On-The-Job Training

Over half a year in, the Trump administration is learning that running the US of A is not like running a business (particularly like a business in New York or New Jersey, rife with graft):

…unfortunately, there are so many bills that have piled up and commitments we have made that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling that it’s not fulfilling obligations the United States has offered. I would welcome an opportunity to see a debt-ceiling package that included spending cuts as well. I think there’s some that advocate for that, but I think more likely what we will see is a clean debt ceiling for right now, so that’s probably an issue that will be addressed in the future,” he added.

Actual budget cuts, or even the fake ones that merely reduce the increase in the rate of growth, are the projects of the future, and they always will be. At least until we run out of other peoples’ money, as Venezuela just did.

And in the Department of Duhhhh…

“I think one of the lessons learned from the healthcare debate is that did not happen, and so therefore a lot of conservative groups were splintered as the bill came out of the House, which I think left us at a deficit trying to earn back their support over time. And I don’t mean to deflect responsibility for that because that was on all of us, but that bill was moving long before we were ever inaugurated,” he said.

“I think our relationship with the Hill is shared as well, that one of the lessons learned is to make sure we are doing that sort of outreach before we launch a project…”

If only we’d elected someone who actually understood how government works, and who’d at least read the Constitution and respected the rule of law.

And in this, of course, we have another parallel with Barack Obama.

47 thoughts on “On-The-Job Training”

  1. I am already angry enough with the ones who DO know how Washington works. I don’t think they would do what is best for America even if he had a compelling vision that he could articulate flawlessly.

    1. Say it louder. What branch of government makes laws?

      Trump has veto power. That’s it. You don’t even need to know the constitution to know how that works.

      But if we blame Trump then nobody else need be held responsible.

      1. As long as it looks bad for Trump, the constitutional separation of powers will be ignored and he will get blamed for a congress run by people who do not support him.

      2. “Say it louder. What branch of government makes laws?”

        Congress of course. And also the Republicans especially in the Senate hate Trump as much as the Dems do…they still can’t get over the fact that he beat out establishment Repubs like Cruz. They didn’t want to “repeal and replace” Obama care. They didn’t/don’t want a border wall; has nothing to do with Trump’s negotiation skills, they will fight it tooth and nail. They (& the business class they represent) are perfectly happy with millions of illegals coming in as a source of cheap easily exploitable labor; they hate what Trump is trying to do., As long as voting to repeal Obamacare had no chance of succeeding they were willing to do so the placate the tea party base; underneath they are basically RINO’s. They (the Senate Repubs) need to be “primaried” out in 2018; or start feeling the heat from the Tea party again

      3. What branch of government makes laws?

        Two branches: The legislative passes bills, the president signs them into legislation.

        Trump has veto power. That’s it. You don’t even need to know the constitution to know how that works.

        People who know the Constitution (unlike you and Trump) know that there’s a lot more to it than that. For instance, a president doesn’t just veto bills. He also signs them, if he finds them to his liking. His odds of getting bills to his liking improve if he works with allies in Congress to do so. They also improve if he talks to the American people about why they should tell their representatives to support the bill he wants.

        But that’s too much actual work, and would involve actually understanding complicated issues that “no one knew how complicated they were” (except everyone except him). It would also involve giving thoughtful, measured speeches from the Oval Office instead of preaching to the converted and basking in adulation at his continuing campaign rallies.

        But he’d rather watch cable news, get in Twitter fights with the media and play golf, and go to the campaign rallies, while waiting for the Congress to send him something, no matter what it is, so he can sign it for a photo op. And about a third of the country, which is his base, including you, thinks that’s just fine.

        I’m going to suggest one more time, that if you don’t want to look like a fool the way your lord and savior often does (because he has the same impulse-control problem), you will pause, and give some thought, maybe for a day or two, before commenting here, rather than just continually spouting keyboard diarrhea off the top of your head.

        1. Thank you Rand, for a substantive comment rather than just “you’re delusional.”

          a president doesn’t just veto bills. He also signs them.

          Two sides of the same coin. He could of course do neither.

          allies in Congress

          Many claim to be. Few act like it. Most of his true allies are not in congress and even those risk their livelihood by speaking out.

          he talks to the American people

          He does and you call them delusional.

          giving thoughtful, measured speeches from the Oval Office

          We agree, but here’s the problem. The media would stop covering them after the first (or so) as soon as they realize he was being effective. His rallies are not just for supporters. I often read of people going to them because they don’t want the media filter.

