Part II – Why President Trump Has Not Received Legislative Action From Congress – and What Can Be Done…

In Part I we explained why President Trump has not received any legislation:

To Wit: President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. The modern legislative machine is frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump are not within the legislative constructs coming from the authors of the legislation.   Congress has no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written are not in line with President Trump policy.

That’s why congress has not passed any legislation for President Trump to sign.

There’s no entity within DC writing legislation that is in-line with President Trump’s economic and foreign policy agenda.  Exactly the opposite is true.  All of the DC pipeline legislative briefs and constructs are antithetical to Trump policy.

There are almost zero organizational entities within K-Street presenting any legislative constructs or legislative briefs intended to advance any of Trump’s policy objectives.

Think about how much money is behind the legislative business when those who control the legislation are willing to spend $3.1 BILLION in a single year to achieve their needs.

♦The “Associated American Southern Border Wall and Security Builders” – special interest and lobbying group – simply doesn’t exist. Nor are there any entities creating legal briefs (bills) to facilitate the southern border wall construction.

♦There is no “Associated Illegal Immigrant and Deportation Enforcement” group lobbying for the removal of undocumented illegal aliens; or writing legislation to fast-track deportation of illegal aliens.

♦There’s also no official corporate political action committee or group office on K-Street creating legislation to repeal ObamaCare, or lobby for the removal of government interventionism into the healthcare system.  etc.

The DC legislative pipeline is devoid of any bill, brief or construct for any of the platform priorities of the Trump administration.   Quite the opposite is true.  Almost all of the K-Street institutions -which create the legislative priorities- are capable of producing a product that flows in one direction.

This reality is the epicenter of the UniParty problem.

Voters can demand change and switch the House of Representatives from Democrat to Republican control, but politicians don’t actually write legislation.  The legislative product coming through the system remains the same regardless of which party is in control of the House of Representatives.

Voters can go further and change out the Senate from Democrat to Republican control; but again, you find little difference because the legislative product hasn’t changed.  K-Street may (usually they don’t) modify the special interest ingredients a little – but the progressive sausage is still a progressive sausage; it’s not a hamburger.

Voters go one step further and change the Executive Branch away from progressive control.  However, there again, the legislative product has not changed.  The DC system is creating the same ideological product regardless of the dynamic of party affiliated politics.

The problem in 2017 is systemic because there’s no counter-balancing legislative or lobbying enterprise within the epicenter of the DC Swamp, K-Street.  There’s virtually no alternative legislative product being generated which would coincide with the change in representative political ideology.

This UniParty system is why Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell voted to fund and approve every one of President Obama’s priorities.  Omnibus, Bailouts, Porkulous, DACA, Healthcare Exhanges, Stimulus etc. are the only game in town with support – there simply are no alternatives being pushed by interest groups.

Yes, there are a few modestly sized groups like Heritage Foundation who can generate alternate legislative products and some advertizing. But for every one of them there’s a hundred going in the other direction.

When you think about it, it simply makes sense.  It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would there be an organizational entity inside the system whose primary purpose would be to spend money in order to generate less spending or smaller government?  They would essentially be advocating against their own interests.

Remember the grand fiasco that was the 2013/2014 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill (Gang-of-Eight)?

That Go8 bill was an outcome of the same lobbying process, same K-Street legislative construct etc.  The controversial bill was not majority supported outside the beltway.  Despite the electorate lack of support it passed the Senate and Speaker Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy were only two days from a vote in the House when Cantor was primaried.

When ObamaCare was passed on December 23rd at 1:38am a full 70% of the country when polled did not support it.  But the DC lobbying and legislative system created it and found a way to get it passed.

Jump to 2017 – President Trump takes over the White House in January, and there’s really no Pro-Trump legislative product from congress because there’s no Pro-Trump legislative construct coming from the people who write legislation, K-Street.

Instead, crickets.

The only special interest group that President Trump advocating for him are the voters.

The DC swamp (writ large) is a singular organism with multiple visible components that seem disconnected; but in direction or pathway they are not dissimilar.  Under the visible surface the UniParty roots are all intertwined and connected around principles of self-sustaining common interest.  Their commonality lies in growth of government.

President Trump’s fiscal and economic policies are adverse to those UniParty interests.  President Trump’s first full-year budget proposal was a trillion dollar reduction in spending.  As a consequence the combined weight of all visible DC interests immediately aligned toward diminishment of the proposal.

