The Risk of Winning (or Losing for that Matter)

We just held a singular election. The winner was by no means obvious, at least to the great cognoscenti, who inform us of our opinions, our interests, and what is “right”. So, we were told, it is OK to vote for a liar, corrupt politician, and obfuscator but it was not OK to vote for a guy who made millions (nay, billions) and has a motor mouth. AND happens to say totally “incorrect” things. Like we need new deals with the world on trade. Or we need to control our borders. Or we need to send out illegals who are causing problems. OR — we need to actually consider what our real interests are and then defend them.

The new cabinet is forming. It appears to be quite conservative, containing quite a few seriously rich (and successful) businessmen and a number of generals. What is notably lacks, apparently, is people with “experience”, which is another way of saying no politicians. How quaint! Selecting people who actually accomplish things versus politicians. Because it wouldn’t be the politicians who have gotten into the terrible mess we are in, now would it. Mitt Romney, who is desperate to be something will apparently not get SoS. Neither will Giuliani.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have “seen the light”. They are now totally “on board”. We await to see what that means come the new year. A continuing resolution (now there’s a new idea) has been passed, because Heaven forbid the federal government should be shut down! Such a calamity cannot even be considered; yet another Voldemort of federalism.

?But what now are our risks. I would submit that in retrospect one of the best things that could happen to us was the 2012 re-election of Obama. Had Romney won, we would now be faced with a more efficient intrusive government, one that was better at sticking its nose into our affairs. ?Why – because Romney is good at fixing things but he’s not very good at creating things. So he would have had no new ideas on how to actually get our government back to somewhere we can live with it but boy, would it run well!

So our risks now are that despite winning the election and having control of both the administrative AND legislative bodies – and hopefully the judicial soon – we will fail to actually shrink government. We will not manage to “drain the swamp” and it will continue to boil and bubble with stupidity and asinine behavior.

?And what of the democrats. They appear to have no inspiration from the trouncing they have been getting at the polls for, lo, these 8 years. Nancy Pelosi has once again been elected minority leader – she who has overseen the more or less serious destruction of the democrat party. Charles Schumer is on the other side, and he is hardly any different from Pelosi (or Reed), just hasn’t been in control as long. But he, too, has no ideas. We are hardly immune from this same destructive thinking. Paul Ryan is simply younger than Boehner but he, too, has been there since somewhere in the 90’s. Mitch McConnell has long past his “sell by” date.

?So what do you guys think. ?Will we actually change anything or are we merely going to rearrange the chairs.

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Risk of Winning (or Losing for that Matter)

  1. MLHMLH says:

    I am hopeful. Sure, there will be chairs rearranged but they might be made in the USA!

    An acquaintance pointed out the Trump is selecting a lot of rich folks and called it cronyism. Is it?

    • DevereauxDevereaux says:

      Interestingly, none of the picks is “merely” rich; all have been highly successful people who have so become rich. The fact that they are from one firm only confirms what has been true for many years but now people want to blame Trump for – that that firm produces some of the best results on Wall St. and that cabinet members have been from there for many decades.

    • EThompsonEThompson says:

      Trump specifically pointed in his recent interview with Chris Wallace that he is only picking “big winners” to represent his country.

      Ten years ago, would you have fired Derek Jeter from the Yankees or even now, Tom Brady from the Pats?
      I think not.

  2. NandaNanda says:

    Perhaps, M…Especially as so many on the economic team are from one Wall Street firm…Tillerson as SoS has me scratching my head, frankly…Ah well, que sera sera.

    • EThompsonEThompson says:

      Dear Nanda,

      Rex Tillerson negotiated impressive deals for Exxon that made his company a globally dominant giant. The Donald is only looking for him to exercise these very same skills in the interests of the United States.

      I would only add that John Bolton as Deputy could help drain that deep and murky swamp in the State Dept leaving RT free to focus upon kicking some major financial a** with China, Russia, India, et.al while reimposing sanctions and taking down Rouhani.

      Can’t wait.

  3. BrentB67BrentB67 says:

    “So our risks now are that despite winning the election and having control of both the administrative AND legislative bodies – and hopefully the judicial soon – we will fail to actually shrink government.”

    There is exactly 0% chance of any shrinking of government as it relates to debt or spending. There may be a glimmer of hope regarding regulation.

    It will now be memorialized for all time the free spending, big government, tyrants that are McConnell, Cornyn, Ryan, McCarthy, et al.

    The split in the House will possibly be epic.

    The only chance of restraining these free spending pirates is a revolt in the bond market, the early glimmers of which appear on my screen daily, but I doubt the FOMC will let that play out.

    Hopefully Republicans will finally be unmasked in this coming debacle.

  4. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    I find your analysis depressing, Brent. Yet it parallels my sense.

    Perhaps there will be some better sense from the House; the Senate is way too mired in mud to change any time soon. The argument back in the beginning of the 20th century for the seventh amendment was that the Senate was becoming too much of an old boys club. Guess what – nothing has changed about that. Indeed, one could argue that it is even more an OBC now, yet states have become powerless in the fed government. I kind of doubt that McCain would still be there if AZ got to choose their rep. Probably the same for Graham, and perhaps (one can always hope) KY would have bounced McConnell.

    The 17th A NEEDS to be repealed – if for nothing else than it would shake up compositions.

Leave a Reply