running for re-election (baring obvious health problems) would also be taken as an LBJ-ish admission that he can't win.
I don't think Trump will pull a Palin. He has nothing to lose by sticking it out to the bitter end. Palin at least stood to make bank on the speaking circuit.
Congress also revived the Holman rule giving them a way to implement a bunch of the reorganization via reconciliation. Look at all the deficit cutting we can do by reducing the salary of this list of redundant people to $1.
Just Trump's budget proposal is pretty clear evidence he's going to fire as much of the federal government as he can.
Is there any way to short D.C.-area housing?
The DC area would still have lots of the same jobs. The people doing them would just be working for Booz Allen Hamilton instead of for the US government.
All the order does is tell people to write reports about how their agencies can shrink. Since Trump hasn't appointed anyone at all below Cabinet level, those reports either won't be written, or will be written by professional civil servants who will argue that only marginal reductions are possible. Trump can then say, they're all just leeches, and start firing more or less at random; but then he will discover that these agencies actually do things and have allies in Congress. All this tells us is intention, which we already knew.
Also,
This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Since Trump shows no sign of actually preparing a budget, it might turn out there's just no money for the civil service to figure out how to fire itself.
It's like an ouroboros vomiting itself up.
13: I think some of that language means they consulted a lawyer this time and the lawyer covered his ass by sticking in lawyer stuff that is usually in such orders.
I'm surprised it didn't say that you couldn't rebroadcast the order without the expressed written permission of Major League Baseball.
For whatever reason, this one freaked me out much more than any of the outrages since it became clear that UCE and CBP are Gestapo. It's such a clear window into their deep desire to permanently break the federal government.
It's such a clear window into their deep desire to permanently break the federal government.
Unlike when Perry wanted to abolish more agencies than he could actually name? Or when Trump said basically the same thing? Or the perpetual GOP war on the EPA, DoE, NIH, NSF, Social Security and Medicaid?
I think Trump is either impeached or reelected. I feel pretty sure about that.
I've had an ongoing conversation with somebody about the odds that Trump is impeached or resigns. It's gotten me thinking about the question of base rates -- if history is a guide it's very unlikely for a president to be impeached or resign, but Trump really feels different -- not least because I'm unclear how much he will _want_ to remain in office for four years.
I may not have understood the reference.
4, 5 to 21. No matter how much he wants or doesn't want to stay in office, there's no way to leave it without being tagged as a "loser." He can't accept that.
I personally intend to shout "loser" at him and everybody who supported him if he resigns. I realize this is counterproductive as far as my policy goals, but recognize that I won't be able to stop myself.
Right, I think the smart money is that he stays through 4 years (and I don't have a guess about whether or not he's re-elected), and that the betting odds significantly overstate the change of impeachment/resigning.
But, at the same time, it seems hard to believe that he'll last 4 years, considering how many enemies he's making.
What's the state of play on the Russia stuff?
I echo 1 and 12. There could be scary proposals coming out, but this is so vague and preparatory that this is not it yet.
Remember the "eliminate two old regulations for every new one" order? Departments have put out new regulations since then (mostly copy-and-pasting lobbyist language IMX) and simply found that order not to apply. Paper tiger.
I'd say it's most likely that he dies in office, which will allow the revisionism to begin immediately. Get ready to fly out of Trump Airport, cross the Trump Bridge, and cheer for the troops aboard the USS Trump.
Leaving would mean giving up leverage over the various investigations that are hopefully ongoing, reducing his usefulness to those who own his debts, and passing on more opportunities for petty corruption. Trump is going to let it ride.
I echo 1 and 12. There could be scary proposals coming out, but this is so vague and preparatory that this is not it yet.
I mean, there already are scary proposals coming out, and there'll be more on Thursday. It's appropriate to be scared. If Trump has his way, and it certainly looks like the GOP will be accommodating on most of it, the EPA, DoE, DoI, NASA as anything but a token space exploration effort) and the civil rights division of the DoJ are all effectively going to disappear, as will the SEC's enforcement and rulemaking capacity, while the FCC will become an adjunct of the big telcos.
Oh and I forgot State, which is already fucked.
There is an optimum level of fear for action, and it's possible to exceed it. For something this vague, caution rather than fear seems warranted.
I have no idea what that means, but I support it wholeheartedly.
Now that Google has educated me: it makes sense that it's a documented psychological principle. I notice it in myself all the time. I find that if I have to do public speaking, I do better if I am slightly worried, but not too worried. If I procrastinate on doing something, then there's a point where I have just the right amount of stress and I finish it. If I go beyond that point I just give up and wait for the vultures to take me.
I agree with 29.first, this is not a healthy guy, promises of his hippie doctor aside. It looks like he's already gained noticeable weight since inauguration. Already on a statin, family history and early signs of dementia, high stress environment, and needless to say not someone given to self-reflection or yoga or exercise or whatever else might lower his blood pressure.
The Yerkes-Dodson law is an empirical relationship between arousal and performance
Didn't Kinsey already document this?
I dunno, these evil old men seem to cling to life.
I'm hoping we win the House in 18. If Trump and Pelosi reach a deal on Medicare for all, Trump doesn't just get re-elected, he goes on Mount Rushmore. It's just too bad the guy is too self-deprecating to seize the opportunity that's clearly open to him.
