Nusspectives

A Look at Trump’s Economic Pledges: “Where’s the Beef?”

If you weren’t alive in the 1980’s, you missed the birth of an iconic American catchphrase:  “Where’s the beef?” 

The expression comes from a 1984 Wendy’s TV commercial featuring three elderly women inspecting a very large hamburger made by a competitor (click here if you’re curious).  As they look under the bun, a ridiculously small patty is revealed.  One of the women exclaims, “Where’s the beef?”   

Her quip became what we now dub “viral” in the internet age. Ever since, “Where’s the beef?” is used to “question the substance of an idea, event, or product.”   It is especially apropos when something we have been promised falls far short of what we actually get.  

In this article I examine progress on four broad economic pledges that President Trump pitched on the campaign trail.  I also validate his recent boasts about accomplishing or making great strides on these pledges.  I conclude with public opinion research that informs us how Americans are feeling about Trump’s promises and the progress to date.  Are we expressing disappointment because we don’t see much beef; or, do we still have faith in President and his pledges?

Pledge #1:  Unleash American energy (“drill, baby drill!”)

Trump’s narrative:

Increasing American energy production to record levels will bring down the cost of everything, including: gasoline prices, transportation costs, air travel costs, manufacturing costs, and the costs of heating, and cooling. This will enable price reductions across the board and defeat inflation. Trump promised to slash energy prices by half within 12 months (18 months maximum), and get gasoline to below $2 per gallon.  

Progress:

The Trump Administration has yet to achieve record levels of crude oil production or even match the record levels of crude oil production achieved during Biden’s presidency (see US Energy Information Administration [EIA], crude oil production). The US has been the world’s largest oil producer for over six years, and the Biden Administration achieved record levels of crude oil production for the US.

In fact, U.S. oil production set to drop in 2025 because tumbling oil prices worldwide are causing US oil producers to cut back their drilling. The oil price per barrel “doesn’t work” because US producers can’t make a profit with this price, especially given the increased costs of drilling.  Oil and gas executives recently bashed the administration’s push to increase US production, describing Trump’s agenda as “nothing short of a myth.”  Finally, to further complicate matters for Trump’s plan, OPEC and its allies (OPEC+) have decided to significantly increase oil production.

The EIA does project that gasoline prices will modestly come down in 2025 and 2026.  For 2025, average gas prices will come down about 11 cents per gallon (3%); and for 2026, prices will come down 18 cents per gallon (6%).  As to the reason for the decline, it’s not because of unleashed oil production.  Rather EIA concludes:  “The lower U.S. gasoline prices are primarily a result of lower crude oil prices, as well as decreasing gasoline consumption in 2026 because of increasing fleetwide fuel economy.”

Gasoline is not anywhere close to $2 per gallon, according to fact checks by CNN, Gas Buddy, and CBS News. In fact, over the past six months, the price for a gallon of regular has ranged between a low of $2.97 under Biden (early December 2024) to a high of $3.26 under Trump (April 2). As of May 23, the average price is $3.19 per gallon (see Gas Buddy). 

CNN hits the nail on the head when it concludes that lower gas prices in the near-term future won’t be the result of “drill baby, drill!”:

“Even though President Donald Trump vowed to usher in a period of American energy dominance, the administration’s trade war and OPEC’s production hikes have cast a shadow over the oil patch.  In fact, once-gangbusters US oil production growth is now at risk of grinding to a halt — or even going in reverse. . . .

Of course, the silver lining for American consumers is that prices at the pump are very much under control. In fact, some analysts expect gas prices will trend even lower in the coming months, an outcome that could help offset potential sticker shock caused by the trade war. Sky-high tariffs have caused recession fears that have driven oil prices lower. Crude has also been hit by a surprisingly large increase in production from OPEC and its allies.”

CNN, ‘So Much for drill baby, drill’? Matt Egan, May 12, 2025

Aside from gasoline, other sources of energy Trump promised to make more plentiful and less expensive include electricity and natural gas. So far, these sources have neither become more plentiful nor less expensive.  Here are some links that document and discuss this conclusion:

Summary:

Thus far into Trump’s presidency, energy production has yet to be unleashed beyond levels produced during the latter part of Biden’s tenure. More problematic, energy prices are not being slashed; instead they are going up or holding even.  Part of the problem is that the expense of extracting energy doesn’t enable producers to operate profitably when they increase energy production.

