Whether we like it or not, on January 20th, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the President of the United States. Of course, I fought with every aspect of my being to prevent this from happening, but alas, here we are. Not only is he taking office, but the Republican Party will also be in full control of the House and the Senate. This is going to be a series of control by the Republican Party and we must be prepared to tackle it.
Donald Trump has made a "contract" with us, the American people, of a list of actions he plans to tackle in his first 100 days.
I'm going to talk about his plans and my individual thoughts on each point.
Category 1: Six Measures to Clean Up the Corruption and Special Interests in Washington D.C.
Proposing term limits for Congress.
I am a huge supporter of term limits for Congress. I believe it will help prevent an overabundance of power and stop the notion of career Congress. Some states, like Florida, have term limits on their State legislative departments. It has some support from Congress but it mostly left with resistance. After all, the Congress themselves would have to pass the legislation and it isn't likely they are going to term themselves out of a job.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-term-limits-promise-faces-its-own-limits-on-capitol-hill/2016/11/26/ef172f6a-b332-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.c36312863dbb
http://time.com/4578718/donald-trump-term-limits-congress/
Although I support this initiative, I am going to file it under NOT LIKELY to actually come in force.
Hiring freeze on all federal workers to reduce the federal workforce by attrition (exempt military, public safety and public health)
This is likely to appease the conservative mindset on reducing the size of government. I took this to mean his plan to not hire new federal workers to replace those who retire. This would effectively reduce the federal workforce.
It is sort of an ironic standpoint to take by a President who claims he wants to make America great again--after all, this will reduce jobs available to the American people.
Besides, it seems that federal agencies are already understaffed:
http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/federal-agency-severely-understaffed-handle-widespread-animal-disease-outbreaks
http://www.expressnews.com/business/local/article/Understaffed-regulators-rarely-know-about-7950515.php
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-a-leaner-federal-government-hire-more-federal-workers/2016/04/21/a11cf98c-fd8b-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.c55069d19b9c
As the Washington Post article states, cutting staff won't be the budget saving grace that Trump would like you to believe.
I do not support this plan one bit.
For every new federal regulation, two must be eliminated.
This again goes into the conversation conscious of lowering the governments size and federal power, a strong selling point to conservatives. Truthfully, I am not sure this can be applied without being dangerous. It may prevent regulations from coming forth as to avoid the risk of nixing important regulations. What regulations are we going to cut? Department of Labor's overtime rule? Environmental Protection Agencies already lax environmental rules? This seems like a very treacherous pattern.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/11/22/donald-trump-promises-to-eliminate-two-regulations-for-every-one-enacted/#4aee2a812b87
http://fortune.com/2016/10/07/donald-trump-business-regulations/
Do you know what is regulated? (But not nearly regulated enough) Wall Street, banks, insurance companies, businesses....do you really trust a business man to make the best decisions about regulations to cut? How could that go wrong right?
I am not sure of the plausibility of this happening but I will say I do not support it.
A five-year ban on Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
So what two regulations do we have to eliminate to make that happen?
I actually do support this and, bear in mind, I support quite a number of regulatory proposals to lower the impact and power of these professional lobbyists. The only lobbyists should be you and I, the people. But, I am skeptical about such a regulation existing if the blanket policy is you must eliminate two regulations in order to regulate. Naturally, he doesn't have the support of the lobbyists:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/lobbyists-donald-trump-transition-ban-231562
I do see where he is coming from with this ban, although five-years doesn't seem long enough to me. The idea is to cut those friendly ties and remove the cronyism. I am here for it, I dig it.
A lifetime ban on White House officials becoming lobbyists to a foreign government.
Great, now we have to chop out another two regulations!
I can get behind it but it seems like it just isn't likely to go beyond the rhetoric.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-lobbying-rules-could-drain-the-swamp-but-they-may-be-illegal-and-are-porous/?utm_term=.d5ff54c42d92
Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising funds for American elections.
Campaign finance is a huge arena of interest for me. I certainly am for anything that will reduce the amount of interest groups, including foreign groups, influencing our elections. I am going to have to say I support this one just on the mere principle of it.
(But damn--now we've got six regulations to repeal due to these new lobbying rules.)
Category Two: Seven Actions to Protect American Workers
Truthfully, I find it intriguing that the same man that wants to reduce regulations and cut federal workforces is the same man that is going to "protect American workers". I just don't see it as very probable to do both. If you think workforce regulations don't matter, ask me what you are doing on your day off. Did you know a day off is a result of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? That comprehensive legislation is stacked full of Department of Labor regulations. So, without regulations, how exactly are we supposed to "protect American workers".
Trump will announce plans to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal.
The North American Free Trade Agreement has been quite the topic of controversy in our Presidential election. Naturally, any talk of changing or eliminating it is going to spark interest of the American public. The give you a bit of history:
The framework for NAFTA was created under the conservative hailed hero President Ronald Reagan in 1987. It was signed into law in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Two different Presidents, two different parties.
NAFTA allows for trade between the North American countries without tariffs (or taxes). As such, the trade of goods can flow seamlessly throughout the boarders.
