Love to see this:
Over my years in the public and private sectors, I've had people tell me: If only the government could work like business.
— Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) November 15, 2022
Well, the team at @USEdgov and @USDS built a Student Loan Forgiveness portal that processed 8 MILLION applications in the first 30 hours without a crash. https://t.co/VaaoTMVycg
The Times had an article yesterday on the lawsuit against the Trump organization. As I understand it, two employees have pled guilty for fraud--not reporting as income benefits they got from company, like tuition for kids, cars, etc. But the suit is against the organization so the government must prove that their manipulations of the accounts to provide these unreported benefits were "in behalf of" the organization. Apparently it's a big issue.
With my bias against TFG it seems clear to me. It was a "win, win" deal for the two employees--they got more compensation from the company through the manipulation without doing anything more for it. What did the company gain? Presumably the employees were providing services worth their total compensation.
For example, assume the employee got $500K in taxable income, making $350K after taxes. He also got $250K in benefits under the table, the taxes on which would have been $75K So the employee nets $600 K, the company pays $750K, and the US gets $150K The US should have gotten $75K more. So it's a win, win for the two employees, a loss for the US taxpayer.
How about the company? It's simple accounting, if someone loses, someone must gain. So who gained the $75K--I say the company, assuming a free market for the employee's services. In such a market to hire the employee they'd have to pony up $825 in taxable gross salary and benefits.
I've mentioned the conservatives at Powerline blog breaking with Trump. They apparently got a lot of flak about the break from the people commenting. So they did a quick poll on whether Trump should be the candidate in 2024. The results suprised me--very strongly anti-Trump. So the Republicans are shifting away, perhaps, and definitely you can't judge the readership of a blog by its commenters.
I've read more books on the Trump administration than I should. The books usually treat some people worse than others. Jared Kushner and Ivanka do well sometimes, very poorly in other books. And so forth for other major players.
One player who seems to have been able to survive without major enemies, or at least without participating in major controversies. is Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin. The sole issue in my readings for which I remember him being criticized is his opposition to banning travel from Europe early in the pandemic.
Otherwise he seems to have operated quietly, not being criticized by Trump when everyone else was. I may have missed some criticism since I wasn't conscious of his invisibility from the beginning.
His memoir would be interesting, to see how he did it.
I'm expecting the Republicans to control the House, assuming that Kelly will win and Masto lose, and fearful Sen. Warnock will not be able to repeat his runoff victory.
I'd also predict there will be at least one senator leave Congress during 2023-4 due to health.
I'd predict the 2024 nomination will be between DeSantis and Youngkin.
A quote from John Hinderaker's post-election analysis:
"At this point, Trump is a giant anvil around the neck of the Republican Party. In many areas, likely most, he is absolute poison. To be associated with Trump is to lose. Pretty much everything he has done in the last two years has been not just ill-advised but massively destructive to the Republican Party and to the United States."
My wife, my cousin and I are all uptight about the results of today's election. Of the three of us I may be the most relaxed. As I see it, we've survived Nixon, Reagan, and Trump so far, so we can survive a possible Republican control of Congress for 2 years.
What happens in 2024? Who knows. I wouldn't bet on Biden, Harris, or Trump winning the presidency, although I would bet on the Republicans winning the Senate in 2024 (the map really really favors them--so much so Mr. Thiessen in the Post speculates that if the Republicans pick up 4 Senate seats this year, they'll have a good chance at 60 in 2024--that's disastrous).
But predictions tend to extrapolate the current situation into the future, which may not be true down the road. People will get tired of Trump, and Trump-like pols. I've already seen a post at Powerline blog, the most conservative one I follow, hoping Trum isn't the nominee in 2024.
It's all very interesting.
Kevin Drum delves into the past to get his telescope working. In this case the past is likely >30years. And the lesson is, even with IT, don't judge everything by its looks.
I remember the actual original mo-dem (modulator-demodulator). Never bought one, but used one, very briefly.
For the past 3 national elections I've been fairly optimistic: disappointed in 2016, pleased in 2018 (though I tend to forget Republican gains in the Senate; happy in 2020. My optimism in each case was based on the polls.
Recently the polls have turned against the Democrats so I'm not optimistic for Tuesday (and the days and weeks after, since it may take that long to finally resolve some races). I won't venture predictions on the results.
The Constitution has a provison for holding a new constitutional convention whose powers would be essentially unlimited (just as the original convention far exceeded its authority). A number of states over the years have called for such a convention, and there's been recent discussion of it.
Lyman Stone doesn't connect the two, but his twitter thread on the faults of the 1982 Canadian constitution provide me evidence to argue against a broadbrush revision:
Canada's 1982 constitution is a lulzy document which was passed with little serious consideration and a large number of wild drafting decisions with massive unanticipated consequences.
— Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 (@lymanstoneky) November 3, 2022