          Beyond that, the media offers distraction to prevent the speeches he has given so.. they reach as few people as possible… both by covering it with a pillow and by manufacturing squirrels. Both his speech to congress and Poland were treated that way. Both were great speeches.

          waiting for the Congress to send him something, no matter what it is

          This is where you seem to not fully understand Washington (but I would agree with you it’s wrong.) It’s part of the deceit that is Washington. They don’t want to go on record for a straight forward bill. They want something that allows them to deny their record. Then they change the bill procedurally. What part of congress is filled with lying bastards (very well understood for a loonng time by the deplorables) do you not understand?

          if you don’t want to look like a fool

          The executive does not make laws. The executive is simply part of the checks and balances so has a procedural involvement. Executive orders are also being misused by presidents because constitutionally presidents DO NOT MAKE laws. The purpose of EO is the constitutional duty to implement and enforce laws MADE by the legislature.

          That’s a bit like saying a car salesman makes cars.

          1. The media would stop covering them after the first (or so) as soon as they realize he was being effective.

            That’s stupid, Ken. The media is going to cover an Oval Office speech regardless.

            The executive does not make laws.

            No one said it did. Once, more, respond to what I write, instead of what the voices in your head tell you that I write, and think before you type. If you can’t do that, please stop wasting my time and clogging up my comments section with useless information that I already know.

          2. My words: What branch of government makes laws?

            Your words: Two branches

            By your logic it should be three branches because judges can nullify a law.

            Rand, you do some of the best snark on the net. I want to thank you for your insults. They demand that I self evaluate where I might otherwise neglect to do so.

            No one said it did. I just quoted you saying it.

            The media is going to cover an Oval Office speech regardless.

            The media will do anything they think they can get away with. Including unthinkable acts if it suits their narrative. However, I hope you are right and Trump follows your advice. I believe you’re also right that Trump and Obama share some belief in the power of their own presence and words that are not justified.

            I think the fact that I’m delusional (in your perspective) makes you miss the fact that I believe Trump is a very flawed person including inept politically. What you seem to miss is the bigger picture which is not what he lacks but what everyone else lacks… doing the sole duty of government… serving the people instead of themselves.

            Now if you claim he is only serving himself I would respond, so what as long as the people are served and Trump with support from the lying bastards could do that because of the historic position we are in. A position the GOP is blowing.

            There is nothing Trump can do to herd the cats that refuse to do the right thing and undermining Trump is never going to get that done.

          3. By your logic it should be three branches because judges can nullify a law.

            That’s not making a law.

            I just quoted you saying it.

            No, you didn’t. You took something I wrote (that it takes both branches to pass a law, which is true) and misleadingly implied that I said the Executive could do it by itself. In other words, you just lied about what I wrote on my web site, and then lied that it was a quote.

            You’re on the verge of being banned, something that I’ve done to only one or two people in the past.

            One more time: If, like your Lord and Savior, you cannot read what I write, for comprehension, give it some thought before typing (maybe even sleep on it), and can exercise no impulse control whatsoever, (and it’s apparently the case that like him, you cannot), then go spew your illogic and insults to my intelligence and integrity at some other web site. Because I suspect that (e.g., Paul Dietz), I’m not the only one here tired of it.

          4. misleadingly implied that I said the Executive could do it by itself.

            I did no such thing. That would be as stupid as you have more than implied I am.

            You’ve held a mirror up to me and I’ve always given it the consideration it’s due. I’m sorry you see me the way you do.

            You’re the host. Ban me if you must. I will never speak ill of you, but I know when you’re wrong.

            If you can’t be challenged that says everything and I’m very disappointed. I’ve valued those things I’ve learned from you. A pity if you think you can’t as well.

          5. I did no such thing.

            Another example of just how disconnected with reality you are. Everyone here can follow the thread. Anyone care to defend Ken on this specific issue?

      1. Point? No point, just information. When I see quotes, I like to know who said what. I figured that you had accidentally left off the attribution and that I could fill in.

        When I started reading this post I assumed that you were quoting DJT, but that isn’t quite his manner of speaking.

  2. If only we’d elected someone who actually understood how government works

    That’s worked out so well for us.

      1. Gotta agree. The people who “actually understand how government works” are the problem, in that they are the ones gaming the system and perverting it to their own ends.

        Also, when was the last time we had a President who didn’t have to undergo “on-the-job training”. Is there a secret School for Future Presidents that they all attend?

        Vice Presidents are the closest we have to trained in advance Presidents, and we regularly reject them (Nixon, Humphrey, Gore, Mondale) or retire them out of gov’t entirely (Quayle, Rockefeller, Biden).

