I ask for guidance, as a non-USA citizen. Is it wise to place Elon Musk inside part of the Federal Government? Setting aside the colourful past of Mr Musk, especially in regard to SpaceX and Tesla, surely a CEO should devote valuable time to keeping these large companies in the best possible shape?
I remain unclear what Vivek Ramaswamy does, so wonder is the department of government efficiency best use of his talents?
Musk inside the U.S. federal government (even if he is not technically a government employee) is a dreadful idea. There is the immense and unavoidable potential for conflicts of interest. We already have the spectacle of Musk sitting in on phone calls not only between Trump and world leaders (including Zelensky, when Musk is almost certain to be a conduit of information to Putin), but also Trump and Musk and the CEO of an X (formerly Twitter) competitor.
It's vastly amusing that in defending against the Tornetta lawsuit, the Tesla Board of Directors attempted to justify the munificent 2016 stock options grant as a means to keep Musk engaged at Tesla. And that it did so again earlier this year in campaigning for the ratification effort.
We are in the new age of crony capitalism. You may be 100% certain that Musk intends to gain hugely, in monetary terms and other terms, from his relationship with Trump.
As for Vivek Ramaswamy, his major talent is shooting his mouth off about things he doesn't understand. His accumulation of wealth comes with many reasons to question his ethics.
In my 67-year lifetime, we have never been governed by a worse collection of people, from both parties. But Trump stands head and shoulders above all of them for greed, piggishness, mendacity, grift, ignorance, and narcissism.
Mr Fossi - thank you for your far more eloquent answer.
This goes to the core of Governance. Anyone granted the authority of Governance has to come to office with 'clean hands ' (no conflict of interests). To do so opens the way to challenges later on. I find there is widespread misunderstanding about what Governance is, and what it is not - right around the world.
You are of course right to mention moral fibre. The very best leaders, although not perfect, tend to have stronger than usual moral fibre.
With regard to the deficit, it is unlikely that a continuation of Biden's policies would have fared any better than Trump's policies. The amount that can be collected by raising taxes to the point where it negatively affects the economy, is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit.
A continuation of Biden's profligate and wasteful spending on climate policy and his throttling of energy production would probably have had a larger negative effect on economic growth and the budget than Trump's easing of taxes on the rich.
Trump's tariff threats are concerning, but probably more sabre rattling rather than real intent. Those two clowns, Musk and Ramaswamy will make a lot of noise but won't accomplish very much.
The biggest threat is allowing Trump to control the government without any checks and balances. His picks for department heads and cabinet range from mediocre to downright awful. The question arises as to whether there are enough Republicans in the Senate and House willing to stand up and oppose those choices. It will be the first test as to whether the next four years will be a democracy or a dictatorship. There is no limit to the harm that Trump can do if left unopposed.
The first few weeks will set the tone for the next four years. Dare we hope that there is enough opposition to make impeachment a possibility before the term is ended?
I largely agree with this. Rather than hoping for impeachment, I am hoping for a few statesmen among the GOP Senators. Collins, Murkowski, and McConnell (who is fed up with Trump, and not running again) are the three most likely prospects. We need a few more to take "advice and consent" seriously. Have you ever read Federalist Paper 76 by Alexander Hamilton? Take a look at the penultimate paragraph. He may have been far too optimistic.
"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure"
That paragraph fails when confronted with a narcissist who is incapable of feeling shame.
Thank you for that link. I read the whole thing. Hamilton was most definitely, in my reading, "far too optimistic."
I'll leave one of the sentences which made me laugh:
"Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment."
If only there were a time machine where we could bring Hamilton back for 24 hours and allow him to catch up on what he missed in his Federalist Paper 76 argument. I imagine Hamilton would stand in petrified horror upon learning about Donald Trump and his grifting Kakistocracy.
p.s. Can you imagine Hamilton reading the New Yorker investigative piece about Peter Hegseth and what it would do to his mental well-being?
Higher interest rates, combined with a higher debt, have very likely pushed the cost of debt servicing above the cost of defense and Medicaid for 2024.
I think Mr. Lewis was referring to 2024. Was he wrong about that?
Regardless, it's easy to see net interest topping $1 trillion soon. Even at $639 billion, it's crowding out a lot of other spending. Note that when the Fed cut rates a few months back, the yield on the 10-year Treasury actually rose significantly.
Deficits are actually a tool of the very rich - Americans - who hold 2/3 of national debt. They’re happy to have a place to park great deals of money at interest, in the safest of harbors. Much better from their perspective than being taxed enough to pay for government spending every year.
