So now everyone knows why Trump backed down and rescinded the OMB memo that purported to stop funding programs the GOP would label Marxist, Green New Dealish or transgendery. In private, Republican senators and governors hit the ceiling. No one knows for sure if the memo had anything to do with an eastern Iowa state Senate seat that Trump won by 21 points flipped to a Democrat on Tuesday— by 3 points. Trump won all 3 counties in the district in November. Democrat Mike Zimmer won all 3 on Tuesday. But the memo was in the headlines as voters trudged off to the polls. And speaking of polls, Trump’s are already in the toilet, putting the lie to his non-stop bullshit about a big national mandate.
MAGA voters are looking askance at Trump’s alliance with the predatory billionaires who appear to have bought the government. Will Cathcart looked at Trump’s centi-billionaires, the parasites “worth” more than $100 billion and wonders who can keep them check, something political leaders throughout the world are wondering. They are “not merely a symptom of systemic privilege or exploitation,” he wrote, [but] a flaw, a glitch in capitalism itself: a runaway mechanism of hyper-accumulation that has enabled unimaginable fortunes to balloon in an absurdly short time. In just a decade, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg have grown their wealth from billions to hundreds of billions. At his current trajectory, Musk is expected to become the world’s first nrillionaire by 2027. Consider: Centi-billionaires are walking nation-states. They not only possess rockets but are tasked with building them. As Jeff Bezos launches his own fleet into the sky, it’s worth noting that the nuclear material to arm such rockets is both cheap and increasingly accessible. In the 80th year since nuclear weapons were developed, they have not been used again since World War II. So nation-states have avoided nuclear confrontations. But can humanity and the fragile ecosystems of our planet survive the rapid succession of newly minted trillionaires with such capabilities? There is no historical precedent for such concentrated wealth and power accumulating in so few hands and at such an unprecedented rate. If this is left unchecked, do we truly believe we can coexist globally for the next 80 years of the nuclear age? In this way, the trillionaire may pose the single greatest existential threat to humanity.”
He warned that “Centi-billionaires are not merely a social anomaly; they are a cultural virus. Their wealth is a self-replicating contagion. These men consolidate media, fund research and share global narratives, often unconsciously. Like any virus, their accumulation reshapes the environment to sustain itself. But within this very process lies its antidote: the forced reckoning with the concept of a trillionaire— heretofore incomprehensible. These men (and they are always men) have shown themselves incapable of moral responsibility. As they align with figures like Trump, their primary concern seems to be ensuring their own survival. And for these individuals, survival is synonymous with growth. Their wealth becomes proof of their superiority, their influence a justification for their actions. Yet in this uncharted territory, these men are walking warnings— harbingers of what unchecked hyper accumulation can do, not only to economies but tp the very fabric of humanity.”
Yesterday, Jonathan Bernstein noted that we’re once again seeing chaos and not ruthless efficiency in Trump II… [T]here’s an important structural reason to expect competence to be an uphill battle for this administration. I think everyone who pays attention knows one of the reasons to expect Donald Trump’s presidency to have trouble governing. The president himself is deeply ignorant and resists learning anything. That was most obviously true at the beginning of the pandemic, but it’s constantly causing him trouble, whether it’s on tariffs or NATO or pretty much anything else. He (thinks he) knows what he knows, and he doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary. That’s pretty obviously a potential source of all sorts of trouble. The related problem, also fairly obvious, is that Trump hires for demonstrations of abject loyalty. Not know-how. So not only is Trump himself poorly informed, but he doesn’t hire for expertise and therefore doesn’t get much of it. But there’s also a less visible and less personal source of trouble.”
Trump exited his first term convinced that a “deep state” of the bureaucracy had repeatedly thwarted his desires, and he appears determined to prevent that from happening again. The idea of a “deep state” is nonsense, but the idea that the civil service often resists presidential directives is very much true. Only in some cases, however, is it because bureaucrats oppose the president’s policy goals. It happens (and not always in the direction Trump thinks), but it’s not the main reason.