        1. Also, when was the last time we had a President who didn’t have to undergo “on-the-job training”. Is there a secret School for Future Presidents that they all attend?

          It would be nice to have one who had at least read the Constitution, and understood the role and powers of the presidency.

          1. The role and powers of the presidency are ever evolving. Today’s chief executive exercises far more power than his earlier predecessors. An alpha is always probing the boundaries. Betas accept restrictions. I have had enough of betas representing me.

          2. Sometimes people dismiss rules and regulations easily but quite often the rules were there for a reason to begin with and it is worthwhile to revisit that rationale to make sure if it still makes sense. Otherwise you just risk repeating the same errors over and over again.

          3. True enough. But, that is why it is a give and take process. Without pushing the boundaries, one tends to develop sclerosis.

  3. Short said one of the lessons the White House learned during the process of attempting to repeal Obamacare is that there needs to be more outreach to think-tanks, so the administration is working with organizations including the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity and the American Enterprise Institute on a “regular basis.”

    The problem isn’t messaging. The problem is policy. The voters don’t want Obamacare and are tired of being lied to by the leadership. If reaching out means adopting policies that the voters actually want, then it might work but it wont if it is just more talk.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) met last week for what the GOP leader characterized as a “good meeting to discuss raising the debt ceiling, which we all know will need to be done sometime in the next month or so.”

    This is the perfect example of what is wrong. Failure theatre morphing into just doing whatever the Democrats want. Except that is isn’t just the Democrats that want to raise the debt, its the GOPe. None of this is Trump’s fault.

    A good criticism of Trump though, is that he is supposed to be the deal maker. Can he make deals with the GOPe?

    1. “Failure theatre morphing into just doing whatever the Democrats want.”

      That is the GOPe’s comfort zone. Has been my whole life, with some brief aberrations due to Reagan and Gingrich.

    2. The voters don’t want Obamacare and are tired of being lied to by the leadership.

      Unfortunately, they want the parts of it that they like (that are causing the problems) and want the politicians to “fix” the rest. Which is how the Democrats screwed us over in 2010.

      1. You really can’t blame some of them that did the right thing all their lives and ObamaCare rips the rug out from under them. They now do not have the coverage they had and now may have a pre-existing condition they didn’t have when they were responsibly covering themselves.

        Forcefully changing the rules was the plan from the beginning which they didn’t want us to find out.

  4. He’s not Felonia von Pantsuit. That in itself is his saving grace.

    His only one. Period. But it’s enough.

    1. Many went for anyone but Hillary, but were then surprised that Trump actually tried (and sometimes succeeded) in keeping his promises.

      Trump could definitely do better and certainly has flaws, but to ignore the environment he’s working in is really delusional. He’s only a president yet he’s chastised for not being what they also argue he shouldn’t be.

      Assume he did exactly what some “know” he should do. When the result is not successful knowers would still blame him. He’s not king (and it wouldn’t matter if he thinks he was… that’s the purpose of the constitutional arrangement.)

  5. Congressional outreach? Yeah sure. I’m suspect Trump thought Republicans would live up to their campaign promises without the need for graft. I’m actually find it hilarious the suggestion that only New York and New Jersey are rife with graft, but perhaps not DC? Screw that Rand. Those Senators aren’t multi-millionaires off their congressional salaries. The GOP was given an opportunity that they asked to have and blew it. To paraphrase Yogi, it’s 2006 all over again, and GOP… good luck on voter outreach.

    1. “Those Senators aren’t multi-millionaires off their congressional salaries.”

      It always amazes me that the press never looks there. Quite a cozy establishment relationship. They go to DC with modest net worth, make a middling-high salary, and somehow it just blossoms.

      1. Interestingly it’s free local papers that usually do the best actual journalism on this. Even though the papers are leftist they often do a good job investigating the entire political spectrum (although I haven’t read any of these in years.) They just never get national coverage because… pillows.

  6. As for the debt ceiling debate, any Keynesian would say it is time to reign in the spending right now that the economy is making a recovery to prevent overheating so I would say exactly that.

    However the US infrastructure upgrade issue is a long term problem, which Trump mentioned in his campaign, and it will need to be addressed eventually.

    1. Infrastructure should be mostly a state issue. Letting badly managed states fail is the quickest way to fix them. Instead, what should only take a few years is dragged out for decades (with other peoples money.) The strength of fifty states operating independently is they should not all fail at the same time, where a central government could fail everywhere at once.

      Having all banks interconnected has the same problem.

    2. Infrastructure need not be a massive expense in any one year. As you said, it is a long term problem. But since any infrastructure program will be mostly graft, I don’t see the possibility of much restraint on spending.

