Part 8 in a series of letters to Trump Voters

Today, I simply want to ask ten questions that I believe are very important as President Trump begins his second term. Admittedly, these are not questions that the President, Republicans, and conservative outlets such as Fox News have an interest in raising.  As such, my purpose is to make you aware of these questions and offer a few comments.  You can decide the answers for yourself, you can ignore my comments, or you can decide you’re not sure of the answer. Here goes.

1. Are you aware that the vast majority of Americans and federally-elected officials support cutting waste, fraud, and corruption from the federal government? 

It’s true. Where we differ as citizens and elected officials is how we should go about identifying waste, fraud and corruption, and the process we should follow in removing it.  I’ll elaborate on this statement as we go through the rest of the questions.

2. Are you aware that the federal government (and government in general) is different than a business?

The functions of the federal government are fixed in the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes.  Congress funds the federal government and has oversight responsibilities.  The role of the President is to faithfully execute the office of President and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  

In contrast, businesses or corporations are not bound by a Constitution or an array of statutes that define their mission and duties. Nor are they overseen by an external entity that monitors their functioning and allocates funding to carry out their duties.  CEO’s and boards of directors have relative freedom to run their businesses. They can change their business model to increase profits and market share without being constricted by statutory edicts.

3. Are you aware that the US President cannot run the federal government as a CEO would run a business?

I’m sure most of you, myself included, are frustrated over the increasing cost, waste, and inefficiency of federal government.  You voted for a businessman to come in an take control.  And, in Elon Musk, you have the world’s richest man instigating immediate and decisive action to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. 

The problem is that President Trump and Elon Musk are not running a company or business where they would otherwise be relatively free to eliminate functions, slash staff, and issue unilateral edicts to change the business.  Instead, they are running the federal government, a government with fixed functions, Congressionally-approved spending requirements, and a separation of powers.  Under our Constitution and laws, the President doesn’t have unilateral authority to freeze or reduce spending unless there is a specific statute or judicial decision that authorizes the President to do so.

4. Are you aware that the President does, in fact, have several viable means of reducing spending, and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse?

Republicans control both the US Senate and the House of Representatives. The President can pursue changes in federal statute to give him more authority to unilaterally cut spending and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.  The President could direct audits of federal agencies and spending, and then present the results to his Republican-controlled Congress to review and adopt.  And, perhaps most important, the President can work with his Republican colleagues to slash federal spending in the annual Federal Budget.

5. When the President issues executive orders or tries to take action that conflicts with the Constitution, statutes, or Supreme Court decisions, wouldn’t you anticipate that these actions will be challenged?

When Obama and Biden issued executive orders on such matters as gun control, student loan debt relief, and DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), Republicans were quick to attack the actions as “tyrannical” or “unconstitutional.”  It’s to be expected that there will be media protests and court challenges to stop these actions. Trump’s actions are being treated no differently.  While you might not like the challenges to Trump’s actions, you can hopefully appreciate a common interest in ensuring that our Presidents operate within the law.

6. When a President or political party identifies or describes a problem, doesn’t it make sense that they should provide evidence or proof to support their assertion?

All I’m saying is that a person who makes an assertion should be held accountable for providing evidence or proof to support that assertion. We should hold every politician accountable for being able to back up what they’re saying. For instance, Biden insisted that he didn’t cause high inflation, and that it instead was due to worldwide supply chain issues and the Covid-19 pandemic.  Wouldn’t you want him to provide evidence or proof to back up this statement?  We have a common interest in ensuring that our politicians can’t simply repeat soundbites and expect this to be accepted as truth.

7. Should a President act based on soundbites or political narratives alone, before ever providing evidence or proof to back up the assertions?

I’m saying the answer should be “no” because this would be launching a solution without first assessing whether the underlying problem it solves actually exists.

Suppose my soundbite or political narrative is that “strong gun control laws save lives.”  I say this repeatedly, without providing evidence or proof. Then I issue an executive order taking away federal funding from states that refuse to adopt strict gun control laws.  We shouldn’t want a President to be able to act upon a soundbite or political narrative until that President has provided evidence or proof to back up the soundbite.

8. Should we accept anecdotal evidence or a few cherry-picked examples as proof in support of a soundbite or political narrative?

It’s an age-old practice in politics to find a single disastrous outcome, or a handful of bad examples, and then move to act on these examples. Both sides do it.  They employ various “hasty generalizations” that encourage us to “jump to conclusions.”   We’re better off if we take a bit of time to look for more evidence and proof before we act. This is especially true if the remedy is to shut down an entire agency or freeze all of its spending.

9. If a President does act unilaterally based upon an unsubstantiated soundbite or political narrative, and if this action is not within his/her powers, who should be held accountable for any negative consequences of that action?

The President should be held accountable for negative consequences that occur because of a unilateral action that was not authorized by law.  

For instance, let’s say a President’s narrative is that a certain federal agency should be shut down because of waste, fraud, corruption, and improper funding priorities.  Suppose the President doesn’t support this narrative with evidence or proof.  If the President then acts on this narrative and the action is not authorized by law, then who else are we to blame for negative consequences that result from this action?  It is in our mutual best interests that Presidents don’t act on soundbites alone, that they provide at least some evidence to support their action, and than they have legal authority to act. 

 10. If you nonetheless believe that President Trump, Elon Musk, and the Trump Administration should be able to run the federal government as if they were a CEO of a business, wouldn’t it be better to change the law to authorize them to do so; and will you feel the same way when a Democrat is elected as President?

If you believe the federal government will function better if the President has more unilateral authority to act, why not simply change the law?  

Arguing that it’s impossible to change the law is not an excuse. We verge on lawlessness when we argue Presidents should be able to ignore the law if it interferes with what they believe is right and necessary.  Our country was founded by those who fled the tyranny of kings.  We created a government of limited powers with checks and balances.  If you want to change the separation of powers, you need to be prepared to accept the result when you’re not in power.