There will be a vacation hiatus until 2 May as I skip in/out of town. Enjoy the break.
The CEO of America. David Ignatius writes, "Trump is now the CEO of a very public company. He should start acting like it." His opening paragraph begins, "As the White House reboots for Trump 2.0 after a largely unsuccessful first two months, one lesson should be obvious: The radical, polarizing politics of the campaign trail don’t work well in governing the country."
Indeed, the President's failure to get a health care bill onto the floor of the House was his baptism in the fires of checks and balances and bicameralism. It may prove a steep learning curve for a billionaire businessman who has never had to really answer to anyone. Democratic governance has its speed bumps and they can be very tricky for the unschooled.
Ignatius continues: "Trump’s problem is that he’s used to operating a family business, where people such as his daughter and son-in-law and a few hired guns are the only operatives he needs and trusts. He doesn’t seem to understand that he runs a public company now. His stockholders are the American people. He has disclosure requirements. He has fiduciary responsibilities."
Democratic minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (CA) says “[President Trump is] interpreting [his victory] as a personal endorsement. Members of Congress vote their district; they don’t necessarily vote their president. The powers of persuasion that worked on the campaign trail aren’t going to seal the deal in Washington.” The NY deal maker has yet to understand how Washington operates.
Columnist Dana Milbank notes that the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has his own learning curve. "This, Mr. Speaker, is what you get for embracing Donald Trump. When Paul D. Ryan, after a long Hamlet routine, decided to get behind Trump last year, he took a calculated risk that the erratic presidential candidate could become a vessel for the conservative policies the House speaker long aspired to implement. Instead, Ryan has become an enabler of Trump’s chaotic and ethically challenged governance." So goes.
Notes on reading, non-fiction. Chernow's Hamilton has reminded me to ponder the consequences of the slow communications in that long ago day. Though insufferably slow by today's standards, Hamilton, his acquaintances, admirers, and detractors had a level playing field. One's only advantage might have been a faster courier. Indeed, one wonders if slow communications and resultant actions may not have been to everyone's advantage. You were not the recipient of an instantaneous tweet, had no way to respond immediately, and consequently everyone had time to read, consider, then write your rejoinder.
Transportation, too, was slower. For example, Hamilton had a week in the saddle going to the Annapolis Convention to consider what he would say and another week on the way home to ruminate about what had happened -- to consider his best next move.
Senate filibuster. George Will laments the current state of the filibuster. The column's online headline was "The filibuster isn’t what it used to be. It’s time to bring the old way back." Ah, back to Jimmy Stewart and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," all thanks to Judge Neil Gorsuch. Calls to mind different words for the old song: "The old grey mare/She ain't what she used to be..."
Will writes: Republicans should go beyond extending to Supreme Court nominees the prohibition of filibusters concerning other judicial nominees. Senate rules should be changed to rectify a mistake made 47 years ago....on March 8, 1917 — 29 days before Congress declared war on Germany — after a filibuster prevented a vote on a momentous matter, the Armed Ship Bill, which would have authorized President Woodrow Wilson to arm American merchant ships. (He armed them anyway.)....In 1975, imposing cloture was made easier by requiring a vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate, a change the importance of which derived from what Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) did in 1970: He created the “two-track” system whereby the Senate, by unanimous consent or the consent of the minority leader, can set aside a filibustered bill and move on to other matters...As a result of today’s Senate paralysis, [US Representative, R, CA)] McClintock says, 'the atrophy of the legislative branch drives a corresponding hypertrophy of the executive branch.' ”.
Bears Ears. Legal question: Can a sitting president revoke/diminish/otherwise redefine a national monument? Today this is not a moot point.
Critics of national monuments created by President Obama — particularly the Bears Ears monument in Utah — have long argued that President Trump should revoke Obama’s orders establishing them. Meanwhile, the House Natural Resources Committee declared this month that it plans to work with the Trump administration to identify which declared monuments should be “rescinded or diminished in size.”
There are westerners, some those still active from the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion and others, who want to wrest control from Washington of as much land as possible -- primarily, but not exclusively -- in the west. Mr. Rosenbaum holds that
The Antiquities Act of 1906 empowers the president to establish national monuments to protect federal land containing 'historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest'....The Antiquities Act does not say the president may rescind such designations, but proponents of revocation argue that the president has the implied power to do so.
Since a federal law is apparently involved, any action by the Trump administration that is challenged by preservationists, traditionalists, and/or environmentalists will be ultimately headed for the Supreme Court that will, most probably, include Trump appointee, Judge Gorsuch. Who knows how the Justice's time with the 10th Circuit in the wild west of Denver may color his views.
Disarray in the Republican party. Conservative columnist Michael Gerson wrote last Friday that the Republicans' disarray could force President Trump to consort with the "enemy," i.e. the Democrats. Gerson wrote, "It can hardly surprise us. The president had no governing experience. He has no detailed governing agenda. He trashed everyone who tried to govern in the past. And we somehow expect him to overcome the complex governing task presented by the [dissident] Freedom Caucus?"
How will he treat those individuals who have opposed him? Tweet them into submission? "A presidency is failing. A party unable to govern is becoming unfit to govern. And what, in the short term, can be done about it? Nothing. Nothing at all"
Job creation -- and not. Unintended consequences. The US has more than a few valued, highly skilled workers who hold special work visas, many of whom are married, whose wives are typically highly skilled. The President's immigration plans may impair many of these workers' visas, a definite loss for their employers here.
Poor and disabled in America. In this Washington Post series, the reporters investigate the spiraling number of poor and disabled in America, especially in rural America. Given that these voters provided overwhelming support for the President, his proposed budget cuts seem ill thought out, to say the least. Links: Part one here.
Comedy Central. Can the Republic be in good health when CC even considers a weekly 1/2 hour program, parodying the President?
Here is a link for an addition to your bobble-head collection.
Thank you for reading. Please, do not "bobble on."