While the President might succeed in increasing fossil fuel energy production within the next year or so, there is no guarantee that prices will come down simply because of increased production.  In fact, other actions of the Trump Administration may cause energy prices to go up. This includes enacting widespread tariffs (Canada and Mexico supply more than 71% of crude oil to U.S. refineries), canceling federal energy assistance programs (Inflation Reduction Act) that help homeowners with energy bills, and inhibiting renewal energy production (solar, wind, hydropower, etc.).

Pledge #2: Adopt a comprehensive system of tariffs that will make America and Americans rich and bring manufacturing back to the US

Trump’s narrative:

Tariffs will reverse decades of America being ripped off by our trading partners, and bring manufacturing back to America. The new revenues will fund tax cuts, eliminate budget deficits, and pay down or eliminate the national debt.  Trump promised that tariffs will not cause inflation.  

Progress:

Since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, his administration has announced new or revised tariff policies more than 50 times, according to The Washington Post.  Another count by a prominent law firm found about 55 such actions.  Trump has issued more than a dozen tariff-related executive orders, or about one per week.  Forbes also recounts 17 major flip flops by the Administration since announcing the tariffs on Liberation Day (April 2).

When the elaborate set of reciprocal tariffs were announced on April 2, the stock market crashed.  By April 9, Trump modified, suspended, or delayed the operative dates for these tariffs. He instead talked of negotiating deals with each individual country (“150 deals in 90 days”).  While this pause was a positive signal for the stock market, the chaotic and uncertain nature of his actions continues to have far-reaching economic effects. Here are links to just a few articles that describe these effects:

The drop in shipping and imports is especially stark with respect to China. With Trump’s 145% tariffs on China, shipments were cut in half, according to CNN.  Many US retailers stockpiled Chinese imports prior to these huge tariffs, and Americans could thus buy these goods at low prices. However, these stockpiles are starting to run out.

There is mounting evidence that American retailers are increasing prices due to tariffs.  Here are links to just a few recent articles:

Fed Chief Jerome Powell recently noted that the level of tariff increases announced by the Trump administration are larger than anticipated and could lead to higher inflation and slower economic growth.  He also warns that the U.S. could face “supply shocks”.

In terms of revenue for the federal government, there is no doubt that Trump’s tariffs will generate additional revenue.  Because the tariffs remain in a state of flux, it is impossible to estimate the revenue that will be generated down the road.  President Trump repeatedly boasts that his tariffs are bringing in almost $2 billion per day.  He has not provided any evidence to support this statement, and it has been debunked by PolitiFact.

Summary:

The chaotic rollout of tariffs is roiling the stock market and the US economy. Already, Americans are seeing price increases.  And this trend is likely to escalate as prior stockpiles run dry and suspended tariffs are renegotiated and activated.

Within the last few days, Trump signaled that he has neither the time nor the staff to negotiate separate deals with 150 countries.  Instead, he announced that in the coming weeks countries would be receiving letters dictating what their tariffs would be. Thus, it appears we’re back to Trump unilaterally imposing the tariffs and each country reacting. This means we are back to uncertainty, and trade wars are back on the table. 

Regardless of how the tariffs play out, there is no scenario where they generate huge revenue for the government without a substantial portion of the tariffs being passed on to American consumers. If Trump’s final tariffs are modest, consumers will only face slight price increases from retailers.  But modest tariffs will not generate the huge new revenue that Trump promises. On the other hand, high tariffs will force retailers to pass at least some of the cost on to consumers.  And higher prices mean inflation. With high tariffs the federal government will generate more new revenue; but this will be at the expense of American consumers. 

Pledge #3: Cut federal spending by $2 trillion through eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse—especially bogus programs adopted by Democrats

Trump’s narrative:

Cutting federal spending to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, especially bogus programs adopted by Democrats, will generate huge savings than can be used to eliminate annual budget deficits, reduce or eliminate the National Debt, and pay for the tax cuts.

