Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

The Real DEI

As Trump and Musk continue to destroy the government agencies that monitor or prevent the illegal activities that enrich them, they’ve pursued an ancillary effort that lays bare the source of Trump’s narrow electoral win: MAGA’s war on “wokism” in general and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs in particular.

As I have previously noted, the animosity toward efforts to address social and legal discrimination are part and parcel of an unfortunate but persistent strain of American bigotry. To our shame, millions of Americans have defended slavery and Jim Crow, opposed votes for women, donned white sheets and marched with the Ku Klux Klan. Others–who were less virulent but no less bigoted–merely refrained from hiring or otherwise doing business with minority folks, and blackballed Blacks and Jews from their country clubs and other venues.

The current assaults, ironically, are evidence of the nation’s historic protection of straight White Christian males from the uncomfortable reality that they are not a superior breed. It turns out that intellect, character and ability–and absences thereof– are pretty equally distributed among all races, religions and genders.

For confirmation of that fact, we need look no farther than the collection of clowns, incompetents and sycophants Trump has installed in important positions, and compare them to the credentialed and competent “DEI hires” he ejected from those same positions. If we ever needed evidence that White skin is no guarantee of intelligence, integrity or competence, virtually all of Trump’s appointees provide that evidence.

Trump’s base undoubtedly approves of the ferocity with which the administration has pursued its assault on anti-discrimination efforts, but it turns out that Americans in general have moved on from the days when your police chief was a disciple of Sheriff James Clark and your friendly banker or dentist was a Grand Dragon of the KKK.

A recent article in the Atlantic looked at the survey research, and concluded that the extreme positions—and appointments—of the Trump administration are wildly at odds with the views of most Americans.

The extreme positions—and appointments—of the Trump administration are self-evidently at odds with Americans’ views in the main. Recently, Trump appointed Darren Beattie to a senior diplomatic position at the State Department. Beattie is notorious for making arguments such as “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.” I don’t need to look at survey data to argue that this is a fringe position.

Earlier in the article, the author did look at survey data, and shared evidence of Americans’ views on DEI efforts in general.

Given the way this administration has targeted DEI and “woke” policies, you’d be forgiven for assuming that Americans were completely on board. Yet according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted right before the election, just one-fifth of employed adults think that focusing on DEI at work is “a bad thing.” Even among workers who are Republican or lean Republican, a minority (42 percent) say that focusing on DEI is “a bad thing.” In a January poll from Harris/Axios, a majority of Americans said DEI initiatives had no impact on their career; more respondents among nearly every demographic polled (including white people, men, and Republicans) said they believed it had benefited their careers more than it had hindered them. (The sole, amusing exception being Gen X.) A June 2024 poll from The Washington Post and Ipsos found that six in 10 Americans believed DEI programs were “a good thing.” And all of this was before any backlash to Trump’s presidency had time to set in.

An early signal that the administration is overreaching comes from a Washington Post poll on early Trump-administration actions, which found that voters oppose ending DEI programs in the federal government (49–46) and banning trans people from the military (53–42). When asked about one of Trump’s signature issues, deportation, the poll showed that, by a nearly 20-point margin, Americans do not want people to be deported if they “have not broken laws in the United States except for immigration laws.” It’s hard to imagine that those same Americans approve of sending a man to Gitmo for riding his bike on the wrong side of the street, or of calling a city’s administrator for homelessness services a “DEI hire” because she’s a white woman.

If there’s one thing Trump excels at, it’s demonstrating that White Christian men are not universally superior–and that those who most resent DEI tend to be both unintelligent and dangerously inept.

Comments

Straight Talk About Government Efficiency

We can only speculate about the real motives prompting Trump/Musk to take a hatchet to the federal government. That motive is clearly not efficiency–indeed, in any logical world, it would be universally seen as insane, as would the betrayal of Ukraine, which undermines America’s global interests. (That betrayal is more than likely prompted by Trump’s continuing anger over Zelensky’s prior refusal to be blackmailed into accusing Joe Biden of invented crimes. Trump holds grudges.)

As I’ve watched Musk’s illegal DOGE wreak havoc with the federal government and put millions of Americans at risk, I revisited an article from Governing published just before that “department” began it’s slash and burn operations. The author,  who had participated in several state-level efforts to root out “fraud and waste,” noted that there are proper–and improper– ways to go about that task.

Before sharing the persuasive insights of that article, however, I want to point to a truly foundational issue–one that has become far more evident as DOGE continues its destructive path through our federal government. Most Americans reject what we now understand to be Musk’s definition of “fraud and waste.” Anyone who thinks that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” is clearly incapable of providing an evidence-based definition of either fraud or waste. (Evidently, to Musk, if a government program benefits millions of Americans–or if an agency’s operations interfere with the ability of Musk’s businesses to rip off taxpayers–that function is wasteful, if not fraudulent…)

The linked article begins by agreeing that efforts to streamline government and root out inefficiencies are always appropriate. It then points to some pesky facts about federal expenditures–facts that should guide any legitimate efforts.

Musk and Ramaswamy have promised a 30 percent cut in the federal government. Roughly 60 percent or so of federal spending, however, consists of interest payments on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare and national defense — largely (though not entirely) untouchable. The projected savings therefore purport to come mostly from wiping out everything else: cutting government regulation, eliminating large numbers of government programs and firing even larger numbers of employees.

Gutting regulation does little to reduce government spending, however, while employee compensation makes up only 4 percent of the federal budget. Firing every single federal employee would barely make a ripple. Whatever the merits of all this as policy, in reality it has little to do with efficiency.

In fact, in many ways, the proposed DOGE approach illustrates how not to pursue actual efficiency in government.

The author then suggests realistic ways to make government more efficient.

Be honest and realistic. Thirty years ago, the massive National Performance Review produced recommendations shaving nearly 7 percent off federal operations… it’s possible to reduce spending by as much as 10 percent annually — although not without severe political repercussions.

The “annually recurring” part is important. It’s easy to fake savings through accounting gimmicks and one-time asset sales. Sure, you can close a budget hole by raiding dedicated funds, postponing needed infrastructure repairs or construction, or even doing a sale-leaseback of the state capitol…  Real, meaningful “efficiency” recurs year after year. In fact, so should the search for efficiency.

It would be easy to cut government spending by 30 percent by eliminating all health and welfare spending. That may be the goal under DOGE. Unfortunately, about six months later, emergency rooms will be crammed, hospital systems will be incurring massive debts through charity care, workforce productivity will plummet, and communicable diseases will proliferate. Cutting just to cut generally costs more in the long term.

 Very little government spending consists of actual fraud and abuse, and less still by beneficiaries filing claims for, say, medical care they never received. It is mostly committed, rather, by providers seeking reimbursements for care they never delivered, or by big-dollar private contractors (particularly in defense: know anyone who fits that description?).

Sometimes, spending saves money. That may sound counterintuitive, but you wouldn’t fire your accounts receivable department, would you? Hiring more revenue collectors is good “business,” even in government.

The author noted that the best way to save money is by improving service delivery, not performative gestures like slashing huge programs. Cutting inefficiency doesn’t require attacking the people who carry out the processes — it requires streamlining the processes themselves.

And rather than firing staff, if we really wanted to find ways to eliminate waste and inefficiency, we would ask the people who work for government–because those are the folks who actually know. “That’s how leaders, public or private, proceed if they’re serious about making their operations work better.”

But of course, making government work better is the farthest thing from Trump/Musk’s mind. They just want it to work better for them.

Comments

The Evidence Mounts

Remember The Manchurian Candidate? The story centers on a Korean War veteran who is part of a prominent political family. He’s brainwashed by communists after his Army platoon is captured, and when he returns home, he becomes an unwitting assassin in an international communist conspiracy. 

I’m beginning to see uncomfortable parallels with that fictional plot.

I’m loathe to give credence to the longstanding assertion that Trump is a knowing Russian asset–after all, it’s improbable that this pathetic bundle of ego and ignorance is a “knowing” anything. A recent article from the Kviv Independent does make that case, however, the author writing

Questions about U.S. President Donald Trump’s possibly shady relationship with Russia and the country’s security services have long swirled, even culminating in a special counsel investigation during his first term in office.

Though that investigation found evidence of “extensive criminal activity” by Trump, his associates, and some of his family members, it found no evidence that he was working for, or had ever been recruited by, Russia’s security services.

Yet despite this, the topic refuses to go away — most recently in a viral Facebook post from a former Kazakh security official that claimed Trump was recruited by the Soviet Union’s spy agency, the KGB, in 1987 and given the code name “Krasnov.”

Craig Unger, an American journalist and writer who has written two books on Trump’s connections to Russia’s security services and the Russian mafia stretching all the way back to the 1980s, says he is “absolutely certain” that the U.S. president is a Russian asset.

You can click through and read Unger’s arguments, but just as the central figure in the Manchurian Candidate was unaware of his brainwashing, I think it unlikely that Trump is consciously pursuing his pro-Russian, pro-Putin, anti-American rampage.

That, of course, doesn’t make his actions any less destructive. And it does raise a question about the operatives he is installing in various agencies of the federal government. Among the clowns, predators and preening incompetents, there are clearly some who are knowingly–and purposely– acting as Russian agents. Talking Points Memo recently reported on one of them.

Before Peter Marocco was selected to dismantle America’s entire foreign aid sector on behalf of President Donald Trump, he was an official with the State Department on a diplomatic mission.

During Trump’s first term, Marocco was a Trump appointee tasked with promoting stability in areas with armed conflict. In 2018, he made a two-week trip to the Balkans in what was advertised as an effort to counter extremism and strengthen inter-religious dialogue.

American diplomacy is carefully prescribed, identifying both the people officials should meet and those they should avoid.  On that 2018 visit to the Balkans, Marocco secretly met with officials, including Milorad Dodik, whom the American government had determined were off-limits: Bosnian Serb separatist leaders who had been working for years to undermine the American-backed peace deal and to promote a Christian Bosnian Serb state….

At the time, Dodik was under U.S. sanctions for actively obstructing American efforts to prevent more bloodshed. Dodik has since described himself as “pro-Russian, anti-Western and anti-American” in a meeting with Putin. Nevertheless, Trump has named Marocco to a senior post at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where he’s attempted to halt dozens of programs. Former colleagues describe his agenda as “overtly militaristic and Christian nationalist.” 

Trump has made Marocco the director for foreign assistance at the State Department, and deputy administrator of USAID —  the two agencies that previously rejected him. “And unlike last time, Marocco is now without strictures and answers to few in the executive branch besides Trump himself.”

Immediately after the inauguration last month, Marocco drafted the order shutting down all of USAID’s programs and freezing foreign aid. He’s led the efforts to place nearly all of the agency’s staff on administrative leave, though the courts have temporarily lifted many of those. Much of USAID’s work has not resumed, according to interviews with dozens of government employees and nongovernmental organizations, despite the State Department’s claim that waivers allow work involving “core lifesaving medicine, medical services, food, shelter and substance assistance” to continue.

The article has much more detail about Marocco’s past activities–all of which raise the question why he has been empowered to orchestrate the Trump administration’s foreign aid policy.

TPM also reports that Rubio and Marocco have now

completely ended nearly 10,000 aid programs — including those they had granted waivers just days earlier — saying the programs did not align with Trump’s agenda. The move consigns untold numbers of the world’s poorest children, refugees and other vulnerable people to death, according to several senior federal officials. Local authorities have already begun estimating a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

It hardly matters whether Trump is a knowing Russian asset….

Comments

Follow The Grift

Not that it should surprise anyone, but the corruption of our Grifter-in-Chief has become too flagrant and apparent to hide. As Trump has decimated the Justice department and fired the various officials whose job it has been to ensure government ethics, his administration is coming to look a lot like that of his idol Putin.

Want examples?

Here’s a recent report from CNN Business:

A businessman who pumped $75 million into the Trump family-backed crypto token finds himself in a fortunate position this week as federal securities regulators are hitting pause on their civil fraud case against him.

On Wednesday, lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justin Sun, a 34-year-old Chinese crypto entrepreneur, asked a federal judge to put the agency’s case on hold, citing the interests of both sides and “the public’s interest.”

The pause is a 180 for the SEC, America’s top financial regulator, which two years ago charged Sun and his companies — Tron, BitTorrent and Rainberry — with selling unregistered securities and fraudulently manipulating the price of digital token Tronix. Sun and his companies sought to have the case dismissed.

This particular grift revolves around the issuance of so-called “meme” coins–crypto tokens. Buyers with sufficient means are invited to bribe Trump by purchasing large amounts of them. To the best of my knowledge–and I’ve looked– there is no accounting, no agency or government individual keeping track of those purchases. 

The media, however, has begun to investigate; Rolling Stone recently ran an article titled “HERE’S EVERYTHING WRONG WITH TRUMP’S CRYPTO MEME COINS” with a subhead reading “The Trump family’s new crypto meme coins are an ethical disaster and ripe for corruption — and they could cost his supporters dearly.”

While campaigning, Trump promised to make the United States the “crypto capital of the planet” after crypto bros poured over $130 million to elect a crypto-captive administration and Congress. Trump has tapped pro-crypto acolytes for regulatory posts across the federal government and released pro-crypto executive orders to establish a White House crypto working group and prioritize crypto across government. To top it off, the huckster-in-chief launched his $TRUMP meme coin: one part a vehicle for personal profit, one part a playground taunt over federal ethics rules, and one part a crypto-fascist pledge of allegiance. It’s a move that could not only rip off Trump supporters but also significantly corrode the democratic process.

The article goes on to explain just what a “meme coin” is: 

a crypto token based on little more than an online image, slogan, or passing social trend. The crypto industry argues it is a sort of digital collectible. The fine print on the $TRUMP coin website notes that the coins “are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type.”

These coins have no practical use, unlike other crypto assets, which do have such uses (mostly laundering drug money or tax evasion). Most end up being worthless; a number are sold by “investors” hyping their value just long enough to allow insiders to cash out. Interestingly, the $TRUMP fine print requires its buyers to give up their rights to sue.

As the article notes, the Trump venture “presents a mind-boggling number of potential conflicts of interest” and appears designed to prey upon rather than protect naive Americans.  Or–as emerging evidence like the dismissal of the SEC suit suggests–to provide a perfect mechanism for bribery.

Lawmakers (okay, Democratic lawmakers) are beginning to catch on; one Democratic Senator has promised to introduce a measure that would make this particular grift illegal. As ABC recently reported,

Since launching a little over a month ago, the $TRUMP coin has tanked in value after early investors dumped the cryptocurrency. Members of Congress have noticed as hundreds of thousands of investors have taken hard hits and billions in value have quickly vanished.

California freshman Democrat Rep. Sam Liccardo told ABC News on Thursday he will introduce legislation to prohibit the country’s top officials and their families — from Congress to the White House — from capitalizing on personal meme coins.

I don’t think ABC is quite correct in saying that the coin has no value. That is undoubtedly true for the MAGA cult suckers who purchase it, but it clearly has considerable value for “businessmen” who want government to drop lawsuits and/or investigations, or who seek fat contracts or other preferential treatment. (Reports are that a number of lawsuits are being dropped.)

Trump has learned a lot from his idol Putin about how to keep the oligarchs loyal…..

Comments

What Could Go Wrong?

It really isn’t possible to keep track of the lawsuits being filed against the blizzard of Trump/Musk assaults on government and the rule of law. Suits have been filed by state Attorneys General, unions representing government workers, and a wide range of non-profit organizations challenging indiscriminate and uninformed “slash and burn” tactics.

It remains to be seen whether this lawless administration will comply with court rulings–and how far the rogue and corrupt members of the Supreme Court majority will go to accommodate Trump.

In the midst of all this is a lawsuit filed by Public Citizen, representing the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) demanding “an immediate halt to the massive and patently illegal invasion of privacy being carried out by Elon Musk’s “DOGE” at the U.S. Treasury Department.”

The organization has described he basics of the lawsuit. 

The Treasury Department possesses sensitive personal and financial information for millions and millions of Americans who send money to or receive money from the federal government.

Federal laws protect such information from improper disclosure and misuse — including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it.

But instead of protecting Americans’ private information as required by law, Scott Bessent — Trump’s jillionaire Treasury Secretary — allowed DOGE full access to the data.And he punished the Treasury employee who — in accordance with his job duties and the law — tried to protect that information from improper access.

The lawsuit charges that “the scale of this intrusion into individuals’ privacy is massive and unprecedented.”

The complaint cites the legal framework for access to this information–the laws established by Congress to protect the information–and the fact that DOGE has ignored that framework and those laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974 and several IRS statutes.

A similar suit has been filed by attorneys general of 19 states who asked for–and received– an emergency temporary restraining order blocking Elon Musk and DOGE team from accessing Treasury payment systems. That suit alleged that allowing DOGE to view information maintained by Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit noted that the payment files in question contain “sensitive personally identifiable information,” or PII, like bank account numbers, as well as “Federal Tax Information (FTI)” protected from unlawful disclosure under Code Sec. 6103 and “Automated Clearing House (ACH) data.”

During Trump’s first term, Americans were spared the effects of several potentially disastrous measures by the overwhelming incompetence of Trump’s cabinet, which was composed of cronies who had no idea how government worked and routinely ignored the legal processes necessary to accomplish their goals. (And those inept cronies look like geniuses compared to the collection of predators, toadies, nutcases and ignoramuses of Trump II.) 

During his first term, Trump largely obeyed the various adverse court rulings triggered by that ignorance. This time, there are sobering indications that our mad rulers–having neutered Congress– will also ignore the courts, eviscerating the Separation of Powers which is foundational to the nation’s legal system.

Currently, courts have issued decisions blocking DOGE from access to the sensitive, private information contained in Treasury’s files; the extent of DOGE’s compliance is, however, unclear.

 I shudder to think what a group of self-important 19-to-24-year-olds might do with the bank account information of millions of American citizens, let alone the other personal financial information in those files. But even if those IT interns are more trustworthy than they appear, respect for individual privacy is an important social good.

As one essayist has noted, 

In an era where digital footprints are ubiquitous and personal data is often treated as a commodity, the concept of privacy has never been more critical. Despite common arguments that dismiss privacy concerns with the assertion, “I have nothing to hide,” the importance of privacy extends far beyond concealing wrongdoing.

Respect for individual privacy is an essential element in keeping personal information from being misused. The more information that is available about an individual, the easier it is to exploit it via identity theft, phishing attacks, and other forms of cybercrime. 

The last paragraph of that linked essay is particularly applicable to the threat posed by Trump/Musk:

Accepting the “nothing to hide” argument can lead to the normalization of surveillance, resulting in a society where constant monitoring is the norm. This shift can erode the checks and balances that prevent abuses of power. In such a society, the line between public and private blurs, and the potential for governmental or corporate overreach grows, threatening the liberties of everyone, regardless of their behavior.

No kidding….

Comments