Monday, August 10, 2020

Well, Kudos to George Stephanapoplous


STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Larry, in fact, the president doesn’t extend —

KUDLOW: — we make great success, but we had to take action.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In fact, the president doesn’t extend the federal eviction moratorium. I looked at the executive order; it doesn’t do that. It simply directs how to find a way to help people and identify federal funds. It doesn’t include extending the eviction moratorium.

KUDLOW: Well, look, it — that’s not entirely true. I mean, in there —

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it is true. I read — I just read —

(CROSSTALK)

KUDLOW: Secretary of health, if any determination is made that there’s a health threat of community spread due to evictions or forbearance due — coming on top of evictions, that they would take action. … So, it just says there’s going to be a review, I can tell you, George, the intent of that is that the review will prevent any evictions.

We've been fortunate so far. But this is a guardrail and it will work out beautifully.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay. I understand that, you say that’s the intent. Just to clarify, because I’m reading Page 3 of it right here. It says such action may include encouraging and providing assistance to public housing authorities or affordable housing owners, landlords and recipients of federal grant funds in minimizing evictions and foreclosures.

It doesn’t talk about extending the moratorium.

The gap between what Trump said was in the executive memorandums and what really was in them was as wide as the gap between what they said and what is constitutionally possible.

Trump’s payroll tax measure contains some similar flimflam: It does not obligate employers to withhold any less from workers’ paychecks; since employers eventually will have to pay the tax, many will do nothing. Stephanopoulos ably pointed this out: “Well, on the payroll tax, again, it’s not a tax cut, it’s a tax deferral. Sen. Schumer says that he’s talked to a lot of employers who say they simply won’t — will continue to withhold the money because they don’t want to be on the hook for it later on. It is also not going to do anything for people who are unemployed right now; it could only help those who actually have jobs.”
The comment by Jennifer Rubin highlighted there is the point I was trying to make over the weekend.  There's still this media confusion (tendency? Narrative?) that when the POTUS speaks, his words are performative.  Let me explain why they aren't.

Performative means, in the human context, a command.  A general speaks, privates jump to attention.  A judge rules from the bench, his word is the law for that case.  The written order may memorialize what was said, but that comes later (believe me, I've been there).  It's what the judge says on the bench that matters.  That's the closest (as far as I know) we get to the ultimate performative act in Genesis 1.

The writers were trying to make creation the act of the Creator, without being an act of will, or of twiddling "fingers" or "directing power."  So God says, basically, "Light," and light separates darkness from light.  The movie "Dogma" understood this better than any representation of God on film.  God is silent because God's speak is literally creative.  God speaks creation into existence.  God does not cause by speech (like the general does):  God speaks, and it is done.  A judge speaks, and it is decided.

So a POTUS speaks, and it is so?  No.  Hardly.  A President directs a bureaucracy.  Even if the President "pushes the button," that is a directive to others to act.  How they interpret that command matters.  Do they go to Portland to maintain order?  Or to bust heads?  Either way, the POTUS is responsible for their actions, but "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" was not a performative act; except it was.  How you interpret the words of the ruler, the administrator, the President, matter.

But does what the POTUS says make things happen?  Yes; and no.  Again, it depends on what was meant.  I've delivered orders to judges following hearings.  I always had to pass them before opposing counsel, first; and sometimes we negotiated the language.  We reinterpreted what the judge had said; sometimes because we heard different things in court, sometimes to get one last advantage for our client.  But even an order was always an interpretation of what the judge had said from the bench, and we all knew it (counsel and the judge).  When a President says "Do it!," somebody has to reduce it to writing, so the order can be passed around, so everyone can see for herself what was said, and what it means.

Trump said at his press conference that he was signing "bills" and "acts."  That was the first clue he didn't know what he was doing, and what he said he was doing should not be taken at face value.  Then he was asked what would happen if governors didn't pony up for the UI extension, because it was clear the Feds were offering money contingent on a buy-in from the states.  Trump said that was their problem, and all but symbolically washed his hands of the issue.  Watching the tape it was very hard not to think of Pilate at the trial of Jesus.  But still we heard about what Trump had "done," about its legality, its constitutionality.  No one stopped to consider the POTUS is a notorious liar, and even more notoriously ignorant of his job and his powers, and that taking his word for the state of the weather was a mistake without checking for yourself.

And yet we must take it as given what he said he had done.  And the sky is falling and the republic is doomed and we're done for, we're done for!

Except the real problem is, the President is an idiot.



Literally none of that is true.  The "tax holiday" is just a postponement of tax due, so you pay now or you pay later.  Might as well pay now and not wonder what you did with the money come January.  Trump didn't protect Americans from eviction, and he didn't provide for any extension of UI.  Here, by the way, is the legal basis for that proposal:

Note the states MUST share 25% of the costs.  Trump can't get around that, much as he and Mnuchin have said they can.  But don't tell the White House that:

The states have to ask for it, under the relevant statute; and they have to chip in.  And even if they do, it runs out in five weeks.  Maybe Trump thinks his statements alter the statute; but they don't.  If he tries to anyway, then his order will be illegal.  If he doesn't, that means that maybe by October this can get started somewhere, right?  As I said before, just not in Texas.  The Lege won't meet until January, the Comptroller has told the state it has no money, and Abbot won't call a special session for this.  It's a nullity, and all people unemployed care about is their check.  A number of other states are strapped for cash for similar reasons.  Which means those checks ain't comin' no more, no matter what Trump thinks he has done, no matter what the punditocracy clucks their tongues about.

So while he's saying this:

It's not getting him anywhere.  Probably slowing down negotations, in fact.  Which makes it a performative act, I suppose.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)