I’m going to do an experiment for my mental well-being, and I’ll invite you to observe, if you want to. I’m going to look at Trump’s contract with the American voter (me), and do a quick review of where I agree and disagree.
Summary: starting with the first three of the “Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC”:
Starting at the beginning: Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
1) FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
I AGREE with this. Despite the potential downsides, I think it’s an important step in making Congress more effective.
Activities so far: There are no actions take on this yet by the administration.
Quick issues research: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm
2) SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).
Generally, I DISAGREE with this. I’m not opposed to taking a hard look at Federal program and possibly reducing the workforce in conjunction with getting rid of ineffective program; but having been a Federal employee, I understand that this isn’t a straight forward process. Hiring freezes have not historically been effective and have unintended side effects, including potentially increasing costs.
Activities so far: on 1/23, Trump signed an executive order freezing federal hiring, excluding the hiring of military personnel. Other exemptions include hiring heads of agencies and personnel deemed essential for public safety and national security. Here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/23/presidential-memorandum-regarding-hiring-freeze
Quick issues research: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/23/what-does-a-hiring-freeze-mean-for-the-federal-workforce/?utm_term=.a530d4afd111
3) THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
Generally, I DISAGREE with this. I’m not opposed to thinning out federal regulations if and where they need thinning. However, federal regulations are a result of the law making process and to get rid of existing regulations is arduous and time consuming. They are also a fairly open process to the American public via https://www.regulations.gov/. To say that for every new one, we need to get rid of two old ones is arbitrary. We need to get rid of regulations when they are no longer useful.
Activities so far: on 1/20, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum asking federal agency heads to postpone or freeze any new or pending regulations, with some exceptions noted in Sec. 3 of the memo. Regulations are defined by the Office of Management and Budget as “general statements issued by an agency, board, or commission that have the force and effect of law”. Page 1: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2qCm-qXUAAUlKn.jpg Page 2: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2qCoX8XEAA0Vy3.jpg
Quick (not too) issues research: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf
To Be Continued….
Trump’s contract with the American voter: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf