30 Comments

This is what happens when

the dumbbells in SCOTUS

create "a rule for the ages".

You cannot tell me the villians

behind Project 2025 and at

least 5 of the current right

wing supremes and their ultra

rich cohorts were not in

collusion to bring this about.

Trump is their tool and so are

all the MAGA crowd.

We better be prepared to

fight this crap on every level.

Expand full comment

TOM: PBS tonight "Peleieu, WWII's Most Well Pressed Battlefield" at 10:59 PM Saturday on my local PBS station.

Expand full comment

My plan is to email (because it doesn't contain a zipcode) as many House members as I can telling them that their jobs and power are in jeopardy as the "dark forces hiding" in their party have plans not only to strip away their power to set spending and to make them obsolete, but to also make fools of them for aiding and abetting in their own growing obsolescence. Keep these noodniks sniping at one another, the old divide and conquer their overlords have used on Americans since the Southern Strategy.

Expand full comment

You referring to Article I of the Constitution? I'm with you a 100%, but that horse was let out of the barn 70 years ago. The neutering of the "Chevron Deference" was a start. But Congress will need to grow a spine and go back to Regular Order on the budget. And that's just the start.

Expand full comment

I suspect the fight is gonna get nasty, and with the current SCOTUS members, I wouldn't bet on the outcome.

Expand full comment

You got that right.

Expand full comment

I'd bet, but I wouldn't be happy with the way I was betting on.

Expand full comment

I'll take that bet.

Expand full comment

Wow, TC. This is excellent! I am much less terrified, and much more terrified, at the same time. Nixon was my political awakening. I feel the same fear and determination that I felt 50 plus years ago. Time to shovel snow (4 inches!) and let this sift through my overwhelmed brain and figure what, if anything I can do. The Women's March 1/18/25? Write my Republican U.S. Rep? But first, sharing this column. Thank You.

Expand full comment

Maybe if we from the "giving" states get organized and mobilize a massive tax resistance...

Expand full comment

Thank you, Tom. It kind of leaves us in a dilemma. Living in California, as I do both Senators are Democrat and our now Jr. Senator Adam Schiff is a strong match for Alex Padilla. We also have way more members in the House of Representatives (I believe we picked up two or three formerly Republican seats. There is no point in harassing our Congressional persons, Any suggestions?

Expand full comment

Given that Schiff managed to vote wrong on HR9495- the bill to make it possible to designate non-profit groups as "terrorist supporters" as a member of the House - don't automatically assume he's going to always do the right thing. And Padilla is not the brightest bulb in the senatorial box. These people ALWAYS need seeing eye dogs to get to the right side.

Expand full comment

Title X of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)expressly dictates the powers & role of the House & Senate Budget Committees. The CURRENT ranking House Budget Committee member is Representative, BRENDAN DOYLE.

For further analysis in the coming battles, note that "impoundments" are grouped into two (2) categories: (1) Rescission and (2)Deferrals.

Even without the ICA the President does not have the power of the purse. See, Train vs. City of New York 420 U.S. 1975 (argued 2 weeks before Thanksgiving 1974). Here is a citation to a real-world example: the executive Administrator of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act do NOT permit the allocation any LESS $money$ than the amounts appropriated, Specifically see, Train v City of New York 420 U.S. pp. 42-49 and the City New York's harbor needed every penny for water pollution clean up.

Just shutting the government down by executive fiat is advocating violation(s) of Federal law. EZ (too EZ) has been reported under Substack Inc. 2024 TOU & the contractual rules we are all bound by as contractually defined "Readers" and or "Authors". The law was chose by Substack Inc. not me but, I am very comfortable with rules of the road for civil discourse.

Expand full comment

If you’re referring to my comment, i believe a Presidential veto is a legitimate response to legislation.

Expand full comment

Question: Can a president just create a new “office” that has power over the Congress and Senate and all mattered dealing with our country???? I meant is DOGE legal?? Doesn’t that all have to be approved by the Congress??? Something smells fishy here and highly illegal!!!!

Expand full comment

Gail, it's not a real government department. It's just two guys who will come up with shit and do their best to convince Congress to go along.

Anyone can call themselves "The Department of....".

You and I could do that.

Expand full comment

We will see how much graft and theft Trump can accomplish, but I doubt he'll make the full-term. He's a loose cannon and someone is going to shoot back. They have already started.

Expand full comment

This go around will make the first go around look like a picnic. Evil brains are on the job. Question is, how much will the SC allow in order keep the opposition under control.

Expand full comment

Good post. Thanks.

Expand full comment

When will we know for sure how many dems won their seats in CA?

Expand full comment

this week - I think it's final now

Expand full comment

Neither side of the debate seems to realize we’re heading off a fiscal cliff, and NO amount of taxation will fix it. Government tries to do too much, does much of it badly, and all of it at great expense. While the Executive needs some discretion, the proper place to fight this is in Congress and through a return to regular order on appropriations bills. Trump should just veto the next continuing resolution, shut the government down (which doesn’t really shut down), and insist it will stay that way until Congress does their job with discrete spending bills he can veto or no. Then Congress can redraft and either pass a bill the President will sign, or one that garners enough votes to over ride the veto. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

DOGE is a completely different issue, the stated objective of which no one should object to.

Expand full comment

Are you my whacky next door neighbor under a nom de plume? He misunderstands economics also.

Expand full comment

Wherein do I misunderstand economics?

Expand full comment

The stated objective is an evil joke. Sort of like the “election integrity” bills passed in Texas

Expand full comment

It may end up ineffective, but the objective is not evil. Unless one thinks that government is the "perfect" (and therefore unique) human organization.

And re Texas, how exactly was the election integrity bill "evil"?

Expand full comment

No integrity, no where. Just suppression and ways to dump Dems. Goebbels favorite rule. Accuse them of what you do. Next - say the opposite of what you mean.

Expand full comment

So, you can’t answer the question. Please note that stridency and coherence are not the same thing.

Expand full comment

Yes, JD. Who wouldn’t want to stop wasting money? But agreeing on what is indeed a waste isn’t simple. Bits of the defense budget go to every state to make some components of some systems, to discourage efforts to reduce the defense budget.

Doge’s stated objective is to cut huge amounts. Of spending. (Probably not what is spent on SpaceX contracts.) Waste is in the eye of the beholder.

Elon (or was it Vivek) suggested something like going down the roster of employees and firing every fourth name. Saves 25%—easy. Perhaps they just wanted to advertise their ruthlessness. People who have no idea what government actually does love them some ruthlessness.

Expand full comment

They just wanted to advertise their ruthlessness

Expand full comment