  7. The ’93 Clinton Administration was also remarkably tone depth and amateurish. They had the NYT and WaPo to carry water for them tho’…

  8. Anyone care to defend Ken on this specific issue?

    There is no need for anybody to come to my defense.

    This is your blog Rand. Your choice. If you allow me to stay I will challenge you when I disagree. Usually we do not and communicating with your folks here is a benefit I would sincerely miss.

    Perhaps I am all the things you accuse me of (which seems a thoroughly detestable character) are true. I am certainly impulsive… but I have other qualities as well. Some of which I’m quite proud of.

    1. So that’s your respone? You have no intention of changing? Of actually reading what I write, and giving it some thought before making a fool of yourself and insulting me at my own web site? Really?

      1. I’ve been taking your advise which is what I do routinely.

        You’re a great writer Rand. I am not. You and others have noted my need for an editor. I’ve read the thread and believe I understand the miscommunication. Your advise was to think before writing and I’ve been doing pretty much nothing else.

        After 15 years, I would think you would realize how much I hate injustice, but that would be unfair to you. You can’t possibly know because of how extremely I hate it. Combine that with my impulsiveness and I would defend Satan should I see him being slandered. If I may kid, you’re not Satan, but I’ve seen you slandered and publicly defended you even though I know with absolute certainty that you are completely capable of defending yourself.

        The problem for me is that I find words to be terribly insufficient to contain my thoughts. There is simply not enough bandwidth. If I didn’t have some impulse control, my parenthetical thoughts would be nested to stack overflow. But I probably shouldn’t have even mentioned this.

        You called me stupid, foolish and delusional which has less bite than you probably intend because I know the truth even if you discount it. Like Sheldon Cooper, I’ve been tested… repeatedly at 99 percentile against college students when I was in grade school (back when college meant something.) A navy recruiter called me every single month for two years after telling me I had the highest scores he’s ever seen on the N)avsvab. But IQ, whatever it actually measures, is not intelligence. I really wanted the benefits of the navy, but would never take it knowing I would have to make certain compromises I was unwilling to make. I was disgusted by those that chose to become COs during desert storm.

        I am a fool which my 8th grade Beta club sponsor wrote in my yearbook as, “never stop caring” which is another foolish facet of my character. But now to the point…

        The thread started with me asking, “What branch of government makes laws?”

        If you could only choose one branch as the best possible answer, we both know what that would be and others even said it.

        Then you were motivated to say two. Whatever I wrote after that (the voices in my head at the time as you put it) did not disagree with you. I would not have disagreed with you 50 years ago when I first learned of this factoid (which you characterized as ignorance.)

        My subsequent comments could be interpreted as you suggested (after careful rereading) but were in no way intended to accuse you of lying which for both you and I are one of the deepest insults possible. For that I would beg your forgiveness because it was completely unintentional.

        I could never hold someone in as high a regard as I do you if I thought you a liar. Know this, I have no intention of flattering you, but after 15 years I have some idea of your character.

        This does not mean I don’t consider you flawed (as everyone is.) You can be a bully and often accuse others of mind reading when you do the same thing yourself.

        As a debater, if someone is ambiguous, you will use that to ‘win’ rather than to reach an understanding, but that’s just my flawed observation.

        I don’t wish to live in an unjust world and this one has never been more so. If I don’t speak up, what’s the point of my existence? You have collected an amazing group of people that I consider friends. I would miss losing that.

        If you put 1000 random people in a room, I’d have about a 98% chance of having the highest IQ, whatever that is. Which is not to emphasize intelligence, but loneliness. Your blog has helped me tremendously with the depression I suffer from.

        However I will respect your decision with no ill will.

        …as for changing. After 15 years, what do you think?

        1. My parenthetical… change: my intent is to continuously become a better person ..am I capable of it?

          Everybody has voices in their head. Mine are just more insistent.

        2. Ken, it’s really simple. Do not mischaracterize what someone writes, and then falsely claim that it’s a “quote.” I don’t care what your (or anyone else’s) IQ is, and I don’t want my comments section clogged up with long-winded explanations of why you do these things. I want you to stop doing them. If you are not capable of that, then please stop commenting here.

      1. To everyone else… sorry for making you uncomfortable. You really are an amazing group of people.

      2. KRAMDEN: A formal state of feud or vendetta, between two neighboring Houses or peoples, who, by mutual acknowledgement ought rightly to be pals.

        W. Weiner (1984) National Lampoon’s Doon, Pocket Books, New York, p 214.

Comments are closed.