The Guiding Factor In Trump Administration Is Incompetence

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

From the New York Times column of Paul Krugman:

We’re just over a week into the Trump-Putin regime, and it’s already getting hard to keep track of the disasters. Remember the president’s temper tantrum over his embarrassingly small inauguration crowd? It already seems like ancient history.

But I want to hold on, just for a minute, to the story that dominated the news on Thursday, before it was, er, trumped by the uproar over the refugee ban. As you may recall — or maybe you don’t, with the crazy coming so thick and fast — the White House first seemed to say that it would impose a 20 percent tariff on Mexico, but may have been talking about a tax plan, proposed by Republicans in the House, that would do no such thing; then said that it was just an idea; then dropped the subject, at least for now.

For sheer viciousness, loose talk about tariffs isn’t going to match slamming the door on refugees, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, no less. But the tariff tale nonetheless epitomizes the pattern we’re already seeing in this shambolic administration — a pattern of dysfunction, ignorance, incompetence, and betrayal of trust.

The story seems, like so much that’s happened lately, to have started with President Trump’s insecure ego: People were making fun of him because Mexico will not, as he promised during the campaign, pay for that useless wall along the border. So his spokesman, Sean Spicer, went out and declared that a border tax on Mexican products would, in fact, pay for the wall. So there!

As economists quickly pointed out, however, tariffs aren’t paid by the exporter. With some minor qualifications, basically they’re paid for by the buyers — that is, a tariff on Mexican goods would be a tax on U.S. consumers. America, not Mexico, would therefore end up paying for the wall.

Oops. But that wasn’t the only problem. America is part of a system of agreements — a system we built — that sets rules for trade policy, and one of the key rules is that you can’t just unilaterally hike tariffs that were reduced in previous negotiations.

If America were to casually break that rule, the consequences would be severe. The risk wouldn’t so much be one of retaliation — although that, too — as of emulation: If we treat the rules with contempt, so will everyone else. The whole trading system would start to unravel, with hugely disruptive effects everywhere, very much including U.S. manufacturing.

So is the White House actually planning to go down that route? By focusing on imports from Mexico, Mr. Spicer conveyed that impression; but he also said that he was talking about “comprehensive tax reform as a means to tax imports from countries that we have a trade deficit from.” That seemed to be a reference to a proposed overhaul of corporate taxes, which would include “adjustable border taxes.”

But here’s the thing: that overhaul wouldn’t at all have the effects he was suggesting. It wouldn’t target countries with which we run deficits, let alone Mexico; it would apply to all trade. And it wouldn’t really be a tax on imports.

To be fair, this is a widely misunderstood point. Many people who should know better believe that value-added taxes, which many countries impose, discourage imports and subsidize exports. Mr. Spicer echoed that misperception. In fact, however, value-added taxes are basically national sales taxes, which neither discourage nor encourage imports. (Yes, imports pay the tax, but so do domestic products.)

And the proposed change in corporate taxes, while differing from value-added taxation in some ways, would similarly be neutral in its effects on trade. What this means, in particular, is that it would do nothing whatsoever to make Mexico pay for the wall.

Some of this is a bit technical — see my blog for more details. But isn’t the U.S. government supposed to get stuff right before floating what sounds like a declaration of trade war?

So let’s sum it up: The White House press secretary created a diplomatic crisis while trying to protect the president from ridicule over his foolish boasting. In the process he demonstrated that nobody in authority understands basic economics. Then he tried to walk the whole thing back.

All of this should be placed in the larger context of America’s quickly collapsing credibility.

Our government hasn’t always done the right thing. But it has kept its promises, to nations and individuals alike.

Now all of that is in question. Everyone, from small nations who thought they were protected against Russian aggression, to Mexican entrepreneurs who thought they had guaranteed access to our markets, to Iraqi interpreters who thought their service with the U.S. meant an assurance of sanctuary, now has to wonder whether they’ll be treated like stiffed contractors at a Trump hotel.

That’s a very big loss. And it’s probably irreversible.

The Congressional Republican Caucus Of Incompetence

(This cartoon image is by Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News.)

I'm not normally a fan of the columns of David Brooks, but I think his column on the GOP's House "Incompetence Caucus" is well worth reading. Here is that New York Times column:

The House Republican caucus is close to ungovernable these days. How did this situation come about?

This was not just the work of the Freedom Caucus or Ted Cruz or one month’s activity. The Republican Party’s capacity for effective self-governance degraded slowly, over the course of a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions and philosophical betrayals. Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own.

By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.

All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party. Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.

