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Now OMB has rescinded the memo without comment just as suddenly, less than a day after its implementation was halted by a federal judge.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freeze that forced the administration to reverse direction, as Punchbowl News explained even before the OMB memo was rescinded: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.
So what if Iraq HAD WMD and a way to deliver them. . . so did Russia for so many years. So why didn’t they zap us when they had the chance?
Because we have the enormous power to retaliate, that’s why. Therefore, it dosen’t wash that Saddam would’ve delivered WMD to the USA.
WMD was nothing but a pretext from Bush and Co. to grab a significant oil producing country AND scare the heck out of us so he can do what he pleases in the name of national security.
Big John
Sorry, I intended to paste the address, but the site wouldn’t let me . It is:
http://www.electoralvote.com
Bush won Nevada by just under 4% in 2000.
Bush 301,575 49.52%
Gore 279,978 45.98%
What in the world is the MoE for these polls, especially the FL one. I have trouble believing Bush surged that much so fast. I could believe Bush is up, but within or just barely outside the margin. Also, I agree with the general sentiment that if millions of people don’t have TV or electriticity or are generally displaced, polling is worthless for another couple weeks in the sunshine state.
Still, NV is good news, 4 points is probabbly w/i MoE. Kerry needs to do another trip out to Vegas and the Vegas burbs to help the house candidate there (get some $) and raise the spirits of his Nevada campaign.
I would say Kerry needs NH WV and then try to get either FL or OH for good measure; right now, it looks like FL is a better bet than OH.
Looks like Nevadans definitely want the nuclear dump in their state. I’m beginning to think may be we deserve this moron as the president.
and more good news, A judge threw Nader off the ballot yet again.
Anyone know a URL that has a good discussion of why RoboPolls suck?
I got into an extended and heated argument with a local TV station’s news director over his use of Survey USA in the last mayor’s race.
The Poll was off by over 12% in the event and prior to the last polling round, was off by a similar margin from a highly respected normal poll
About what states are needed. If Kerry were to win all the Gore 2000 states, and Bush retain all the Bush 2000 states, then Bush wins 278-260.
Using that as a baseline, if the only change is Kerry winning Ohio, he wins 280-258. If Wisconsin also changes (to Bush), Kerry still wins 270-268. So…Kerry doesn’t need to win both Florida and Ohio, assuming he can hold all of the Gore states, or that he loses no Gore state worth more than 10 electoral votes. [That is, if he gets Ohio, he can lose any one of Minnesota, Iowan, Wisconsin, Maine, Oregon, or New Mexico.]
Florida is worth 27 electoral votes, so if Kerry were to win there, that would add another 7 electoral vote buffer.
And he has the lead in New Hampshire, which also gives him another 4 electoral votes.
So…Going back to Nevada….If Kerry can keep Pennsylania and Michigan and pry away either Florida or Ohio, there’s a good change Nevada won’t matter.
But…if the only changes from 2000 are Kerry getting New Hampshire and Nevada, the election ends up deadlocked at 269, throwing it to the House and Senate to pick President and VP. If the Dems can pry away the Senate, that could well leave us with a Bush/Edwards tandem. That’s not what I’d prefer, but better a half loaf than nothing, so I want Nevada to go Democratic.
The Florida poll must favor northern Florida, since that’s the part that isn’t evacuated/reeling re: the hurricane. It’s also the more GOP-heavy part of the state. It’s a crappy poll.
Florida polls can’t be worth much right now, with the hurricane and all. (If South Florida got evacuated this week, but the Panhandle’s evacuating this week, I’d expect gains for Kerry next week based solely on who will be home to answer their phones.) The NV results are unfortunate, but we don’t need that state to win: we do, I think, need either CO or WI or BOTH FL and OH.
I think this poll is worthless, with all the hurricane stuff the past two weeks, does anyone realistically believe an accurate poll would come out of that mess at least until Ivan blows past.
Never mind. I just checked, and there are no RV figures. I wish to hell they would stop taunting us with figures that are likely imaginary.
What is the percentage of Registered Voters?
Nader is back on the FL ballot. So, it probably is worse for Kerry. And yet, I know we will win. I took a poll in the mirror this morning and Kerry is doing fine. Thank you zanex.
Two things to point out:
(1) all of these polls report likely voters, which isn’t necessarily incorrect, but does employ certain assumptions about voter turnout.
GOTV efforts, obviously, can make a huge difference, and this is an area in which the Dems have been losing ground to the GOP over the last two decades. Hopefully the DNC is developing an effective field machine, gathering corps of volunteers to phone Democratic voters less likely to vote (i.e., those below the median income) as well as undecided voters on election day and offer rides/baked cookies/lemonade etc.
(2) in the FL poll for the SAME RESPONDENTS there is quite a bit of ticket-splitting, as Castor (D) is ahead of Martinez (R) in the Senate 49 to 45.
Now this suggests to me that there remains about 5-6% of voters in FL who are seriously in play.
In general, Kerry needs to make better use of local politicians who are (sometimes) more popular than he is in their states–not merely FL but elsewhere, esp. in swing states that have popular Dem governors, i.e., AZ, WI, MI, PA, NC, etc. I know that some coordinated campaigning has been done, but not nearly enough. And there are some governors (e.g., Mike Easley in NC) who do not seem to want to share the stage with Kerry.