According to CNN, it is true that NAFTA has resulted in job losses in the United States. However, it also claims NAFTA is also responsible for securing some jobs within our boarders. The United States Chamber of Commerce claims that 6 million U.S. jobs rely on NAFTA.
Another advantage of NAFTA is that it provides Americans with a better price on goods, so in theory, an elimination of NAFTA could result in higher prices for goods, which will have a negative impact on the economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-what-is-nafta/
https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272
So, in all, it seems like although NAFTA has had some negative effects, it generally seems like it has provided our continent with more positive benefits.
All I have really seen of Trump is that he plans to negotiate the contract to secure a better deal for the American workforce but I am not sure I have been able to find exactly what that means.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/285189-trump-says-he-will-renegotiate-or-withdraw-from-nafta-without-changes
But the United States Chamber of Commerce isn't so optimistic about that:
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/trump-s-trade-policies-would-make-america-recession-bound-again
Trump will announce our withdrawal from the TPP.
What is the TPP? The Trans Pacific Partnership was an agreement that involves the United States, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile and Peru. Like NAFTA, it is a trade deal designed to lower tariffs between these agreed upon countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18695/TPP_Free-Trade_Globalization_Obama
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2016/11/02/tpp-good-you-and-me-depends-and-heres-why/92002390/
Overall, I think I agree with the withdrawal from TPP.
Trump will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China as a currency manipulator.
I have nothing on this one--so I'll just post a few opinion pieces.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/13/trumpd-right-china-is-a-currency-manipulator-but-theyre-manipulating-the-yuan-up/#1065860327a6
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/12/29/what-means-if-trump-names-china-currency-manipulator/95955094/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/treasury-china-not-currency-manipulator-trade-229812
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/17/what-happens-after-you-label-a-country-a-currency-manipulator/
Truthfully, I am not sure what this is supposed to do really to protect the American worker.
Trump will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Under what--the regulations that we have eliminated by his for every one, eliminate two policy?
I don't have much of a comment--I am certainly for investigating any abuses but this is very vague and I don't see how much of this is really an action plan.
Trump will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars worth of job-producing American energy reserves including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
It sounds great in theory--eliminate our need to use foreign countries and instead do the work here. But truthfully I think we, as a nation, need to work toward more sustainable energy platforms, like solar, wind and other means, rather than continuing to decay our environment.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1110/Coal-and-oil-revival-Six-ways-Trump-could-shift-energy-policy
While I can certainly see how this will help with American jobs, I believe it is the wrong way to go about it. If we invested in sustainable energy, that too would create jobs. I believe this would have a disastrous overall effect on our economy and our environment.
https://mic.com/articles/159378/trump-s-energy-plan-could-have-devastating-and-irreversible-effects#.5MGH4UKJM
I will give this one a hearty NO.
Lift the roadblocks and allow for energy infrastructure projects, like the pipelines.
Absolutely no, no, no. Again, it goes back to the previous statement. We need a progressive energy plan---this looks like it will benefit corporations moreso than it would us, the people. I don't really think it's really about jobs.
Because it ties exactly into the previous statement, there's no point to delve further.
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's infrastructure.
This is definitely going to appease the conservative rights belief system that climate change is a hoax. I am going to go with NO for the same reasons above.
Category Three: Five Actions to Restore Security and Constitutional Law
I wonder if Trump has even read the document.
Cancel every unconstitutional executive order by Obama.
Probably a statement used to fuel the conservative rights hatred for everything Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/03/trump-says-hell-cancel-obamas-unconstitutional-executive-actions-its-not-that-easy/?utm_term=.da2d4c730eec
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/11/14/immediate-risk-executive-orders-regulations-affect-work-nonprofits/
This type of action could harm LGBT people, immigrants, non-profit organizations, health care and environment.
I am going to go with a "I do not support this!"
It seems very reckless, truthfully.
Begin the process to replace Antonin Scalia.
That's very scary--but inevitable--and should have already happened.
Cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.
http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html
This is, of course, to appease the anti-immigrant rhetoric. This would result in a loss of protections for undocumented immigrants within these cities.
This will result in more of a police presence and is seriously dangerous to immigrants and citizens alike.
I do not support this one bit.
Begin removing the more than 2 million illegal immigrants and cancel the visas of foreign governments that won't take them back.
It disgusts me the way we talk about human beings as though they can be "illegal". As a country founded on immigration (well genocide and oppression really but you get it), we should support and welcome different customs and cultures. Plus, I think the cost of something like this would be astronomical.
This could have serious repercussions on our economy and our budget deficit.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/09/21/economic-cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants/
In summary, we could expect a reduction our gross domestic profit by 2.6 and a reduction cumulatively over a span of 10 years in the amount of $4.7 trillion.
Suspend the immigration of people from terror-prone countries.
Remember Nazi Germany? We turned away refugees trying to fled the holocaust. Why would we, as the supposed greatest nation in the world, allow for people to live in terror?
I don't support this--we should provide humanity and compassion to human beings, especially since we cause so much destruction in their home states.
That was my summary of Trump's 100 day plan. What are your thoughts?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
No comments:
Post a Comment