I was very closely watching the saga of OMB’s disastrous effort to freeze funding for a vast number of federal programs, and wrote about why it was actually revoked at New York.
This week the Trump administration set off chaos nationwide when it temporarily “paused” all federal grants and loans pending a review of which programs comply with Donald Trump’s policy edicts. The order came down in an unexpected memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget on Monday.
Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge. Adding to the pervasive confusion, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately insisted on Wednesday that the funding freeze was still on because Trump’s executive orders on DEI and other prohibited policies remained in place. But there’s no way this actually gets implemented without someone, somewhere, identifying exactly what’s being frozen. So for the moment, it’s safe to say the funding freeze is off.
Why did Team Trump back off this particular initiative so quickly? It’s easy to say the administration was responding to D.C. district judge Loren AliKhan’s injunction halting the freeze. But then again, the administration (and particularly OMB director nominee Russell Vought) has been spoiling for a court fight over the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act that the proposed freeze so obviously violated. Surely something else was wrong with the freeze, aside from the incredible degree of chaos associated with its rollout, requiring multiple clarifications of which agencies and programs it affected (which may have been a feature rather than a bug to the initiative’s government-hating designers). According to the New York Times, the original OMB memo, despite its unprecedented nature and sweeping scope, wasn’t even vetted by senior White House officials like alleged policy overlord Stephen Miller.
Democrats have been quick to claim that they helped generate a public backlash to the funding freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded:
“A Monday night memo from the Office of Management and Budget ordering a freeze in federal grant and loan programs sent congressional Republicans scrambling and helped Democrats rally behind a clear anti-Trump message. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted Trump as ‘lawless, destructive, cruel.’
“D.C. senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, warned that thousands of federal programs could be impacted, including veterans, law enforcement and firefighters, suicide hotlines, military aid to foreign allies, and more …
“During a Senate Democratic Caucus lunch on Tuesday, Schumer urged his colleagues to make the freeze “relatable” to their constituents back home, a clear play for the messaging upper hand. Schumer also plans on doing several local TV interviews today.”
In other words, the funding freeze looks like a clear misstep for an administration and a Republican Party that were walking very tall after the 47th president’s first week in office, giving Democrats a rare perceived “win.” More broadly, it suggests that once the real-life implications of Trump’s agenda (including his assaults on federal spending and the “deep state”) are understood, his public support is going to drop like Wile E. Coyote with an anvil in his paws. If that doesn’t bother Trump or his disruptive sidekick, Elon Musk, it could bother some of the GOP members of Congress expected to implement the legislative elements of the MAGA to-do list for 2025.
It’s far too early, however, to imagine that the chaos machine humming along at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will fall silent even for a moment. OMB could very well issue a new funding-freeze memo the minute the injunction stopping the original one expires next week. If that doesn’t happen, there could be new presidential executive orders (like the ones that suspended certain foreign-aid programs and energy subsidies) and, eventually, congressional legislation. Democrats and Trump-skeptical Republicans will need to stay on their toes to keep up with this administration’s schemes and its willingness to shatter norms.
It’s true, nonetheless, that the electorate that lifted Trump to the White House for the second time almost surely wasn’t voting to sharply cut, if not terminate, the host of popular federal programs that appeared to be under the gun when OMB issued its funding freeze memo. Sooner or later the malice and the fiscal math that led to this and other efforts to destroy big areas of domestic governance will become hard to deny and impossible to rescind.
Why does Bush say the country would be better off if he is re-elected. Maybe he didn’t remember that 9-11 happened on his watch.?????
Jeff, yes. The future is now.
So what John?
I see VoteHillary.org which pushed a 2004 Hillary Rodham Clinton Draft presidency is now pushing her for president in 2008. The site is http://www.votehillary.org I have heard it will be launched as early as next week.
…Continued from above
Case in point:
No matter how the question is asked:
Do you believe it is time for a change?
Does Bush Deserve to be reelected?
Is America on the Right or Wrong track?
etc.
Consistently, 52 to 54% vote that it is time to change the leadership of the country.
That is why Bush never exceeds 44 to 46%. Because the remainder of people disagree with him.
If you look at it historically, this number is very important in the final outcome of the election.
The approval rating (Bush typically in the mid-40s) vs those who think it is time for a change (typically in the low 50s).
This poll doesn’t do anything to undermine that argument.
So no worries. We’re still doing okay.
Kerry has to do a better job defining this election. I told you all it was a mistake to focus so much on foreign affairs and his Vietnam record. Because those who vote on that subject will vote for Bush regardless of what is happening in Iraq or his own record in the military.
Kerry’s statement to the effect that he wouldn’t have changed his vote for the IWR was just stupid.
It isn’t too late. But Kerry definitely has to define this election about the economy – the haves vs the have nots.
That’s how he will win.
He needs a consistent confident message that people understand and resonates.
This poll, and other recent polls, is about Kerry – not Bush.
This CBS poll has gotten a lot of attention these past couple of days but here is why I am less concerned about it than others.
Asides from the veterans, which the polls shows is going for Bush by about 15% (incidently, Bush won the veterans vote in 2000 by about 35% – which means that in overall total number this is still a 20% gain for the Dems – considering that veterans make up about 10% of population, that means this is a total pick up of about 2% total for Dems and a loss of 2% overall for Bush).
Anyway, you’ll notice that Bush’s numbers still hover at the 44 to 45% mark, which is essentially where he is always at.
Bush will not win anything with 45% of the vote.
Thus, the dynamics are unchanged. If you think that Nader will get 2% of the vote. Bush 44% to 46%, that means that Kerry will win 52% to 54% of the vote.
So despite the bruhaha, this poll still shows Bush in trouble.
I suppose with the lead up to the Republican convention, the media has to talk about something.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
When polls come out (not counting Gallup which always over-counts republicans by about 8%) that show Bush consistently getting 48% to 50% and Kerry getting about the same, then I will start to worry.
But when the polls demonstrate a close race at 44% or 45%, then this is just as bad as Bush getting 44% to 45% and Kerry getting 52 to 54%.
Because the undecideds always go to the challenger.
Remember 1980. The race was always “close” between Reagan and Carter – about 42% or so. This went on all the way to election day. Then Carter stayed at 42% and Reagan got the rest.