Since the conservative movement is at its root about nothing but transferring wealth to oligarchs, Republicans should cheer them. Reagan and his people knew what they were doing.
Lawrence - thank you for sharing your gift of eloquent communication. I always enjoy your posts. However – I urge you to fight the very real “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. Lets give him a chance.
Joe, I earnestly hope for good things from Trump. Obviously, immigration policy needs a big fix. I view Biden's energy policies (solar, wind, hydrogen, EVs, etc.) as catastrophic, leading us to where Germany has arrived. I'm not one of those people who in 2016 was out there marching and shouting, "Not my president!"
But the early actions are not promising. Would you attempt to justify the nomination of a single one of the nominees/ potential appointees I mentioned in the article?
Also, I am depressed about DOGE. Not because it's not badly needed, but because it will be run by two narcissistic clowns and, worse, because its essential strategy is to bypass Congress and rely on (unconstitutional & hence not durable) executive orders. Moreover, do you see any indication (from actions, not words) that Trump gives a damn about fiscal sanity?
Compared to all the moral deficiencies and malevolent incompetence of Trump and his gang, the deficit is only money.
Energy or immigration policies can be changed (or corrected, if you will), the destruction of the rule of law and general trust in government will have much longer lasting effects.
Moreover, look where we are today relative to when Joe Sixpack left his comment. Musk goaded Trump into blowing up the continuing resolution deal. Okay, there was objectionable spending in it; for instance, the vast ethanol subsidies. But that is true of EVERY spending bill because haggling and trading and compromise are inevitably required.
But Trump doesn't care about the objectionable spending. He hasn't identified any particular spending he wants gone, and he certainly isn't going to eliminate the ethanol spending. Instead, he has announced he wants the raising our outright elimination of the debt ceiling. In other words, a license for uncontrolled spending.
And, of course, neither Trump nor Musk has any plan for averting a government shutdown.
Trump is too occupied with suing the Des Moines Register for offending him with a pre-election poll he didn't like. A tremendous abuse of his presidential power, making claims that are completely at odds with the First Amendment.
As I have repeatedly written, I am a Ronald Reagan conservative. Trump, however, is not a conservative. He has no consistent thinking on policy, and frequently does 180 degree turns, such as on Tik Tok. Moreover, he is utterly in thrall to Musk at this moment. A recipe for more erosive crony capitalism.
While I disagree with most of your post I am sure you are enjoying the Freedom of Speech to express your displeasure with Trump and, more so, your hatred for Elon Musk...But as with any other topic I refer to Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza who once said, "No matter how thin you slice it there will always be two sides." Your references to his nominations offer no reason for your disagreement and you say you "And I don’t mind telling my friends and acquaintances who believed otherwise, “I told you so.” How many Trump supporters did you ever really sit down with and seek to understand their reasoning for voting for Trump versus your thesis, "For many, a vote for Trump was not an endorsement of the man, but rather a vote against the incumbents." If you go back through history you may find that outside of the die hard republicans or democrats the remaining voters were, in all actuality, voting against the incumbent...They didn't like the policies of the current administration...
Most Americans don’t know the policies of any administration. They’re voting for personality, and a willingness to express hatred of people they also enjoy hating.
I agree with you Richard...to a point...the identity politics along with the transgender focus as well as immigration were on the radar...but for many of the past 4 years these ideologies were forced on Americans and that was where the anger was (IMHO)...most Americans want to live and let live...focus on the current situations as we try to plan for a future...As you say most Americans did not know the "policies" of this administration...but we do know prices at the grocery store, crime in our communities, and being told we MUST accept their policies rather than allow for choice...The hypocrisy of the "my body my choice" and then being told you MUST take the vaccine...
Remember this is all about money. Nothing else. Nobody at Fox News really cares about transgender people. They know it’s a shiny object to distract the rubes and get them to vote for more tax cuts for billionaires.
The transgender issue is on permanent loop on right wing media outlets. Most people upset about pronouns have never met any transgender person. It’s a fake, media-invented controversy.
I ask for guidance, as a non-USA citizen. Is it wise to place Elon Musk inside part of the Federal Government? Setting aside the colourful past of Mr Musk, especially in regard to SpaceX and Tesla, surely a CEO should devote valuable time to keeping these large companies in the best possible shape?
I remain unclear what Vivek Ramaswamy does, so wonder is the department of government efficiency best use of his talents?
