[SEKYFAN]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...-spending/

Being aggrieved is his pursuit of happiness, so 2020’s sore loser is 2024’s sore winner. Hence his announcement that his administration’s adult supervision will not come from Mike Pompeo (West Point, four-term congressman, CIA director, secretary of state) or Nikki Haley (two-term governor, U.N. ambassador). Both have been excommunicated from the Church of Trump for unspecified (but easily imagined) deviationism.

Donald Trump, whose election owed much to inflation, ran promising to increase living costs. His favorite word is (“freedom”? “justice”? don’t be silly) “tariff,” and the point of tariffs is to increase prices of domestically produced goods by depressing competition from foreign goods. (A truism: Protectionist nations blockade their own ports.)

Musk says he can cut “at least” $2 trillion from federal spending — say, one dollar in three. (Fiscal 2024 spending: $6.75 trillion.) Well.  Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned.

Musk might do some good; Trump’s tariffs will do nothing but harm. Both, however, could cause Congress to rethink its decades of delegating dangerous discretion to presidents. They can unilaterally wreck international commerce and domestic prosperity with vague incantations about “national security” and “unfair” practices.

Let the bashing begin...

[Hoot Gibson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...-spending/

Being aggrieved is his pursuit of happiness, so 2020’s sore loser is 2024’s sore winner. Hence his announcement that his administration’s adult supervision will not come from Mike Pompeo (West Point, four-term congressman, CIA director, secretary of state) or Nikki Haley (two-term governor, U.N. ambassador). Both have been excommunicated from the Church of Trump for unspecified (but easily imagined) deviationism.

Donald Trump, whose election owed much to inflation, ran promising to increase living costs. His favorite word is (“freedom”? “justice”? don’t be silly) “tariff,” and the point of tariffs is to increase prices of domestically produced goods by depressing competition from foreign goods. (A truism: Protectionist nations blockade their own ports.)

Musk says he can cut “at least” $2 trillion from federal spending — say, one dollar in three. (Fiscal 2024 spending: $6.75 trillion.) Well.  Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned.

Musk might do some good; Trump’s tariffs will do nothing but harm. Both, however, could cause Congress to rethink its decades of delegating dangerous discretion to presidents. They can unilaterally wreck international commerce and domestic prosperity with vague incantations about “national security” and “unfair” practices.

Let the bashing begin...

Ever notice how often lunatic lefties post other people's opinions because they cannot form their own opinions?

[jetpilot]

Posting a link to the Washington Post does nothing but announce to the word that you are hopelessly ignorant.

[Hoot Gibson]

Billionaire envy is an ugly thing. Bezos is a Musk wannabe. 

Seriously, I respect the accomplishments both Musk and Bezos, but Bezos bought the WP as a platform for his liberal agenda. It may have cost him a large defense contract during Trump's first term. He seems to be reigning in the radical left wingers at the WP a little bit, including his very of the WP's plan to endorse Kamala Harris. 

Hopefully, Bezos will continue moving to the right and meet Musk in the middle. The should be natural business allies, with Bezos focusing on space infrastructure and Musk focused on colonization.

Democrats are very good at creating huge messes and then creating excuses for doing nothing to clean them up.

[Hoot Gibson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...-spending/

Being aggrieved is his pursuit of happiness, so 2020’s sore loser is 2024’s sore winner. Hence his announcement that his administration’s adult supervision will not come from Mike Pompeo (West Point, four-term congressman, CIA director, secretary of state) or Nikki Haley (two-term governor, U.N. ambassador). Both have been excommunicated from the Church of Trump for unspecified (but easily imagined) deviationism.

Donald Trump, whose election owed much to inflation, ran promising to increase living costs. His favorite word is (“freedom”? “justice”? don’t be silly) “tariff,” and the point of tariffs is to increase prices of domestically produced goods by depressing competition from foreign goods. (A truism: Protectionist nations blockade their own ports.)

Musk says he can cut “at least” $2 trillion from federal spending — say, one dollar in three. (Fiscal 2024 spending: $6.75 trillion.) Well.  Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned.

Musk might do some good; Trump’s tariffs will do nothing but harm. Both, however, could cause Congress to rethink its decades of delegating dangerous discretion to presidents. They can unilaterally wreck international commerce and domestic prosperity with vague incantations about “national security” and “unfair” practices.

Let the bashing begin...