The efforts to cut federal spending largely rely on two efforts. First, Trump promised to create a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), picking Elon Musk to head the effort. Both Trump and Musk spoke frequently about making $2 trillion in cuts. Specific targets were reducing the federal bureaucracy and eliminating wrong-headed programs such as DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), the “green new deal” (climate change, EV mandates, clean energy, etc.), and leftist indoctrination at both the K-12 and higher education levels.

The second effort to cut federal spending is occurring through Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” to enact the tax cuts, cut federal spending, and provide additional resources for defense and immigration enforcement.  I treat this second effort in the fourth and final pledge, infra.

Progress:

As of May 23, the official DOGE website “estimates” that it has saved $170 billion. Since Elon Musk is finishing off his work and returning to focus on Tesla, it’s not clear how much of a factor DOGE will be in the future.

Multiple analyses (including BBC, NPR, CBS News, and The Commercial Appeal) find that DOGE only accounts for about $61.5 billion in savings, and over $100 billion in savings is unaccounted for. Several investigations have found that DOGE overstated its savings, such as claiming to cancel contracts that never existed.  

More problematic, DOGE savings will likely be reduced or erased due to the effects of cuts. This includes the costs associated with putting tens of thousands of employees on paid leave, re-hiring mistakenly fired workers and lost productivity. Cuts to 40% of the IRS workforce could result in $323 billion in lost tax revenue due to lower tax compliance and a decline in audits.  An analysis by the Yale Budget Lab finds even greater lost tax revenue.

Summary:

The savings identified by DOGE only amount to a tiny fraction of the $2 trillion promised by Trump and Musk. The abrupt, meat-ax approach taken by DOGE is very likely to result in at least some negative consequences.  It’s irrational to argue that suddenly reducing the federal workforce by tens of thousands of workers will not cause any breakdown whatsoever in public safety, compliance, or the health and welfare of citizens. The same goes with respect to the slashing of government subsidies or aid to foreign countries.     

Pledge #4: Renew tax cuts for Americans, and include additional tax cuts promised on the campaign trail, without adding to deficits and the National Debt

Trump’s narrative:

Renewing the tax cuts (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017) and enacting additional tax breaks will enable Americans to keep more of their earnings and stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy will especially stimulate the economy and trickle down to all Americans.  That’s why Trump refers to them as the “Middle Class Tax Cuts.” In addition, the tax cuts will be enacted without adding to deficits or the National Debt. They will be paid for by a combination of cuts to federal spending (“waste, fraud, and abuse”), and huge new revenues from tariffs.

Progress:

Just before 7 am on May 22, the House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (HR 1) by the narrowest possible margin of 215-214. The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it is highly likely to be changed, and it’s outcome is far from certain.

I’m not going to rehash all the historical background and prior actions to develop the bill. But if you’re interested, I suggest you read this article and this article from Nusspectives.com. Also, I won’t go into detail regarding all the various pieces of the bill, as this is being reported on extensively. Instead, I want to focus on three aspects: the extent to which the bill fulfils Trump’s pledge and campaign promises, the potential negative consequences of the legislation, and some commentary on the manner in which the legislation is being moved through the process.

Ostensibly, HR 1 fulfills Trump’s pledge and many of his campaign promises. It extends the 2017 tax cuts on a permanent basis. It also temporarily keeps his campaign promises for “no tax on tips”, “no tax on overtime” and breaks on car loan interest, as these tax breaks will expire at the end of 2028. Also, Trump and the Republicans argue that because the bill makes big cuts to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” (particularly Medicaid, SNAPS, and green energy programs), the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Deficits and the National Debt won’t be increased. Finally, legitimate recipients of these various federal programs won’t be negatively affected because the cuts simply eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Unfortunately, Trump and the Republicans are virtually alone in arguing the tax cuts pay for themselves and that the deep spending cuts won’t deny services to legitimate recipients. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill will create a deficit of $3.8 trillion over the decade. And, analyses by the Committee for a Responsible Budget and the Penn Wharton Budget Model both find that the legislation would increase the deficit by $3.3 trillion over the decade.