40: Yes, next to his respect for women, his humility is his most remarkable characteristic.
Arousal, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes;
it provokes the desire, but it takes
away the performance: therefore, Dodson
may be said to be an equivocator with performance.
For those who subscribe to the liberal/reactionary coup theory of Watergate, Trump's plans to reorganize the Executive Branch, must raise the spectre of impeachment.
No one ever mentions this, but the information is out there. Nixon's main objective once in power was a total reorganization of the government. It started as a reorg of the executive branch, but would expand. Nixon was going to reorganize the government to break the greying New Dealer grip on the government.
Unlike when Perry wanted to abolish more agencies than he could actually name? Or when Trump said basically the same thing? Or the perpetual GOP war on the EPA, DoE, NIH, NSF, Social Security and Medicaid?
A couple things. First, up until now, the GOP has always run presidential candidates who, whatever their rhetoric, wouldn't actually do these things. They'd put lunatics and lackeys in positions of power, they'd cut funding, but they wouldn't essentially render the State Department--one of the original 4 executive departments, FFS--defunct. Second, in the past, there was always a sense that some critical mass of congressional/Senate Republicans wouldn't actually sign off on blind, flailing destruction, and that the leaders were competent enough legislators not to do what Ryan has done with AHCA.
But obviously the first doesn't apply, and whether the latter was always an illusion*, it's become clear that the congressional GOP is 100% captured by Trumpists, whether sincere or fearful. IOW, they are completely servile, and so there will be no pushback, no matter what. And I mean literally no matter what: the last 50 days have made crystal clear that Trump really could shoot the proverbial man in the middle of Fifth Avenue and elected Republicans would refuse to act on it.
Too be a bit more concrete: eliminating the DOE will have immediately bad consequences to market incumbents, very little concrete benefit to anyone, and will also wreak havoc with our nuclear weapon situation. It's a good applause line, because hoi polloi assumes that it's basically in charge of gas taxes and giveaways to Big Solar (or something), but there've usually been enough competent around to put the brakes on, either to offer a reality-adjacent drawdown plan or simply to change the subject, but that simply doesn't exist anymore. Is there a single GOP Congressman who'd raise his head enough to object? I truly don't think so.
The evisceration of the State Department is amazing to me. And Rex Tillerson seems totally on board with it. The more he tries to keep the the shadows, the more concerned I get.
44, 45: I think there's more comity than it appears. I'm only objecting to the order itself causing distress. I absolutely agree this current situation is not like previous threats to the government. I'm just saying the alarm bells should have been ringing a long time before now. Certainly by the time the cabinet nominations were announcement, and then the pre-budget announcements put some concrete numbers on it.
If Trump and Pelosi reach a deal on Medicare for all
Christopher Ruddy, CEO of the conservative Newsmax brand ... [suggests that Trump] Reject the phony private health insurance market as the panacea. Look to an upgraded Medicaid system to become the country's blanket insurer for the uninsured.
Not really. The Slate-pitch pre-dates Slate and works in both directions, ideologically speaking.
If Trump and Pelosi reach a deal on Medicare for all, it will be a GOOD THING. Never forget that. Whatever one's broader view of Trump may be, if he can deliver that he will have delivered a very good thing.
But I don't think it's likely. Too many obstacles- he would lose interest too quickly.
Look at the House. Look at the Senate. Who's going to vote to impeach and convict? The only hope I have at this point is that Bannon murders Trump in a drunken rage while Pence and Ryan are both caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.
while Pence and Ryan are both caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.
Given the callous disregard of life Republicans are showing, I'm not sure a dead girl cuts it anymore, especially if she were a prostitute (i.e. a slut from the lower classes).
52: True. It might take an entire cub scout troop and a live infant.
||
Does anyone have any ideas for organizations that could use help. I'm too old to join a young Dems group and I don't know what good it would do.
Locally, I'd like to push for paid family and medical leave. That passed the Senate here, but the House Speaker didn't care about it and it didn't even make it out of the House Ways and Means. The coalition pushing for it seems to have fallen apart. I contacted my rep and Senator (the latter was a Sponsor) and have heard nothing back. They don't have a lot of staff. So, meh.
Any organizations people like that I could volunteer for?
|>
Locally, I'd like to push for paid family and medical leave. That passed the Senate here, but the House Speaker didn't care about it and it didn't even make it out of the House Ways and Means. The coalition pushing for it seems to have fallen apart.
Trying to restart this coalition might be a good option. Do you know who the specific people are who were involved? Contacting one or more of them would be a start.
Are you old enough to join the Grown-Up Dems?
Does Families USA have a local office? Maybe they could point you to someone relevant.
56: I e-mailed someone at an aol address and never heard back. They all seemed to be using their personal e-mail accounts.
http://coalitionforsocialjustice.org/index.php/paid-family-medical-leave
HCFAMA (which was a the main force behind Health Reforma) was somewhat plugged in to Families USA. They are worth looking into. That's a good idea, Minivet.
I was dispirited when the contact person didn't respond.
57: The Grown-up Dems annoy me and seem sclerotic but entrenched. I hate so much the fact that I think our Republican Governor is doing a better job than the his Democratic predecessor -- especially after he used Welfare Queen language in the 2010 election that he lost.