Shutdown the Swamp
It doesn’t seem to matter what he says; the press is all over him.
A presidential tweet: ‘Our country needs a good “shutdown.”’
The commentators couldn’t believe it. It was ‘unthinkable,’ they said, for a sitting president to suggest closing up shop of his own government!
But once again, we’re with the POTUS.
‘The Donald’ is right: A shutdown is what the country needs.
No money for the swamp
Shut down the whole shebang.
No money for the swamp. No money for the cronies. No money for the zombies. No enforcement of employment rules…minimum wages…SEC regulations…
Send the snoops at the NSA and the CIA home. Stop collecting taxes. Stop telling everyone what to do!
Stop the win-lose deals.
Wow…we’re getting giddy just thinking about it.
Readers will reply that Mr Trump is being irresponsible and that a shutdown would be ‘disastrous’.
Think of all the museums and parks that would be closed. Think of NPR off the air. Think of the bombing that would have to stop. Think of all the boondoggles, insider deals, and sweetheart contracts that would be put on pause.
The Labor Department…suddenly out of a job! The Department of Education…sent home from school. The Agriculture Department…yanked up by the roots. The Energy Department…out of gas.
Yes…sounds good to us!
Still in business
Seriously, most of what the government does is ‘non-essential’.
Even in a shutdown, the feds would still be in business — taking our money…spying on us…asking rude questions at airports…and droning foreigners.
If the president really wanted to shake things up, he should shut down these ‘essential’ services, too.
Take the Department of Homeland Security.
20 years ago, it didn’t exist. Now, it employs 240,000 people.
If Mr Trump really wanted to make America great again, he’d get rid of it. We were safer before it was created.
And send the soldiers back to their barracks, too. 20 years ago, the War on Terror didn’t exist, either. Now, we’re $7 trillion poorer…but apparently not a bit wiser.
Mr Trump promised a new kind of foreign policy; a shutdown would be a good first start.
Shut down O’care while you’re at it.
That didn’t exist 20 years ago, either. We don’t remember; were people dropping dead in the streets then?
How about that for radical reform? Let people pay for their own pills.
The president says he wants a shutdown…in September.
Why wait ‘til September?
Hey, if not us, who? If not now, when?
Dear reader, we don’t like to disappoint you. But while we’re with the POTUS, the POTUS himself is not. There will be no serious shutdown of the federal government. Not now. Not in September.
There will be no shutdown for the same reason there will be no serious spending cutbacks. Nor cutbacks in foreign meddling. Nor in domestic spending.
As expected, Donald J Trump has fallen in line with the same program — more or less — of every other president in the 21st century.
He will push his pet projects. He will punish his enemies. But he will not challenge the real power behind the US federal government.
In the last few weeks, we have learned that Mr Trump thinks NATO is not so bad after all…that China is probably not really a ‘currency manipulator’ (whatever that is)…that the ‘big, beautiful wall’ can wait…that he can work with the Iran treaty…and that O’care doesn’t have to be swept away, but instead just needs a little tidying up…
Could the Deep State have found a more perfect president?
The problem with Hillary was that she was obviously in the insiders’ pocket. But ‘The Donald’? His fans think he’s on their side!
And there is no claptrap program or self-serving policy so lame and so counterproductive that it doesn’t eventually get a nod of approval…and more money…from the White House.
Takers, not makers
In other words, it really didn’t matter, did it?
The election, that is.
Over the weekend came more proof. The feds passed a trillion-dollar spending bill to keep the boondoggles in business until September.
Left, right, and centre — all came together to make sure nothing much changed.
All the familiar agencies and programs will continue to receive money — even Planned Parenthood.
All the swamp critters will continue to be fed, especially the two biggest ones: Wall Street and the Pentagon (which will get even more money).
Would Hillary have done anything different? The New York Times:
‘“This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in a statement.
‘“The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall, excludes poison pill riders, and increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.”’
Here at the Diary, we are strictly non-partisan. We despise both parties in roughly equal measure.
Both are takers, not makers. Both promise to feed the poor, but neither has ever grown so much as an ear of corn.
Both promise better health care, but neither has even changed a hospital bed.
Both promise more jobs…but neither has ever begun a profit-making business or made a payroll.
They can only give you something by taking it away from its rightful owners.
We had a hunch that it didn’t matter which of them won the election last November.
Apparently, that hunch was right.
For Markets & Money