As to cuts to federal programs, the bill would reduce Medicaid spending by $698 billion, and SNAP spending by $267 billion. These dollar amounts are expected to increase given changes inserted into the bill just prior to its passage. The CBO estimates that the Medicaid cuts will lead to 10.3 million people losing coverage (see analysis infra). As to SNAP cuts, the Urban Institute found:

“The expanded SNAP work requirements would result in 2.7 million families and 5.4 million people losing some or all of their family’s SNAP benefits in a month, with an average loss of $254 per family per month.”

Urban Institute, Expanded SNAP Work Requirements Would Reduce Benefits for Millions of Families, May 21, 202

Clearly, then, there are some very real negative aspects of the bill, despite the claims of Trump and the Republicans. Even moderate Republicans are concerned that the cuts in the bill—particularly the $698 billion in cuts to Medicaid—go too far. Republican members who represent districts with large numbers of Medicaid recipients are especially concerned the cuts go beyond eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.  The bill imposes new and burdensome hurdles that will “lead to more churn in the program and present hurdles for people to stay covered.”  The CBO projects the cuts will lead to 10.3 million people losing Medicaid coverage, and 7.6 to 8.6 million people going uninsured. This means that about 1 in 7 of the nation’s 71 million Medicaid recipients could lose coverage under the bill.

In addition, it is virtually certain that the bill will increase deficits and the National Debt. Even Republican “Deficit Hawks” in the House and Senate have been complaining that the cuts don’t go far enough to assure there won’t be deficits and increased National Debt. These Republicans have been withholding their votes and demanding that the full cost of the tax cuts must be paid for by spending cuts. Ironically, at the same time Trump and Republicans argue the package won’t increase debt, their bill calls for increasing the nation’s debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

Another major negative consequence of the bill is that America’s very wealthy will continue to receive the lion’s share of tax relief.  While Trump and Republicans argue that Americans at every income level will win with the tax package, the wealthy do much better. About half of the cost for the tax package will go to extending the tax cuts for the richest 5% of Americans. Poor and middle income earners will receive tax breaks in the range of $77 to $3,000 per year (or an average $1,300 tax reduction). According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of tax cuts will go to people earning over $217,000; and one-fourth will go to those making $1 million or more.

Finally, there are legitimate concerns regarding how the legislation is being moved through the process. Congressional Republicans and the White House have been working on Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” for several months. Their goal is to develop and enact the legislation without negotiating with Democrats or needing a single Democrat vote. They are meeting behind closed doors to develop the legislation, and holding the details of their decisions to themselves. Until very recently, major elements of package were only set forth in general “frameworks” adopted by the House and Senate.

It wasn’t until Monday, May 12, that the House Ways and Means Committee released the actual bill language—a staggering 1,116 pages. Just one day later, the Ways and Means Committee met on May 13 to do “mark up” (review and adopt changes to the proposed language).  It narrowly passed the bill by a vote of 17-16, with all Democrats voting “No”.  Three days later (Friday, May 16) the bill went before the House Budget Committee, where it failed. The vote was 16-21, with five Republicans refusing to vote for the bill.  

Speaker Mike Johnson then instigated extensive negotiations over the next 48 hours, and agreement in concept was reached with the dissenting Republicans. The House Budget Committee was thus called into session at 10 pm on Sunday May 18, to reconsider the same version of the bill it voted down on Friday. There was no new bill language for the recent agreements.  Instead, the Committee passed the bill by a vote of 17-16, with four of the dissenting Republicans voting “present” instead of “No.”  

The bill next went to the Rules Committee where is was still apparent that there weren’t sufficient votes. The hearing started at 1 am (yes, the dead of night) on Wednesday, May 21, and went on for 23 hours. Discussions and negotiations occurred both within the Committee and behind closed doors. A final set of changes were agreed upon (a 42-page “Manager’s Amendment), and, at midnight on Wednesday, the Committee approved the bill on an 8-4 vote. The bill immediately went to the House Floor for adoption. Seven hours after being approved by the Rules Committee, the House passed by bill by a 215 to 214 vote.