Within the DC Swamp the flow of legislative interest travels in only one direction.  Albeit there are multiple organizations able to construct legislation for sale; the direction of the product they are producing is going in one progressive direction.

There are no K-Street lobbyists demanding smaller/lesser government.  There are no lobbyists walking in to House and Senate offices and asking for representatives to spend less money.  The only people doing that are voters.   How do reps generally deal with those annoyances?  They turn off the phone, disconnect the fax machine and ignore the emails.

Accepting the reality of who controls legislative constructs also helps to understand why those same entities will not allow prior legislative accomplishments to be undone.  Modern K-Street considers prior legislation ‘paid-for investments‘, they will not allow removal.

Retention priorities:

♦Retention of ObamaCare. ♦Deep Federal Spending. ♦NO border wall. ♦Open-ended immigration until congress delivers comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. ♦Tax Cuts (corporate revenue enhancements) are permitted.

They did however suffer defeats on legislation that had not yet passed, but were prepped for Hillary Clinton, like: Trans-Pacific-Trade (TPP) and Common Core federalization of education.

So the next obvious question is: what can be done about it?

The only viable solution, under the current system in place, is for the Trump Administration to generate their own legislative product to deliver to congress for passage.  It sounds weird, but essentially that appears to be what is taking place right now with the White House staffing up with their own groups of bill authors, constructionists and administration lobbyists.

President Trump’s team will create the legislative product, and hopefully the republican controlled house and senate will pass it.

However, even this process also runs head first into the positions of the UniParty.

Example: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross sends the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation a statutorily required “letter of intent” to renegotiate NAFTA (North American Free Trade Association) mid-March, and the Republican Committee Chairman John Thune doesn’t accept it. (Today is 4/28/17).

Now what?  The GOP wing of the UniParty is beholden to lobbying interests (U.S. CoC) who are adverse to NAFTA renegotiation.   See who is on the committee HERE.

This example is not even a legislative product that needs a vote.  This example is simply a statutorily required notification that requires being accepted.  What do you think would be the outcome if Senator McConnell was given a legislative product containing similar pre-paid lobbying conflicts for his membership?

This reality also helps to explain the frustration from the White House when they do have a legislative product that moves the needle (ie. healthcare), road-mapped primarily by HHS Secretary Tom Price, and yet the House of Reps can’t even bring it to a vote.

The Freedom Caucus can wax philosophically about the Price/Ryan bill not being a full repeal; and they can argue accurately about the bill having flaws remaining from the influence of the ObamaCare lobbyists, but what is the actual alternative?  Nothing.

Nothing is not an option.

The White House paying for their own staff to hire outside people to write legislation because congress doesn’t have an ideological enterprise to create their own is what has lead to this ridiculous situation we are in right now.

This DC quagmire might improve over time as new enterprises (legislation builders) move into DC to do work with a more favorable ideological outlook in-line with the new administration.  But in the interim nothing is getting done, the simple tasks of budgets are at loggerheads, and time is wasting.

Fortunately for congress, right now foreign policy is taking up a lot of intellectual and administrative energy.  The current domestic economic policy outcomes are being driven by the executive office alone without congress having to do any work.

However, understandably, President Trump is not going to sit and wait for congress to evolve in their ability to turn away from existing lobbyists hanging around to defend their interests.  Sooner or later President Trump is going to do something dramatic to break the impasse within the broken legislative system.

Considering that Trump is not a politician, that “something” could get rather ugly.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Illegal Aliens, Legislation, media bias, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

554 Responses to Part II – Why President Trump Has Not Received Legislative Action From Congress – and What Can Be Done…

  1. ivehadit says:

    And one thing I know for sure as Sundance told us, President Trump is LAYING THEM BARE, NAKED for all to see… for EVERYONE is getting a full blown view of the TRUE obstructionists a.k.a. Chamber globalists! People are finally catching on…and as Sundance also said, Trump has a long, long fuse! …Kaboom!

    GO DONALD! WE ARE WITH YOU! ALL THE WAY!