This produced a radical mind-set. Conservatives started talking about the Reagan “revolution,” the Gingrich “revolution.” Among people too ill educated to understand the different spheres, political practitioners adopted the mental habits of the entrepreneur. Everything had to be transformational and disruptive. Hierarchy and authority were equated with injustice. Self-expression became more valued than self-restraint and coalition building. A contempt for politics infested the Republican mind.

Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests.

But this new Republican faction regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure. Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens. Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity, and any compromise was regarded as a blood betrayal.

A weird contradictory mentality replaced traditional conservatism. Republican radicals have contempt for politics, but they still believe that transformational political change can rescue the nation. Republicans developed a contempt for Washington and government, but they elected leaders who made the most lavish promises imaginable. Government would be reduced by a quarter! Shutdowns would happen! The nation would be saved by transformational change! As Steven Bilakovics writes in his book “Democracy Without Politics,” “even as we expect ever less of democracy we apparently expect ever more from democracy.”

This anti-political political ethos produced elected leaders of jaw-dropping incompetence. Running a government is a craft, like carpentry. But the new Republican officials did not believe in government and so did not respect its traditions, its disciplines and its craftsmanship. They do not accept the hierarchical structures of authority inherent in political activity.

In his masterwork, “Politics as a Vocation,” Max Weber argues that the pre-eminent qualities for a politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion. A politician needs warm passion to impel action but a cool sense of responsibility and proportion to make careful decisions in a complex landscape.

If a politician lacks the quality of detachment — the ability to let the difficult facts of reality work their way into the mind — then, Weber argues, the politician ends up striving for the “boastful but entirely empty gesture.” His work “leads nowhere and is senseless.”

Welcome to Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and the Freedom Caucus.

Really, have we ever seen bumbling on this scale, people at once so cynical and so naïve, so willfully ignorant in using levers of power to produce some tangible if incremental good? These insurgents can’t even acknowledge democracy’s legitimacy — if you can’t persuade a majority of your colleagues, maybe you should accept their position. You might be wrong!

People who don’t accept democracy will be bad at conversation. They won’t respect tradition, institutions or precedent. These figures are masters at destruction but incompetent at construction.

These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.

Trump's 9 Controversial Comments In Wednesday Forum

(Photo of Donald Trump at Commander-in-Chief forum is from nbcnews.com.)

Both presidential candidates were given the opportunity to answer questions about foreign policy on Wednesday night, and show American voters that they are qualified to be president. Donald Trump did just the opposite. He made nine controversial statements in the 24 minutes he was on camera that show he is not fit to be the leader of this nation.

From NBC News, here is their list of those nine statements that highlighted Trump's incompetence:

• He criticized U.S. military generals to explain why he knows more about ISIS than they do

"I think under the leadership Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the generals have been reduced to rubble. They have been reduced to a point where it's embarrassing for our country." WATCH

• Suggested that he'd fire current generals if he becomes president

"Well, they'll probably be different generals" -- in response to a question about how he accepts their advice after saying they've been "reduced to rubble." 

• Praised Vladimir Putin

"Well, he does have an 82% approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who by the way, some of whom are based right here." (FYI: In the May NBC/WSJ poll, just 8% of American voters said they had a favorable view of Putin, versus 59% with an unfavorable one.) WATCH

• Said Putin is a stronger leader than President Obama

"I mean, the man has very strong control over a country. And that's a very different system and I don't happen to like the system. But certainly in that system he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader." 

• Said that, by reading the body language of the intelligence officials who gave him his intelligence briefing, he could tell these people aren't happy with President Obama

"I'm pretty good with the body language. I could tell they were not happy." WATCH

• Said his trip to Mexico was a success because official who was responsible for it resigned

"I think if you saw what happened in Mexico the other day, where I went there. I had great relationships, everything else... And if you look at what happened, look at the aftermath today where the people that arranged the trip in Mexico has been forced out of government." 

• Defended his tweet suggesting that sexual assault in the military is due to men and women serving together in military

"Well, it is-- it is-- it is a correct tweet. There are many people that think that that's absolutely correct. And we need to have a strength." (Trump's tweet from May 2013: "26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?") WATCH

• Repeated his claim that the United States should have taken Iraq's and Libya's oil: "If we would've taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS. Because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil." WATCH

• And explained that you take the oil by "leaving a certain group behind"

"We would leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil: "They have-- I-- people don't know this about Iraq. But they have among the largest oil reserves in the world-- in the entire world... You know, it used to be the victor belong the spoils."

