A Missed Opportunity or a Distraction?

Change is hard, especially in an environment that is determined to oppose it

This administration began as an opportunity for change. That opportunity is still there but the momentum has stalled. What began as an unprecedented partnership devolved into something more akin to a pair of wrasslers promoting the next extravaganza. The only things missing from the barbs were “your mama” references and jokes about penis size. The spectacle was so over the top that it looked contrived and is part of a broader strategy. Or it was inevitable.

This election was supposed to be when Repubs started walking their talk on fiscal discipline. That was what motivated Musk to join the team and, in doing so, he has learned that politics has nothing in common with business. In business, things that do not work are scrapped or fixed; in govt, those things often get bigger budgets. In business, wasting money is a cardinal sin; in govt, it’s an afterthought at best. In business, people are held accountable for results; in govt, failure often means promotion. The dichotomy is not just frustrating to a billionaire; it’s frustrating to millions who expected something more.

This is one area where Dems and Repubs are markedly different. Dems are willing to accept the inevitable losses that are part of the ebb and flow of politics so long as they advance their agenda when holding power. They understand that power is a pendulum; neither party has the majority forever, so you strike when your side has it. Repubs, by contrast, are afraid of power. They fear losing the next election more than they welcome their opportunities to advance the ball.

Governing is hard, much harder than being in the minority. A minority can whine about the other side and fundraise off of its excesses without taking responsibility for anything that happens. Governing means making difficult decisions that might make some voters angry but are, nonetheless, good and principled choices. Governing requires looking beyond the next election cycle and pressing the advantage to do all the things that you told voters would happen, voters who believed it and handed you a majority with which to work.

Musk entered the project in good faith, believing that Trump had enough like-minded support behind him that Elon’s team could make a difference. Trump may have been more circumspect. He has seen the movie before and his biggest mistake may have been a failure to manage Musk’s expectations. While Trump may want to believe that the GOP is a changed animal, he was still going to have to deal with Repubs long after Elon went back to rockets, AI, and cars.

As things stand, the “big, beautiful bill” either lives up to its name or explains why DC is so dysfunctional, depending on whom you ask. On the plus side, I have seen the following benefits outlined by supporters:

· It delivers the largest tax cut in American history and puts an extra $5,000 in Americans’ pockets.

· It makes the Trump tax cuts permanent and passage would prevent the largest tax increase ever.

· It delivers the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years, with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings.

· It protects Medicaid for Americans who truly need it and ends benefits for at least 1.4 million illegal immigrants who are gaming the system.

Points 3 and 4 are worth exploring. Savings are at the heart of Musk’s discontent. He believes the bill does far too little to combat DC’s addiction to spending other people’s money. The usual GOP suspects agree, with Rand Paul saying the package will make an already-insurmountable debt even worse. And at least a couple of House Repubs who voted for the measure admit to missing out on some objectionable points that are included among the 200,000 words that fill more than 1,000 pages. It’s like the party created its own “we have to pass it to see what’s in it” moment.

Perhaps the most heated debate has been about Medicaid. The left is up in arms at the prospect of millions losing health care that is paid for by others. But the program has a systemic issue that continue being ignored. More than 40% of all births in the US are paid for through Medicaid. These children will stay on Medicaid until adulthood, if not longer. It’s not likely the parent or parents will become self-sufficient during that time, either.

The bill includes various provisions with stiffer work requirements, reminiscent of the welfare reform effort of the 90s. But this raises another red flag. What does ‘welfare’ even mean? There are about 100 federal anti-poverty programs. No one knows which ones work, which do not, or which duplicate others, and no one wants to find out.

Each of these programs is a federal employee’s livelihood and some congressperson’s pet project, and both will defend their bit of turf. The application of sacred cow can be extended to cover every single dollar that the federal govt spends. Understanding that fact might help make it easier to realize why even the slightest cuts that are recommended are treated as existential threats. And herein lies what might be the heart of Musk and Trump’s war of words.

This administration began as an opportunity for real change. Change may still occur, but it becomes more difficult without the one person in the group who is not afraid to try new things, a person who learns from failure and returns to try again until getting it right. Washington is not built for either of those options. What is left is a combination of true believers in Trump’s ability to move the needle and political veterans with a natural reluctance to change that might upset the status quo. Last I checked, no one campaigned on or voted for the status quo.