    Liked by 9 people

  2. rsmith1776 says:

    A hilarious article about Schumer’s first 117 days as a minority Senate leader and his “accomplishments”:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/28/the_first_117_days_of_chuck_schumer_133733.html

    Liked by 3 people

  3. positron1352 says:

    Lest you get a big head, I still must say….. Sundance, you are brilliant.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Bendix says:

    On the bright side, I’ve been in touch with more and more people who are on to the Globalists.
    The Faux Left still has a lot of people believing “race” is the central issue of our time, and filter everything through that lens. I still see a lot of fools who see everything in terms of Democrats versus Republicans, men versus women, or conservatives versus whatever gender thing someone wants to make up.
    I see pseudo-liberal celebrity women blaming college educated women for not supporting Hillary, when we were told it was Trump who had the women problem, and college educated Americans weren’t going to vote for him.
    We are in this together. Urban/suburban, liberal/conservative, male/female, those are phony divisions.
    United we stand.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. auscitizenmom says:

    I want to see that “ugly” happening. 😡

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Alison says:

    RICO, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, tax evasion – most ‘cartels’ are taken down by financial misdeeds.

    Surely President Trump & AG Sessions will scour connections between COC, Tom Donahue, K Street & Congress for collusion & corruption. They are no different than mobsters or union thugs.

    Somewhere, somehow Tom Donahue must be taken down.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Howie says:

      I doubt Sessions is long for the job. The president is going to need a good prosecutor that does not recuse himself at the drop of a hat and can take it to the crooks. JMO. I will be surprised if he stays until January. Who knows. He needs a killer AG. Sessions is not one and has too much baggage. Not too great of an idea to appoint a long time Senator as AG IMO.

      Liked by 3 people

      • StrandedinCA says:

        I want to preface this by saying that I believe Sessions to be a most honorable man – a gentleman if you will. He has all the knowledge required to make a great AG. Unfortunately Howie I have to agree with you – while he has the knowledge, he doesn’t have the killer instinct required to deal with this group of snakes. I think our President needs someone more used to “rolling in the mud” and coming out on top in a cut-throat battle. I think either Rudy or Chris Christie fit that bill, but they may have their own issues as well. We’ll see how this evolves . . . . .

        Like

        • mimbler says:

          I’d offer a different opinion here. I think Sessions is an iron-willed straight shooter, with southern old-fashioned manners. I suspect he will hire the right attorneys with killer instincts when he is able.

          Already we see him making “no equivocation” statements that the law will be applied and if people don’t like it, then change the law.

          I believe, in addition to Trump; Sessions’ matter of fact declarations to apply existing law to illegals has aided in the tremendous reduction of illegals entering the country.

          I’m hoping that shortly he will state that he will apply existing law against employer’s of illegals. That would have more effect than the wall,
          Mike

          Liked by 5 people

          • StrandedinCA says:

            I don’t disagree Mike. I think he’s been a straight-shooter on the wall and immigration. But when the Senate & House come against him (and they will to protect their campaign contributions from the COC, et al) I’m afraid he will fall into the trap of believing that they are his colleagues and friends. We all know that Trump and his staff have no “friends” in D.C. I hope Mr. Sessions is ready for any and all who come against him.

            Liked by 1 person

        • 2x4x8 says:

          correct

          same goes for Betsy DeVos

          last summer, Obama’s “transgender school bathroom policy” was rolled out in a “joint letter by the Department of Education and Justice”

          http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama-administration/

          Berkeley has a riot when Milo spoke, police were told to stand down, no investigation, Ann Coulter’s speech was cancelled because of violence, oh, well

          where the F is the “Department of Education and Justice” ? smoking a “joint”?
          “fall in line or face loss of federal funding”

          why is Ann Coulter suing and not “southern gentleman” Jef ?
          discrimination? first amendment?

          read it and weep

          Like

        • TPW says:

          Agree……..being from Alabama…..Sessions had to be schooled by the Tea Party here on the immigration issues……..I think he has been kept in the dark by the GOPe like many other representatives in DC. They have no idea the games going on behind the curtains or the extent of the corruption within their own party. Bradly Burne our representative in the House is another dumb bunny. Sessions in my opinion is not a cut throat and unfortunately that is what is needed. Even if Trump has his own lobbyist and bill writers what capital does he use to gain supporters for his legislation? He will have to make an offer they can’t refuse …………

          Like

      • I could rip you a new one and as long as I say it with a southern drawl and say “bless your heart.” You’d think I gave you an award. NEVER underestimate a southerner’s backbone. Sessions wants America to be great again and I believe he will do what is necessary to make it so.

