the only two people in the trump administration who am certain is pro tariff is trump and peter navarro.
of particular note, watch from ~53 sec to 1:23. navarro explains how the .3% contraction of the gdp is good news 'cause but for tariffs, we woulda' seen 3% growth.
...
so, trump tells us he can't be blamed for bad gdp numbers 'cause is still biden's economy, but his personal tariff whisperer then goes out and explains that but for tariffs, the economy were doing supercalifragilistic? and that's good news?
the tariffs were a man-made disaster... a man-made disaster attributable to one person, but the trump folks messaging is so undisciplined that they is sometimes telling the truth by accident. the thing is, on fox news and elsewhere, navarro, lutnick, bessent and trump messages is being massaged 'til they fit a useful maga narrative.
oh, and for the folks who is still convinced doge is anything other than a scam so that elon musk can get his hands on more data to bolster his ai aspirations, trump 2.0 has spent more than biden did in his first 100 days. am knowing many has already memory hole'd 2021, but just a reminder, we were still dealing with a global pandemic at the time. so much for cutting enough waste, fraud and abuse to cover the proposed new tax cuts for the rich, eh?
Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent more than $200 billion more in first 100 days than last year
DOGE's website claims the task force has already saved that much, at $160 billion, between canceling grants, contracts and leases and making cuts to the federal workforce. On its "wall of receipts" site online, the office reports the largest reductions so far come from the Department of Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Department of Education, Department of Labor and Office of Personnel Management.
Only about $60 billion, or less than 40%, of that alleged savings are itemized on the office's online "wall of receipts" and even those itemizations have included errors and lax documentation.
In his work at the American Enterprise Institute, Malkus said his review indicates the savings is more likely to be around $80 billion.
...
and btw, since we weren't around to pontificate on the matter, cutting legislative and executive branch programs because they is woke or dei is not addressing fraud, waste and abuse. pay two different organizations to do same thing is wasteful. pay an organization $10 million to deliver widgets but only get $10 thousand in widgets, with the rest o' the money being pocketed by organization administrators is likely fraudulent. but those aren't the kinda things doge cuts.
maybe you thinks funding sesame street for middle eastern broadcast is stoopid. and perhaps you feel that saving malnourished kids in the sudan, or supplying south african expectant mothers with aids medicines is bad policy, but cutting those programs ain't necessarily addressing fraud, waste or abuse. those is policy choices and Congressmen, when they pass budgets, can stop funding o' such programs if they want to do so. some o' these programs is executive branch exclusive, and the President don't need to supply a reason to cut 'em, but describing as the elimination o' waste, fraud and abuse is misleading at best if what is actual happening is that elon and trump is getting rid of programs they don't like, even if those programs is being run efficient and effective.
if some lib ne'er-do-well were getting rich off o' plumpynut, and the kids in the sudan were not actual receiving the lifesaving nutritional supplement, that would be an example o' addressing waste, fraud or abuse.
if narcan didn't actual do anything, if it were somekinda snake oil, then we would cheer doge narcan cuts.
...
with two exceptions, we gotta give trump 2.0 credit, 'cause the project 2025 folks and other did an impressive job o' wargaming this sh!te out.
example: going after law firms in the way trump 2.0 has done so shocked us 'cause it didn't even need to be successful to have the desired effect. the mergers and acquisitions folks at these firms made a calculated decision to cave to trump demands particular after they saw that other firms not targeted by trump were trying to peel off clients from targeted firms. many o' the firms gave up w/o a fight even though they knew they would win in a fight in large part 'cause most o' their business were actual related to government contracts. if you is a multimillion or billion dollar client who has an sec issue you need handled, why would you stick with a firm trump had effectively declared persona non grata? so even if trump keeps losing in court, he has effective reduced the pool of potential lawyers willing to take on cases, which makes future trump loses less likely. who do you think is representing the undocumented immigrants in most o' the fed cases? you might be surprised to learn just how much o' pro bono work the big firms do, and the big washington and new york firms trump targeted is known for taking on a noteworthy proportion o' immigration cases as part o' their pro bono portfolios.
another example: cecot. f*&%^. honest, am conceding a complete failure o' imagination insofar as the deal trump brokered with el salvador... and looks like rwanda might be the next el salvador. yeah, we assumed that the fed would play habeas corpus shenanigans by moving potential deportees asap to the most friendly court districts imaginable, but again, we saw deportation as the goal. we actually thought the alien enemies act would be invoked day 1, and we were surprised by the absence o' initial executive orders making use o' the alien enemies act. we so did not foresee that instead o' deporting those aurora colorado gang members who had taken over the city, trump would send 'em to prisons controlled by friendly governments as a way to avoid due process. just 'cause we loathe what trump is doing to undocumented immigrants don't mean we need ignore how ruthlessly clever were some o' the planning which went into stuff such as cecot.
am bringing up the almost reptilian cunning o' the trump folks in implementing their schemes 'cause doge were a noteworthy exception. in truth, we sees two HUGE exceptions: doge and tariffs.
am assuming doge were mostly an elon musk pet project, and so it weren't part o' the pre inauguration project 2025 planning. shouldn't be a surprise doge were implemented in the same haphazard manner musk used when he took over and fixed/broke twitter.
tariffs were, am guessing, something most o' project 2025 were hopeful clearer heads could convince trump to embrace reason, as happened when trump wanted to tariff mexico during his first term.
we posted in 2019
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/447374-trump-plans-to-declare-new-national-emergency-to-impose-tariffs/
a couple days later, trump had already caved.
not that it matters at this point, but am not sure why trump keeps conflating tariffs and trade deficits, but he sees those two things as inextricable linked. beyond reason he believes that the US is getting screwed by any nation with whom we have a trade deficit, and he only sees a trade deficit on goods as relevant, complete ignoring services. point is, am thinking there were no real plan for widespread tariffs on any and all nations with whom we has a goods trade deficit, as well as those penguins, 'cause the wargaming for such tariffs were predictable.
see, brought it back to tariffs. am trying to do the trump weave.
HA! Good Fun!
ps we noted the charlie fox o' doge and tariffs, but we did skip trump's top appointees. when kash patel, tulsi, rfk jr., pete hegseth and pam bondi got their positions in trump 2.0, we were outraged that those folks were partisan to a comical degree, with conflicts of interest and character flaws which woulda' torpedoed any past administration's efforts to have 'em gain senate approval. in retrospect, perhaps we should be relieved, 'cause one o' the few obstacles to project 2025 successful implementation is the incompetence o' trump's top loyalists.