Summary:

When it comes to Trump’s tax package, Republicans are denying Americans a chance to even see the hamburger, much less a chance to ask about the beef. Within the space of eleven days, a 1,116-page bill was heard and passed by three committees. All the while negotiations occurred behind closed doors and commitments were made without public disclosure or changed bill language for public review. It wasn’t until the final hours of a 23-hour Rules Committee hearing that final changes were made public and adopted. And seven hours later the House passed the bill. This left no time for the CBO to analyze the fiscal effects of changes. This left no time for the media to report on the version of the bill to be adopted. And most of the process required to be in public was conducted in the dead of night.

The Republican strategy is clearly to move and adopt the bill quickly, allowing minimum time for Americans to understand the details and consider the consequences.  Republicans want to control the narrative in telling Americans what’s in the bill. They want to keep things simple and grand; and they want to avoid exposing their internal fights and the detailed consequences of the legislation.

To further this end, Trump launched a major ad campaign this May. Securing American Greatness, a pro-Trump nonprofit group that is not required to disclose its donors, is running nationally on cable stations and online starting May 12. The organization is spending in the “high seven figures” to run the spot for two weeks as part of a broader, one-month blitz.  The ad sells Trump’s “Middle Class Tax Cuts” and tariffs that will bring home American jobs. It also falsely proclaims great success in unleashing energy production, reducing gas prices, and beating inflation.

If the Republican strategy plays out, the tax package will become law before Americans realize they have been sold a bill of goods. The wealthy will continue to receive the lion’s share of tax relief, with the middle class and poor receiving peanuts. All the smoke and mirrors about the tax cuts not adding to the deficits will prove false. The National Debt will increase, and Trump and the Republicans will engage in deficit spending. Deserving individuals will be kicked off Medicaid and SNAPS because of contrived work requirements and eligibility verifications designed to be onerous.  And, finally, Americans will quickly see their tax cuts gobbled up by rising prices due to Trump’s tariffs.

Is the American public going along with what we are being told is a big and beautiful hamburger? Or, are we starting to ask questions and raise doubts as the truth about the bill comes out?

What does public opinion polling say about Trump’s pledges and progress to date?

Without a doubt, large majorities of Americans are asking, “Where’s the beef?” when it comes to Trump’s pledges and progress to date.

According to a recent EconomistYouGov poll on Trump’s job approval regarding inflation and prices (see Table11H), 57% disapproved, and only 35% approved.

In that same poll, when asked whether Trump’s tariffs will increase or decrease prices (see Table 38), 74% said prices would increase a lot (44%) or slightly (30%). Only 8% said prices would decrease a lot or slightly; and 12% were unsure.  Americans clearly believe tariffs are increasing prices they must pay.

When asked whether tariffs would help or hurt their personal financial wellbeing (see Table 39D), only 16% said tariffs would help, while 53% said tariffs would hurt.  Another 14% weren’t sure, and 17% said tariffs would neither help nor hurt.  A solid majority of Americans believe tariffs will hurt their personal finances, and only 1 in 7 buy the idea that tariffs will help. 

Since Trump came into office, Americans have been down on the economy when it comes to consumer sentiment.  The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index fell to 50.8 in the first half of May. This is its fifth straight month of decline, and the second-lowest reading on record.  It was at 74.0 in December 2024, 71.7 in January 2025, 64.7 in February, 57.0 in March, and 52.2 in April.

Americans clearly see tariffs as a reason they are down on the economy. As quoted in Barron’s, “Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy,” said Joanne Hsu, director of consumer surveys at the University of Michigan

In a survey by Qualtrics on behalf of Credit Karma from February 27, 2025, to March 11, 2025

  • 77% of Americans say they’ve felt the most significant cost increase in groceries, followed by utility bills (39%) and gasoline (37%).
  • One in five (20%) say they are buying more unhealthy food as a cheaper option, while 25% admit to occasionally skipping meals, a figure that climbs to 32% among Gen Z.
  • Half of Americans (50%) earn too much money to qualify for government assistance (i.e., food stamps), but not enough money to afford necessities (i.e., rent, groceries, bills).