Republican Whining Reaches A New Height Of Silly

(The cartoon image above is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

I'm not sure the last Republican "debate" should even be called a debate. It seemed to be just a whining session on how unfair the media (i.e., the moderators) were. Instead of answering the questions asked of them, the GOP candidates attacked the media -- accusing them of just asking unfair "gotcha" questions.

Now the RNC has joined the candidates in this ridiculous exercise. They have cancelled the next debate to be hosted by NBC. They are even talking about changing how the debates are held -- wanting to turn it into a speech-fest, with few questions from moderators. They seem to think GOP candidates should only be asked "softball" questions (approved of before the debate starts).

Contrast this with the October 13th Democratic debate. Every candidate in the Democratic debate answered every question asked of them, even the tough and seemingly unfair questions -- and they did it without whining. Then the leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, appeared before the Republican-dominated House Benghazi committee, where she answered every question asked for 11 straight hours (and almost all of those questions were unfair "gotcha" questions).

Frankly, this makes me even more convinced that none of these GOP candidates are competent enough to be president. Presidents must answer tough questions all the time, and they can't blame the media for asking those tough questions. These Republicans are just too thin-skinned and unqualified to handle the toughest political job in the United States.

I know why the GOP is doing this whining. It's because they have no answers to those tough questions. They still cling to failed economic and foreign policies -- policies that have done serious damage to this country. And they can't explain why they still support policies that have clearly failed. And many of them have told lies and made crazy statements -- statements they simply cannot defend in an open forum.

All I can say to these candidates is -- step up to the plate and answer every question asked of you. And if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

Today's Republicans Are Too Incompetent To Govern

I (and many others) have been commenting on the incompetence of Republicans lately, but you know things are getting seriously bad for that party when conservatives start making those same kind of comments. New York Times columnist David Brooks (pictured) is a conservative. He has always leaned far to the right, and been much more kind to Republicans than Democrats -- but even he is beginning to see the incompetence of today's Republican Party. Here is his column on this incompetence:

The House Republican caucus is close to ungovernable these days. How did this situation come about?

This was not just the work of the Freedom Caucus or Ted Cruz or one month’s activity. The Republican Party’s capacity for effective self-governance degraded slowly, over the course of a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions and philosophical betrayals. Basically, the party abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism. Republicans came to see themselves as insurgents and revolutionaries, and every revolution tends toward anarchy and ends up devouring its own.

By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.

All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party. Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.

This produced a radical mind-set. Conservatives started talking about the Reagan “revolution,” the Gingrich “revolution.” Among people too ill educated to understand the different spheres, political practitioners adopted the mental habits of the entrepreneur. Everything had to be transformational and disruptive. Hierarchy and authority were equated with injustice. Self-expression became more valued than self-restraint and coalition building. A contempt for politics infested the Republican mind.

Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests.

But this new Republican faction regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure. Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens. Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity, and any compromise was regarded as a blood betrayal.

A weird contradictory mentality replaced traditional conservatism. Republican radicals have contempt for politics, but they still believe that transformational political change can rescue the nation. Republicans developed a contempt for Washington and government, but they elected leaders who made the most lavish promises imaginable. Government would be reduced by a quarter! Shutdowns would happen! The nation would be saved by transformational change! As Steven Bilakovics writes in his book “Democracy Without Politics,” “even as we expect ever less ofdemocracy we apparently expect ever more from democracy.”

This anti-political political ethos produced elected leaders of jaw-dropping incompetence. Running a government is a craft, like carpentry. But the new Republican officials did not believe in government and so did not respect its traditions, its disciplines and its craftsmanship. They do not accept the hierarchical structures of authority inherent in political activity.

In his masterwork, “Politics as a Vocation,” Max Weber argues that the pre-eminent qualities for a politician are passion, a feeling of responsibility and a sense of proportion. A politician needs warm passion to impel action but a cool sense of responsibility and proportion to make careful decisions in a complex landscape.

If a politician lacks the quality of detachment — the ability to let the difficult facts of reality work their way into the mind — then, Weber argues, the politician ends up striving for the “boastful but entirely empty gesture.” His work “leads nowhere and is senseless.”

Welcome to Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and the Freedom Caucus.

Really, have we ever seen bumbling on this scale, people at once so cynical and so naïve, so willfully ignorant in using levers of power to produce some tangible if incremental good? These insurgents can’t even acknowledge democracy’s legitimacy — if you can’t persuade a majority of your colleagues, maybe you should accept their position. You might be wrong!

People who don’t accept democracy will be bad at conversation. They won’t respect tradition, institutions or precedent. These figures are masters at destruction but incompetent at construction.

These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.

Romney Is Just Not Ready To Be President

For me, this one quote from Willard Mitt Romney summed up the debate. The man is just not ready to be president. How could he possibly not know that Iran has substantial sea borders -- considering all the political (and fear) talk about Iran by him and his right-wing cohorts? Maybe he should have paid a little more attention in class at his fancy private school, instead of planning how to bully his fellow students.

Comptroller Incompetence Could Cost $21 Million

A couple of weeks ago I posted about the unbelievable incompetence displayed by the office of Texas Comptroller Susan Combs (pictured). Employees in this state agency posted the personal information of over 3.5 million Texans (names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, etc.) on a computer system that was accessible by anyone in the general public. And making it even worse, they didn't find their mistake for more than a year -- leaving these millions of people at the mercy of identity thieves.

The only thing that could have made this any worse was if they had advertised their dumb mistake after doing it (and I'm half-surprised that they didn't). If you think I sound a little angry at this blunder, then you are exactly right. My daughter and I were two of the 3.5 million people who's private information was exposed by the comptroller.

Comptroller Combs has assured Texans (and those who were affected) that the information is no longer available to the general public. And she has said that those who were responsible have been terminated. I still wonder if the people responsible for supervising those employees, including Combs herself, aren't also responsible and should be submitting their resignations -- especially in light of the huge amount of money the stupid mistake is going to cost the state now.

In an effort to make up for the egregious mistake, the comptroller's office is now offering credit monitoring, free of charge, to all 3.5 million people affected by their blunder. Each of those people will have the option to sign up for a free year of credit monitoring, and if they all sign up, it will cost the state of Texas $21 million dollars (at the rate of $6 a person). I've already signed up and I don't see why the other 3.5 million wouldn't do the same.

As you may know, Texas is already in the throes of a serious budget crunch. It has an anticipated budget deficit of about $27 billion for the next biennium. The legislature is already proposing large cuts to every state agency and to social programs, and from $5-$9 billion in cuts for K-12 education. The state certainly didn't need another bill for $21 million to clean up the incompetency of a Republican office-holder.

But the Republican-dominated legislature can't say too much because they're engaging in their own brand of fiscal idiocy. They have decided that a mere $27 billion budget shortfall doesn't warrant an increase in state revenues -- just massive cuts to nearly everything -- cuts that will negatively affect the quality of service delivered to every Texan. In fact, instead of raising taxes (or broadening the sales tax base) they have decided to cut taxes -- not for everyone, just the richest Texans.

A House subcommittee has approved a cap on the state sales tax for YACHTS that cost at least $250,000. Now a reasonable human being might think that anyone who can afford a yacht costing $250,000 should be able to pay the full amount of the sales tax on that purchase. But not our Republican leaders. The thought that the rich might have to pay the same percentage in sales taxes that the poor and workers pay just horrifies these Republicans. What are those poor rich people going to do if we actually ask them to pay taxes?

I've come to the conclusion that the Texas voters are getting exactly what they voted for. They elected these incompetent idiots, and that's what they are getting -- incompetence and idiocy.

Example of Republican Incompetence

The Bush administration showed us just how incompetent Republicans can be when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. Now it looks like the Republican leadership in Texas is continuing that tradition with their own response to Hurricane Rita.

It has been two years since Rita hit the Texas coast, but the state of Texas has done almost nothing to help rebuild or repair the homes destroyed or damaged by the hurricane. And it's not for lack of money either. The Texas Housing and Community Affairs Department has $40 million set aside that is supposed to be spent helping victims rebuild their homes.

The department has received 4,012 applications for help in repairing hurricane damaged homes. But in the two-year period, they have only helped to repair 13 homes. This is not just incompetence -- it borders on criminal negligence. Of course, the Republicans on the state and federal levels are blaming each other (they can't blame the Democrats because Republicans created the funds and the rules for its dispersal).

During the same two-year period, four faith-based groups (such as the Methodist group "Rita Recovery") have rebuilt or repaired around 1400 homes -- and they did it without government help. This just highlights the Republican leadership's incompetence. These church groups have repaired more than 100 times the number of homes than the government has repaired, even though the government started with $40 million more than the church groups did.

There's no excuse for this government inaction. When the Republicans set aside millions to help their corporate buddies, the money gets distributed in record time. But when the money is for needy Texans, it can't be distributed in two years.

Is there any reason to keep these Republicans in power? Isn't it time to vote Democratic, so the needy can be helped instead of just the corporate bosses?