        Liked by 7 people

      • M. Mueller says:

        I was hoping to see former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova as one of the prosecutors in the DOJ. I’ve seen him on Judicial Watch and he is smart and passionate. At the very least, Sessions needs lots of good help in that department – and the “leftover” help removed, like right now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • LEET says:

        Jeff Sessions was the first senator to openly endorse Trump. Sessions has been a lone voice in Congress for decades as to the enormous
        damage of unfettered immigration and he is the ONLY senator that I know of who read that excrement sandwhich known as the TPP trade agreement and sounded the warning bells that it was worse than anyone could imagine. Trump picked Sessions for a reason and I am sure the decision to recuse himself was not made in a vacuum. Not sure what you expect for him to have done already but I think Sessions is worth his weight in gold and a keeper. Trump needs as many loyal allies as he can get around him in that cesspool know as Washington, D.C.

        Liked by 4 people

      • G. Combs says:

        Sessions recuse himself (with lots of walls around it) to get through confirmation. It was a smart move.

        From Wiki (paraphrased)
        Sessions was nominated in 1986 to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, but his nomination failed due to criticism of his record on civil rights. After that, the recusal certainly makes more sense.

        Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama for over a decade and a U.S. Senate for two decades. Sessions is a gentleman, but that does NOT mean he is incapable of fighting or that he is NOT well acquainted with the Swamp.

        After decades in industry I now I can work with and be friendly with the people at work and still view their ethics and dishonesty with contempt. I do not see Sessions being any different.

        Also even if Sessions recused himself, it does not mean he can’t appoint Rudy or Christy or another honest attorney as a special prosecutor. Actually that may have been the long term plan along. It allows the person appointed to concentrate soley on that one matter.

        A special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate and possibly prosecute a specific legal case of potential wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. — Wiki

        Liked by 1 person

      • shadowcole says:

        I think people make the same mistake about Wilburine. Jeff is a sleeper too. Being nice in public doesn’t mean he’s not a wolverine in a job like AG. He’s been in DC long enough to know what is going on and who is dirty. I don’t think of him as being naive.

        Like

    • mcclainra says:

      Totally agree Alison, re: Donahue, but lots more too. I still have very, very bad vibes about HR, and even more after seeing this today, although maybe this isn’t place to post this:

      http://raymondibrahim.com/2017/03/16/evidence-mcmaster-shares-obamas-views-islam-terror/

      Like

  7. Alison says:

    Re NAFTA – President Trump should invite John Thune to a cozy dinner with Secretary Ross. Then staple the NAFTA notice to Thune’s forehead.

    Liked by 10 people

  8. gfgustav says:

    Good piece, which nicely restates what a number of others have pointed out. What would be even more interesting (and novel) would be a Part 3: SD’s take on the top three scenarios for “ugly” in descending order of probability. SD, you’re sharp, experienced, and to some extent, resigned and cynical. (Who could watch this crap for a few decades and not be?) But if you were going to write three unfolding screenplays for this House of Cards, I’d be fascinated to know what they would be, at least in outline, and preferably in some detail. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      President Trump doesn’t detail his plan in advance:)

      Like

      • gfgustav says:

        Exactly. Which is why I’d like Sundance’s insights on what is truly and realistically possible at the “ugly” end of the spectrum. (Laying out the most probable possible scenarios is extremely challenging … most can’t do it and few people even attempt it.)

        I think that like all good CEOs, and like Renaldus Maximus, PDJT adheres to a set of high-level, fundamental principles (the “Destination.”)

        Like the competent captain of a sailing ship, he can’t sail directly into the wind. And he can’t foresee every sudden shift in the wind or unpredictable current. So he adjusts constantly to changing winds, waves, and currents, to keep the ship moving ever closer to the destination.

        He succeeds precisely because of that flexibility, coupled with an intransigent set of values such that the fundamental destination (MAGA) never changes.

        This is why I refuse to do any hand-wringing with regard to PDJT. He’s got the helm. Near as I can tell, he’s doing a masterful job. Just as he has done for decades in business, he knows where he’s going and he will adjust as needed, which precisely why he WILL succeed. If he can’t make headway in one direction, he will shift to a new tac, often, no doubt, to the surprise of his detractors.

        He’s a pretty amazing guy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • G. Combs says:

        Correct.

        Never give the enemy advanced warning.