…My strong impression is that Trump and the Project 2025 gang have spent an enormous amount of time and effort in figuring out how to get policy implemented regardless of bureaucratic resistance— and for that matter congressional, judicial, and public opinion resistance. They’ve spent a lot less time, however, trying to figure out how to actually make their new set of policies work. Or how to implement them without unnecessarily angering people— or at least without knowing in advance which folks are apt to get upset, including some who might not be obvious. We still don’t know how successful they’ll be at forcing things through, but within the first two weeks it’s already clear that the constant chaos and incompetence of Trump I is going to be the theme of the second term as well. With all the dangers that go along with that.
And speaking of dangers, the Founding Fathers went out of their way to create a checks and balances system that would be deeply embedded in the government they were inventing. Trump, Musk and the Project 2025 have no intention of paying that any heed whatsoever. And congressional Republicans seem to be accepting that without much more than a whimper. Carl Hulse reported that “The new administration is quickly demonstrating that it does not intend to be bound by legal niceties or traditional checks and balances in its relationship with Congress. That has alarmed Democrats but drawn shrugs and approval from Republicans, who say that Trump is delivering what he promised even if it comes at the expense of Congress’s authority and constitutional status as a coequal branch of government. ‘President Trump clearly ran for office to be a disrupter, and he’s going to continue to do that,’ said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Republican. Trump is also clearly embarking on a test of what he can cow a Congress under total Republican control into swallowing. Early indications are that it will be a lot.”
In addition to his rush to snatch the power of the purse away from lawmakers, he has sent up a crop of cabinet nominees who would have never passed muster on Capitol Hill in the past, daring Republicans to either back them or risk the wrath of the movement behind Trump. All but a few have snapped into line.
…[T]he administration’s position is that when it comes to the executive branch, the White House has absolute power to do what it pleases even if it is Congress that provides the money for the entire government with specific instructions on how it should be spent.
…The absence of pushback from congressional Republicans is a stark acknowledgment that Trump is large and in charge, controlling their political futures while executing an agenda that they believe Republican voters demanded. It is a distinct break from the past, when lawmakers of both parties would vigorously defend Congress’s power— particularly the spending power granted in Article 1 of the Constitution— no matter who was in the White House.
…Democrats were apoplectic, accusing the administration of a gross abuse of power.
“If this stands, then Congress may as well adjourn, because the implications of this is the executive can pick and choose which congressional enactments they will execute,” said Senator Angus King, the independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats.
The administration’s hasty reversal heartened Democrats who have been back on their heels since the opening of Congress, with limited options to impede the White House given their minority status in both chambers. But they expect Trump to persist in what they portrayed as a lawless effort to subvert the will of Congress and intend to protest in whatever ways they can.
“Make no mistake,” said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, “the fight is far from over.”
One leading Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, noted that a mechanism existed for Trump, in conjunction with Congress, to “reprogram” spending that the White House did not like, though so far there is little sign the administration wants to take that potentially time-consuming and contentious approach.
“It’s not as if there isn’t a process if, during the year, it is found that money needs to be reallocated within a department,” said Collins, who chairs the Appropriations Committee and was one of the few Republicans to challenge the spending order. “But it requires congressional approval, as it should.”
The White House encountered mild bipartisan resistance to its decision to abruptly fire multiple inspectors general from various agencies. Senators Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa and a longtime proponent of empowering inspectors general, and Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, joined forces and wrote Trump asking him to account for why he had made the firings without the required 30-day notification to Congress and accompanying justification.
“While I.G.’s aren’t immune from committing acts requiring their removal, and they can be removed by the president, the law must be followed,” the letter said.
But their plea was cast aside, both at the White House and by other Republicans.
“This is much ado about nothing,” corrupt Trump bootlicker Tom Emmer said on CNBC as he dismissed the notification requirements as unimportant details. “The president of the United States has the complete and absolute right to determine whether these people are going to stay on with the administration or not.”
Other Republicans characterized the outcry over the Trump administration actions as an overblown reaction to a new White House getting its footing.
“This is a work in progress,” said Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho. “Everybody take a deep breath, stay calm.”
It seems doubtful that calm will settle in anytime soon. But it does appear certain that any challenge to the Trump administration’s efforts to erode Congress’s power will come not from Republicans on Capitol Hill, but from Democrats, the states and in the courts.
“I’d be surprised if Congress initiated a lawsuit or asked for a stay,” said Kevin Cramer, the North Dakota senator. “But there will be plenty of others that will.”
Kommentare