While most Americans (including most Democrats) favor renewing the tax cuts, there are some important caveats.  Pew Research recently reported that most Americans support raising taxes on corporations and higher-income households (over $400,000 per year).  As to corporations, 63% support raising taxes, while 19% said they should be lowered, and 17% said they should be kept the same.  As to households with income over $400,000, 58% said taxes should be raised, while 19% thought they should be lowered, and 21% thought they should be kept the same.

Also, Americans are cautious about tax cuts because they are concerned with deficits and the National Debt. A recent survey by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation found that 78% of respondents believe President Trump and Congress should prioritize addressing the National Debt. Additionally, 78% of respondents insist the new tax package should not worsen the National Debt. 

The public, however, does not believe that balancing the budget should be accomplished through cuts alone.  A recent poll from the Cato Institute found that when it comes to balancing the Budget, 49% said it should be done by cuts alone, 15% said it should be done primarily with spending cuts and some tax increases, 19% said it should be done by equal amounts of spending cuts and tax increases, and 5% said it should be done by tax increases alone.

Finally, in a very recent EconomistYouGov survey (see Tables 36A and D) there was very strong support for funding Medicaid and SNAPS. 77% of respondents said Medicaid should receive more funding (47%) or the same level of funding (30%). And 70% said SNAP funding should be increased (39%) or held even (31%). Only 10% said Medicaid should be given less funding; and only 13% said SNAP should be given less funding.

Conclusion

Americans are increasingly asking, “Where’s the beef?” when it comes to Trump’s economic pledges. We aren’t optimistic about the overall economy, our personal finances, or the prices we’re paying for gasoline, groceries, energy, and just about everything else.   And we increasingly doubt his claims of success or great progress on promises.

  • Energy production has not been unleashed to new record levels, and the costs of gasoline, and other energy sources are largely the same as costs at the end of the Biden Administration.
  • The rollout of Trump’s tariffs has been chaotic and has roiled the stock market and the economy.  Most Americans believe tariffs will increase their costs and hurt their personal finances.
  • The DOGE initiative to cut $2 trillion in spending if falling spectacularly short of its goal, and most Americans question or have doubts about the effort.
  • Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” will increase deficits and the National Debt, contrary to his campaign promises.
  • The bill’s spending cuts to programs such as Medicaid and SNAPS go beyond eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. The cuts will result in millions and millions of people losing coverage, again contrary to Trump’s campaign promises.  And most Americans want to either augment or maintain funding for these programs, rather than cut them.
  • The bill provides the greatest tax breaks to the wealthy, leaving middle class and poor Americans with modest tax reductions. The package is not a “middle-class tax cut” as Trump claims. The cost of the tax breaks for the wealthy are the primary driver of the huge cost of the bill. These huge tax breaks have been kept in the bill despite most Americans supporting a tax increase for the wealthy and resisting tax cuts that create deficit spending.     

Trump and the Republicans have been relentless and disciplined in propagating their narratives regarding the economic pledges. Trump won the presidency based on these pledges; and he constantly tells us he is delivering on every one of them. While tens of millions of Americans still believe him, the majority of us are asking questions and expressing doubt. Given his repeated lies and falsehoods, we no longer trust what he is saying.

In the coming months, Trump and the Republicans could regain some momentum if they are able to succeed on two fronts. First, Congress must pass the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” And, second, Trump must implement a tariff strategy where most of our trading partners accept their tariffs, and those tariffs result in minimal costs being passed on to American consumers.

Even with these successes, however, Americans should continue to raise doubts about Trump and his pledges. We should continue to ask questions and demand answers. As the effects of his tax package play out, are deficits and the National Debt increasing or decreasing? Are our tax cuts being gobbled up by higher prices? Did Medicaid and SNAP cuts go beyond eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse? Are the costs of gasoline and groceries actually going down? Is our economy growing stronger with solid GDP growth and very low levels of unemployment? Have we avoided a recession?

Just as the elderly women asked, “Where’s the beef?” it’s entirely appropriate that Americans ask the same about Trump’s pledges. And it’s entirely appropriate that we don’t simply take the President at his word when he boasts of success on every one of these pledges. If he actually delivers and great outcomes are produced, wonderful! But if he doesn’t produce, and bad outcomes result, it’s time to reject his pledges and look for different leadership.

In:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

Topics

Search