        Like

  9. Brant says:

    Besides the travesty of the 17th amendment, remember that the original congressional number was 1 per 30,000 citizens at roughly 300,000,000 in the country now, that would be 10,000 and representatives much “closer” to constituents. The current apportionment has nearly 700,000 citizens per rep. All of Alaska, Montana and Wyoming have 1 representative each. Again, 435 reps much easier to pay off and control than 10,000 that takes an auditorium to house them. Also probably much easier to “talk” to the representatives….also maybe more chance to have multi parties and not a uniparty.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. David R. Graham says:

    Is there any parallel here between President Kennedy breaking Roger Blough and President Trump breaking, say, Tom Donohue … or George Soros?

    Like

  11. tax2much says:

    “Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one third the money twenty years ago.”

    Will Rogers

    Liked by 5 people

  12. LibertyVibe says:

    Sundance suggests “It might get ugly”. Any ideas what Trump might have in mind?

    Like

    • trialbytruth says:

      One thing Trump hasn’t done yet is a fire side chat with the American people I suggest that will be the first step once legislation is drawn. A request to all Americans to demand the swamp critters start acting in Americans interest instead of their own.

      A couple of committees start stonewalling and votes are delayed, and then start calling those out by name who are up for reelection. Something subtle like I would rather have a Democrat that can be reasoned with then a puppet of ——– (fill in the blank) GOPe will hate him the voters will respond that much more.

      We here at the Tree House are only a small slice of the electorate. For the sake of discussion lets say we are “Constitutional pragmatic conservatives”. Forget the rabid followers of the left and the Litmus test conservatives of the right. Consider classic liberals,free thinkers, pragmatic democrats, meat and potato voters of both parties.

      All of these groups can be reasoned with. All of these groups are disgusted with the status quo.

      One thing we share with all of these groups is a desire for fairness. It is not fair or just for a powerful few to control and ravage the many. Our Potus delivered this message clearly to us. In a presidential Address to the nation he will be unfiltered and he will deliver that message to the broadcast network audience. An audience who if you think about it, never got a clear look at our Potus.

      Get the popcorn ready. I think about 6 months from now the Fireworks start going off.

      Liked by 4 people

  13. Carolina Kat says:

    Sundance, we are long overdue for ugly.

    Like

    • 2x4x8 says:

      i thought it was “ugly” when i previously complained that the ObamaCare repeal/replace was written by the CoC, and called it ObamaCare 2.0, SD said it was nearly all Rep Tom Price’s bill, and SD was for it, which in article “Legislation Action Part 1 and 2 explains is not possible

      and by the way the revised ObamaCare 3.0 does not seek repeal

      Liked by 1 person

  14. jefcool64 says:

    Whatever Trump is planning, I’m behind him a hundred percent. Both parties can’t be trusted as they are two sides of the same coin.

    If there was only a way to sever the links between the politicians and their lobbyists. People need to stop looking at the D’s and R’s and look at those links. Those are the real policy makers.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Brant says:

      As Howie said, with technology, no need to even go to Washington. That would sever the link.

      Liked by 2 people

      • MaineCoon says:

        And no private servers. With all emails exposed to random unknown keyword searches to determine what domestic & foreign influences are buying off the representatvies.

        Let’s start monitoring them. Let’s do to them what they do to us.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Neural says:

    Look, I know we the people elected President Trump, but do we the people really control the government at all, or is it all just a facade?

    Like

  16. daughnworks247 says:

    “If Heritage pushes Jim DeMint out, it was because a few board members, who are close to the Republican establishment….”
    More Uniparty.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/demint-set-to-be-ousted-from-heritage-foundation-237754

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Donna in Oregon says:

    Chairman @SenJohnThune
    @SenateCommerce

    Maybe just send a Tweet.

    Like

  18. Donna in Oregon says:

    What about contacting the US Chamber of Commerce Regional Offices and complaining non-stop?
    They list regional offices. Protest them? Not sure how this works…..
    https://www.uschamber.com/regional-offices-us-chamber-commerce

    Like

  19. Bill says:

    This is why President Trump won’t seek re election in my opinion. The swamp has the consistency of molasses and simple will not drain. The good intentioned patriotic man that he is simply cannot fight (change) the way DV operates.

    Like

  20. Iconoclast says:

    I have always believed that term limits for Congress would reduce the power of K street. After watching 40 years of men and women going to Washington DC intending to represent their constituents and inexorably turning into DC denizens who only represent their unending re-election campaigns I have just had it.