Musk inside the U.S. federal government (even if he is not technically a government employee) is a dreadful idea. There is the immense and unavoidable potential for conflicts of interest. We already have the spectacle of Musk sitting in on phone calls not only between Trump and world leaders (including Zelensky, when Musk is almost certain to be a conduit of information to Putin), but also Trump and Musk and the CEO of an X (formerly Twitter) competitor.
It's vastly amusing that in defending against the Tornetta lawsuit, the Tesla Board of Directors attempted to justify the munificent 2016 stock options grant as a means to keep Musk engaged at Tesla. And that it did so again earlier this year in campaigning for the ratification effort.
We are in the new age of crony capitalism. You may be 100% certain that Musk intends to gain hugely, in monetary terms and other terms, from his relationship with Trump.
As for Vivek Ramaswamy, his major talent is shooting his mouth off about things he doesn't understand. His accumulation of wealth comes with many reasons to question his ethics.
In my 67-year lifetime, we have never been governed by a worse collection of people, from both parties. But Trump stands head and shoulders above all of them for greed, piggishness, mendacity, grift, ignorance, and narcissism.
How much $$$$ is enough? Really.
Mr Fossi - thank you for your far more eloquent answer.
This goes to the core of Governance. Anyone granted the authority of Governance has to come to office with 'clean hands ' (no conflict of interests). To do so opens the way to challenges later on. I find there is widespread misunderstanding about what Governance is, and what it is not - right around the world.
You are of course right to mention moral fibre. The very best leaders, although not perfect, tend to have stronger than usual moral fibre.
With regard to the deficit, it is unlikely that a continuation of Biden's policies would have fared any better than Trump's policies. The amount that can be collected by raising taxes to the point where it negatively affects the economy, is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit.
A continuation of Biden's profligate and wasteful spending on climate policy and his throttling of energy production would probably have had a larger negative effect on economic growth and the budget than Trump's easing of taxes on the rich.
Trump's tariff threats are concerning, but probably more sabre rattling rather than real intent. Those two clowns, Musk and Ramaswamy will make a lot of noise but won't accomplish very much.
The biggest threat is allowing Trump to control the government without any checks and balances. His picks for department heads and cabinet range from mediocre to downright awful. The question arises as to whether there are enough Republicans in the Senate and House willing to stand up and oppose those choices. It will be the first test as to whether the next four years will be a democracy or a dictatorship. There is no limit to the harm that Trump can do if left unopposed.
The first few weeks will set the tone for the next four years. Dare we hope that there is enough opposition to make impeachment a possibility before the term is ended?
I largely agree with this. Rather than hoping for impeachment, I am hoping for a few statesmen among the GOP Senators. Collins, Murkowski, and McConnell (who is fed up with Trump, and not running again) are the three most likely prospects. We need a few more to take "advice and consent" seriously. Have you ever read Federalist Paper 76 by Alexander Hamilton? Take a look at the penultimate paragraph. He may have been far too optimistic.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed76.asp
"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure"
That paragraph fails when confronted with a narcissist who is incapable of feeling shame.
Thank you for that link. I read the whole thing. Hamilton was most definitely, in my reading, "far too optimistic."
I'll leave one of the sentences which made me laugh:
"Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment."
If only there were a time machine where we could bring Hamilton back for 24 hours and allow him to catch up on what he missed in his Federalist Paper 76 argument. I imagine Hamilton would stand in petrified horror upon learning about Donald Trump and his grifting Kakistocracy.
p.s. Can you imagine Hamilton reading the New Yorker investigative piece about Peter Hegseth and what it would do to his mental well-being?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pete-hegseths-secret-history
Precisely.
Point of order; there’s a federal debt of 36 trillion.
Deficits usually refer to excess spending over revenue in a single year.
Yikes. Thank you. I've corrected it.
<< Already, it costs more to service the nation’s debt than it does to defend the nation or provide Medicare benefits to elderly Americans.>>
According to Wikipedia, in 2023, for US federal budget:
Defense spending was $805B.
Medicare was $839B.
Net interest was $639B.
Total budget was $6.1T.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Higher interest rates, combined with a higher debt, have very likely pushed the cost of debt servicing above the cost of defense and Medicaid for 2024.
I think Mr. Lewis was referring to 2024. Was he wrong about that?
Regardless, it's easy to see net interest topping $1 trillion soon. Even at $639 billion, it's crowding out a lot of other spending. Note that when the Fed cut rates a few months back, the yield on the 10-year Treasury actually rose significantly.
