18 Comments

"I think Musk is disingenuous about his intentions for getting heavily involved in politics and government. I can’t guess his true motives, but personal enrichment is one that comes to mind—or what does the man with the most money in the world want?"

Power, but more importantly, to neuter the SEC, FAA, FCC, OSHA, EPA so that they don't slow down his Mars aspirations. He cares about power on Earth, but is working hard to become the de facto ruler of our red neighbor in the heavens. Robber barons come and go, and get lost in the annals of history. Not the Christopher Columbuses and Neil Armstrongs.

Expand full comment

Interesting comparison. Armstrong and Columbus were explorers. Armstrong was an engineer’s engineer. Musk is more a Conquistador than an explorer. I doubt he will ever set foot on Mars but perhaps someone will during his lifetime.

Expand full comment

I suspect that Musk sees himself as a peer of Armstrong and Columbus.

Expand full comment

Steve, your quote from the Boss resonated deeply, and mirrored your analysis perfectly. We live in times where we were forced to deal with two bad choices; where power not reason is first choice; and where we do not share enough empathy for why people choose what they choose, when it’s all about survival on so many different levels. Whether it’s folks living paycheck to paycheck; people who feel there is not enough accountability; and people who understand we all share the same oxygen. Hopefully we go back to kindergarten and treat people the way we wish to be treated. Happy Christmas, Hanukkah, and a very healthy joyful new year for you and your family.

Expand full comment
Dec 20Edited

Good morning Steve. Good piece a always. 38 Republicans voted against the bill, or put another way because I like percentages, almost 20 percent of the GOP caucus voted against the bill.

Expand full comment

Thanks. I wasn’t sure about my number. I know it was at least 14.

Expand full comment

Just a point of clarification: there was a budget passed in the previous Congress (aka the one with Democratic Party majority) rather than a CR (the current standard of the past 10+ years).

Something to keep in mind about the size of the bill is that tweaking existing laws/programs to make them work better require further legislation - and when it comes to "I'll vote for X if you vote for Y" you end up having to put those sorts of agreements in one bill to ensure no backsliding on either party's part.

Now, rather than funding childrens' cancer research/treatment we've got a new bill reducing constraints on China ('cause Elon) and yet more additions to our dent without payfors (aka tax increases).

Unrelated: Elon is supporting AfD in Germany (their pro-Russia, pro-China Neo-Nazi party, for those unaware).

Expand full comment

Another reason for the length of bills:

"Bills have gotten longer and longer over time because people have figured out all sorts of legal loopholes that need to be closed with precise language.

Every bill has a dictionary section in it so that there's no confusion as to what they mean by "elderly person" or whatever."

Expand full comment

Length of a bill is really an infantile metric. Just like “lines of code written” or “lines of code removed” are infantile and easily gamed. It’s when the bill is loaded with all kinds of unrelated stuff, favors, pork-barrel items, random changes to regulations, hidden in the bloat, that’s the problem.

Expand full comment

Agreed on the infantilism involved in focusing on length, but that's the proclaimed issue at hand.

However, "random changes to regulations" is not exactly what things are are they? These are the sorts of things that have often been discussed for a good period of time and are part of the compromise in getting a bill passed - this bill was months in the making, negotiated between the Democrats and the GOP.

At this point I don't know if eliminating earmarks ended up being better or worse for our governance.

Expand full comment

Bills should be long enough to make clear the intent of congress instead of leaving it up to bureaucrats to govern. They should be shortened by limiting the reach and the subject matter.

Expand full comment

Sure: so when talking about a budget bill, it will encompass - well, the budget.

We do split up some parts of the budget, of course (e.g. the Defense budget tends to be separate) - but if we were to have separate bills on funding for everything then assumedly spending could get really out of whack with budget goals at all. So there's good reason to try to wrap as many things in there as you can - some of which again requires compromise on other items, and the only sure-fire way to assure that compromise is acted upon is to tie those together too.

Expand full comment

Of course, you are correct in principle. And of course, for that to work it requires good men of principle to negotiate the compromises. We do not have that. We have career politicians trying to buy votes from a citizenry that no longer shares a common vision of what makes the USA great.

Expand full comment

Or better put: we do not live in a perfect world with perfect people, and never will. We have always had disagreements what makes the USA great, with a few exceptions - but those exceptions are now no longer agreed upon either (e.g. we are a society generally built upon liberalism).

Expand full comment

I don't know that is a better way of saying it but it's certainly true. We live in an imperfect world. I do not believe we can be successful as a nation if we try to accommodate an infinite number of opinions on what constitutes a perfect USA. Liberals believe we can. I think three or four is pretty much a limit. Everyone else will have to adapt.

Expand full comment

Congress never does their job. They vote in bad compromises under duress. I am puzzled by the debt ceiling debate. I have read many comments that say it is true that eliminating the debt ceiling will, paradoxically, reduce spending. They say the debt ceiling is only a tool to extract more concessions from the administration. I'm too busy cooking for a family gathering to try to figure out the logic in that.

Expand full comment