    Of course, the only way to amend the Constitution for this would be a Convention of the States, since Congress would never pass a term limits bill. Maybe the fear of a runaway Convention would induce Congress to do the right thing but I really doubt it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 2x4x8 says:

      groups get taken over and bought out thats why the Tea Party was so successful, there was no single organization

      Like

    • Those folks calling for a term limit amendment simply want to hand over THEIR (and our) responsibility to legislators….i.e. pass the law and it will happen! Sure.

      If Congress now makes a mockery of the Constitution, how would term limits change that? Ways will be found around it.

      We already have term limits called “elections” and yet we expect “someone else” to get into the political trenches to get the incumbents out.

      DT cannot perform miracles, but his election sure gives us 3-1/2 more years to do our part.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Katherine McCoun says:

        I agree with this! With term limits how will we hold them accountable for actions in their last term? Senators in their last term will have 6 yrs in office with little accountability unless they want to run for another office after their time as a Senator. Same with the last 2 yr term of a Congressman. I want them to run again as I want them to want their constituents to be happy!

        Like

    • G. Combs says:

      “….Of course, the only way to amend the Constitution for this would be a Convention of the States….”

      SHEESH,
      Would you please READ the Constitution? All you need is an AMENDMENT.

      A CONVENTION OF THE STATES IS A TRAP!
      It allows the Progressives and RINOs in the state legislatures to write a BRAND NEW constitution!!
      NO 2nd Amendment gun rights
      No free speech
      No right of Assembly…

      See what a Constitutional scholar says:
      Convention of States project

      Publius Huldah The Dangers of “Convention of States” (COS) or Article V Convention – YouTube

      Liked by 3 people

  21. jstanley01 says:

    Plus Congress passed how many budgets during the eight Obama years? One?

    The whole dang thing has been put on autopilot, while the National Debt has been doubling every eight years since Clinton left office just to keep the system treading water. Clinton left $5 trillion, Dubya left $10 trillion, Obama left $19 trillion. And considering the unfunded mandates coming due in the next decade, doubling to $40 trillion may not be enough to stay above the surface.

    I wonder if we haven’t passed the event horizon, beyond which the Laffer Curve cannot make up the difference between exponentially-growing government spending and arithmetically-growing private production, and default becomes inevitable.

    The conservatives don’t even bring up the subject of cutting spending anymore. But they do bring up the subject of giving the Federal government new taxing authority; Ryan via his BAT tax disguised as a solution for trade, and Cruz via his VAT tax disguised as a Flat Tax.

    I pray for President Trump and for our country every day.

    Like

  22. janc1955 says:

    Geez Louise, am I getting an education!

    Like

  23. USMCLt says:

    The President is keeping Koskinen around…for what purpose? Perhaps the weapons of the IRS are about to be redirected toward K Street in general and the Chamber of Commerce in particular. Now that could be fun!!!

    Like

  24. Trevor Dupuy says:

    Trump won the election with a populist message promising to drain the swamp, reduce government (size, regulation, taxes) and stimulate job creation in the marketplace. He can leverage his populist message by going to the States to help make it happen.
    Trump should encourage the States to interpose against all federal government laws and actions that are not expressly delegated by the Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment. Since the States created the Constitution and since The Constitution does not delegate any branch of the federal government with the power to be final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, the States, as the creators are obligated, respectively, to enforce what they created. This was one of the overarching purposes of The Bill of Rights as explained in its Preamble and clearly made actionable by the Tenth Amendment.
    By championing “States Rights” Trump would also put a spot light on such unconstitutional federal agencies as Education, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, EPA, etc. The savings resulting from elimination of these unconstitutional agencies could be block granted back to the States. The States could then demand that federal taxes be reduced by the resulting amount of net savings, thereby retaining significant revenue sources within the States. The States, not having the luxury of deficit spending, would have to compete with each other to find the most cost effective use of these funds to attract and retain businesses and workers.
    The founders established a decentralized federal republic because they understood it is the most efficient way to prevent the centralization of government power that leads to inefficient “one size fits all” laws and ultimately tyranny. This would also throw a huge wrench in the lobby industry machinery and facilitate draining the swamp.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. webb4brevard says:

    This article is SO accurate.
    My own experience lobbying is that legislative staff is full of intern lightweights that just respond to what high-paid lawyer/lobbyists tell them to do.
    They frequently don’t comprehend the ramifications of what they endorse. Legislators are left in the dark, doing fundraising and shaking hands.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s