[Hoot Gibson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...-spending/

Being aggrieved is his pursuit of happiness, so 2020’s sore loser is 2024’s sore winner. Hence his announcement that his administration’s adult supervision will not come from Mike Pompeo (West Point, four-term congressman, CIA director, secretary of state) or Nikki Haley (two-term governor, U.N. ambassador). Both have been excommunicated from the Church of Trump for unspecified (but easily imagined) deviationism.

Donald Trump, whose election owed much to inflation, ran promising to increase living costs. His favorite word is (“freedom”? “justice”? don’t be silly) “tariff,” and the point of tariffs is to increase prices of domestically produced goods by depressing competition from foreign goods. (A truism: Protectionist nations blockade their own ports.)

Musk says he can cut “at least” $2 trillion from federal spending — say, one dollar in three. (Fiscal 2024 spending: $6.75 trillion.) Well.  Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned.

Musk might do some good; Trump’s tariffs will do nothing but harm. Both, however, could cause Congress to rethink its decades of delegating dangerous discretion to presidents. They can unilaterally wreck international commerce and domestic prosperity with vague incantations about “national security” and “unfair” practices.

Let the bashing begin...

SEKYFAN, your critique of Trump’s tariffs and Musk’s spending cuts raises some interesting issues, but let’s ground this in a constitutional perspective. The president’s power flows directly from the U.S. Constitution—Article II grants the executive authority to conduct foreign affairs, appoint officials, and execute laws. This isn’t a power Congress can simply whittle away with legislation; any attempt to abridge it requires a constitutional amendment. The framers designed it this way to ensure a strong executive, not one at the mercy of legislative whims.

That said, Congress has a history of trying to chip away at presidential authority through statutes. Take the War Powers Resolution of 1973—passed over Nixon’s veto to limit the president’s ability to deploy troops—or the Trade Act of 1974, which delegated trade powers but with strings attached. These efforts often falter, either because they’re struck down as unconstitutional overreach or because presidents find ways to maneuver around them. When legislation fails, Congress doesn’t just sit back. They’ve confirmed activist judges to the federal bench—think of the slew of appointments under partisan Senates—then “judge shopped” by filing lawsuits in politically friendly jurisdictions. These cases, often cloaked as constitutional challenges, are less about law and more about bypassing the amendment process to force societal change. It’s a tactic that undermines the separation of powers.

Now, onto your points about Trump and Musk. Tariffs, sure, can raise prices by shielding domestic goods from foreign competition—econ 101. But they’re also a tool the president wields under constitutional trade authority, bolstered by decades of congressional delegation. If they backfire, blame Congress for handing over that leash in laws like the Tariff Act of 1930 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Musk’s $2 trillion cut? Ambitious, maybe unfeasible given debt, defense, and entitlements—but it’s within the executive’s purview to propose budgets. Congress, not Trump or Musk, holds the purse strings under Article I.

You suggest these policies might push Congress to rethink its “dangerous discretion” to presidents. Fair point—Congress has ceded ground on trade and security for years, often hiding behind “national security” vagueness. But the fix isn’t more judicial activism or legislative Band-Aids. It’s Congress stepping up to reclaim its role, not outsourcing governance to courts or whining when a president uses the powers they’ve given him. Trump’s tariffs and Musk’s plans aren’t the disease—they’re symptoms of a Congress that’s forgotten its own constitutional homework.

[TD Hounds]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...-spending/

Being aggrieved is his pursuit of happiness, so 2020’s sore loser is 2024’s sore winner. Hence his announcement that his administration’s adult supervision will not come from Mike Pompeo (West Point, four-term congressman, CIA director, secretary of state) or Nikki Haley (two-term governor, U.N. ambassador). Both have been excommunicated from the Church of Trump for unspecified (but easily imagined) deviationism.

Donald Trump, whose election owed much to inflation, ran promising to increase living costs. His favorite word is (“freedom”? “justice”? don’t be silly) “tariff,” and the point of tariffs is to increase prices of domestically produced goods by depressing competition from foreign goods. (A truism: Protectionist nations blockade their own ports.)

Musk says he can cut “at least” $2 trillion from federal spending — say, one dollar in three. (Fiscal 2024 spending: $6.75 trillion.) Well.  Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned.

Musk might do some good; Trump’s tariffs will do nothing but harm. Both, however, could cause Congress to rethink its decades of delegating dangerous discretion to presidents. They can unilaterally wreck international commerce and domestic prosperity with vague incantations about “national security” and “unfair” practices.

Let the bashing begin...

Wow you changed from MSNBC to the Washington post, way to think outside the box…..