Jan
21
2025

The Pardoner's Tale

Andrew C. McCarthy wrote (presciently as it turned out) on The Preemptive Pardons. From 10:21am yesterday, 2025-01-20:

I don’t believe President Biden is done quite yet with his gross abuse of the pardon power. As this is written, there are still about three hours left in his presidency — plenty of time to pardon key players in the Biden family business of selling Ol’ Joe’s political influence to the Chinese Communist Party, Ukrainian oligarchs, and other agents of corrupt and anti-American regimes. But the preemptive pardons announced this morning for the House January 6 Committee, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and General Milley (see our David Zimmermann’s report) continue the scandal.

To my mind, the interesting question is whether these public officials will accept the grants of clemency.

President Biden — or, I should say, Jill, Hunter, and whoever else on in the White House is actually exercising the powers of the chief executive of our government (another huge scandal) — highlighted the fraught question in today’s announcement, insisting: “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgement that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

But of course it will be construed that way, fairly or not. In its 1915 decision in Burdick v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a pardon must be accepted in order to have legal effect because of the “confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon.” The Court elaborated that, in terms of public shame, a pardon can involve “consequences of even greater significance than those from which it purports to relieve.”

Andrew goes on to say that he does not agree with that SCOTUS reasoning, but what are you going to do?

Also of note:

  • Well, gee, a lot of stuff happened yesterday. But Eric Boehm's article from print-Reason looks at a big longer-term issue: Finding Trillions in Federal Cuts Is Easy. But Will Trump and Musk Follow Through?

    Easy? Yes:

    The most obvious question about Musk's promise to rip $2 trillion out of the federal budget is also one of the easiest to answer: Can it be done?

    Yes, absolutely. In 2019, the last full budget year before the COVID-19 pandemic unleashed even higher outlays, the feds spent about $4.4 trillion. Simply cutting the government back to the size it was five years ago accomplishes this seemingly impossible promise.

    A more realistic approach might start with the prepandemic spending baseline. In January 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projected that government spending in FY 2025 would total $5.8 trillion—about $1 trillion less than what the government actually spent in 2024.

    So the first thing a Musk-guided second Trump administration could do is to set an overall spending target. Rolling the government back to a prepandemic budget baseline of $5.8 trillion would accomplish half of the $2 trillion promise, and it would do so without having to target any particular program. Hold firm to that final figure and make Congress sort out the details. That, at a minimum, should be the goal for the first year.

    As I've been saying a lot lately, we'll see what happens. Eric's article indicates there are plenty of good ideas out there. And here's one more…

  • Long past time, if you ask me. Let's fix a perennial toothache: Is it Finally Time to Privatize the United States Postal Service? Peter C. Earle says…

    As with all political campaigns that reignite discussions on reducing government spending and eliminating bureaucratic inefficiency, the US Postal Service (USPS) — which reported a net loss of $9.5 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024 — is now likely to find itself under renewed scrutiny. The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has intensified speculation about the fate of whole swaths of sclerotic government agencies and departments, which should put the USPS directly in its crosshairs.

    Privatizing the US Postal Service (USPS) would be a significant step toward improving efficiency, encouraging innovation, and ensuring financial sustainability for an institution less exhibiting than wholly characterized by decades upon decades of ossification and financial losses. As a government-backed monopoly, the USPS controls first-class mail delivery and mailboxes while benefiting from advantages like tax exemptions and low-interest Treasury loans. However, its ability to operate effectively is constrained by political interference, including strict limits on pricing and service adjustments. A market-driven alternative — long discussed, but now feasible — would involve eliminating government control, introducing competition, and allowing market forces to create a streamlined, customer-focused postal system.

    Well, apparently Vivek got the heck out of DOGE but I hope Elon is reading.

  • He is large, he contains multitudes. Eric Boehm also provides another story about what promises to be an, um, interesting time: Trump promises to be a 'peacemaker,' threatens Panama.

    In his inauguration address on Monday afternoon, President Donald Trump said his "proudest legacy" would be "that of a peacemaker."

    Moments later, Trump threatened to seize a portion of the sovereign territory of another country—specifically, the Panama Canal, a crucial link for global trade.

    It's a useful reminder of what America will be getting for the next four years: a president who holds a chaotic mix of often contradictory ideas, and one who sees everything as being up for negotiation. Do you want a president who will keep America out of pointless foreign conflicts? Trump promises to be that guy. Do you want a president who projects American power around the world and demands fealty from the leaders of lesser nations? He can be that guy too. Just don't try to reconcile the two visions.

    I think Harry Frankfurt's observations on bullshit will be increasingly relevant: bullshitters don't care what they say is true or false. The corollary: they are unbothered by self-contradiction, even within the same speech.

  • Sunrise doesn't last all morning, A cloudburst doesn't last all day. So, as George Will recommends: Neither euphoric nor despairing be. Trump too shall pass.

    Although few presidential inaugural addresses are remembered, six etched in the nation’s memory felicitous phrases, perfect for the moments: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle” (Jefferson, 1801); “the mystic chords of memory … the better angels of our nature” (Lincoln, 1861); all Lincoln’s 701 words in 1865, carved in his memorial’s marble; “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (Roosevelt, 1933); “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” (Kennedy, 1961); “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is our problem” (Reagan, 1981, often quoted without the first four words).

    Donald Trump does not deal in felicities. His second inaugural will be remembered for being worse than 59 others, including his first (about “stealing,” “ravages” and “carnage”). It was memorable for its staggering inappropriateness.

    Inaugurations should be solemn yet celebratory components of America’s civic liturgy. Instead, we heard on Monday that because of “corrupt” and “horrible” “betrayals” by others, “the pillars of our society” are “in complete disrepair.” The challenges will be “annihilated,” not because God blesses America, but because God chose him.

    Yeah, God's not sending us his best.


Last Modified 2025-01-22 4:13 AM EST