Deficits are actually a tool of the very rich - Americans - who hold 2/3 of national debt. They’re happy to have a place to park great deals of money at interest, in the safest of harbors. Much better from their perspective than being taxed enough to pay for government spending every year.
Since the conservative movement is at its root about nothing but transferring wealth to oligarchs, Republicans should cheer them. Reagan and his people knew what they were doing.
The wealthy have relatively small holdings of Treasuries. They are typically angling for higher yielding fish. Here's some info on who holds the debt.
https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt/
Thank you. I’ll read when I get home.
Don’t the wealthy do things like deposit lots of money into places like Silicon Valley Bank, who then in turn buy treasuries?
Lawrence - thank you for sharing your gift of eloquent communication. I always enjoy your posts. However – I urge you to fight the very real “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. Lets give him a chance.
Joe, I earnestly hope for good things from Trump. Obviously, immigration policy needs a big fix. I view Biden's energy policies (solar, wind, hydrogen, EVs, etc.) as catastrophic, leading us to where Germany has arrived. I'm not one of those people who in 2016 was out there marching and shouting, "Not my president!"
But the early actions are not promising. Would you attempt to justify the nomination of a single one of the nominees/ potential appointees I mentioned in the article?
Also, I am depressed about DOGE. Not because it's not badly needed, but because it will be run by two narcissistic clowns and, worse, because its essential strategy is to bypass Congress and rely on (unconstitutional & hence not durable) executive orders. Moreover, do you see any indication (from actions, not words) that Trump gives a damn about fiscal sanity?
Compared to all the moral deficiencies and malevolent incompetence of Trump and his gang, the deficit is only money.
Energy or immigration policies can be changed (or corrected, if you will), the destruction of the rule of law and general trust in government will have much longer lasting effects.
Exactly right.
Moreover, look where we are today relative to when Joe Sixpack left his comment. Musk goaded Trump into blowing up the continuing resolution deal. Okay, there was objectionable spending in it; for instance, the vast ethanol subsidies. But that is true of EVERY spending bill because haggling and trading and compromise are inevitably required.
But Trump doesn't care about the objectionable spending. He hasn't identified any particular spending he wants gone, and he certainly isn't going to eliminate the ethanol spending. Instead, he has announced he wants the raising our outright elimination of the debt ceiling. In other words, a license for uncontrolled spending.
And, of course, neither Trump nor Musk has any plan for averting a government shutdown.
Trump is too occupied with suing the Des Moines Register for offending him with a pre-election poll he didn't like. A tremendous abuse of his presidential power, making claims that are completely at odds with the First Amendment.
As I have repeatedly written, I am a Ronald Reagan conservative. Trump, however, is not a conservative. He has no consistent thinking on policy, and frequently does 180 degree turns, such as on Tik Tok. Moreover, he is utterly in thrall to Musk at this moment. A recipe for more erosive crony capitalism.
While I disagree with most of your post I am sure you are enjoying the Freedom of Speech to express your displeasure with Trump and, more so, your hatred for Elon Musk...But as with any other topic I refer to Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza who once said, "No matter how thin you slice it there will always be two sides." Your references to his nominations offer no reason for your disagreement and you say you "And I don’t mind telling my friends and acquaintances who believed otherwise, “I told you so.” How many Trump supporters did you ever really sit down with and seek to understand their reasoning for voting for Trump versus your thesis, "For many, a vote for Trump was not an endorsement of the man, but rather a vote against the incumbents." If you go back through history you may find that outside of the die hard republicans or democrats the remaining voters were, in all actuality, voting against the incumbent...They didn't like the policies of the current administration...
Most Americans don’t know the policies of any administration. They’re voting for personality, and a willingness to express hatred of people they also enjoy hating.
I agree with you Richard...to a point...the identity politics along with the transgender focus as well as immigration were on the radar...but for many of the past 4 years these ideologies were forced on Americans and that was where the anger was (IMHO)...most Americans want to live and let live...focus on the current situations as we try to plan for a future...As you say most Americans did not know the "policies" of this administration...but we do know prices at the grocery store, crime in our communities, and being told we MUST accept their policies rather than allow for choice...The hypocrisy of the "my body my choice" and then being told you MUST take the vaccine...
Remember this is all about money. Nothing else. Nobody at Fox News really cares about transgender people. They know it’s a shiny object to distract the rubes and get them to vote for more tax cuts for billionaires.
The transgender issue is on permanent loop on right wing media outlets. Most people upset about pronouns have never met any transgender person. It’s a fake, media-invented controversy.