Executive Order 13829: US Postal System

What the Executive Order says

Executive Order (EO) 13829 is entitled "Taskforce on the United States Postal system" and has 7 sections.  It was issued in April 2018.

Section 1

This section sketches out that the US Postal System (USPS) is currently operating under a financing model that is structurally unsustainable and cites certain facts in support of that position.

Section 2

This section defines who will be on the Task Force and that it will be led by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section 3

This section directs the Task Force to seriously reconsider the traditionally understood mandate of the USPS and how present trends extrapolate into the future such as additional package volume due to e-commerce and similarly, the reduced letter volume due to electronic communications technologies.

Section 4

This section discusses what is to be considered when the Task Force comes up with recommendations.  The recommendations should not increase taxes and needs to consider EO 13781 (which I discuss here) as well as the views of the USPS workforce and customers.

Section 5

This section mandates that a report be generated within 120 days to summarize the findings and recommendations of the Task Force.

Section 6

This section indicates from where the funds to run the task for will come, which is the Federal Financing Bank.

Section 7

This section, labeled "general provisions" includes specific text to ensure that the EO does not exceed the constitutional limits on executive power.

My commentary

So the lapse of time actually very much worked in the favor of being able to capture a more comprehensive consideration of what is going on with this EO.  And there are considerable tides pushing this issue around.  First is that everyone agrees that USPS needs to exist and it needs to provide mail services to everyone.  However, in providing that service, many argue exactly who should be footing the bill or why a post office should exist in every hamlet with a 1,000 people who live thereabouts.  In that respect, this EO certainly is continuing that argument, especially when it asks that "universal service" needs to be redefined.
Second, I do think that it is fair to re-consider the mission of USPS because of the large scale technological changes that have happened over the past 20 years.  But to draw the conclusion that because of these changes, USPS is a relic that is long past its expiration date is wrong.  There is a role to play and USPS could enhance the services that it provides to mail customers through technology and there needs to be an incubator so that new services could be developed.  These services may well compete in the market against services being provided by publicly traded or privately held for-profit corporations.  For some this should not be allowed by their fundamental philosophy.  But my opinion is that if you are wanting to not fund the USPS through tax based subsidies to be able to succeed in the mission to provide universal service, then you have to let it compete in the market.
Given the predispositions of the current administration, it is entirely probable that the report will favor eliminating as much of USPS as possible.  The final report, issued in December 2018 is here.  It is 74 pages long.  There was also an interim report in August of 2018.
The recommendations in the report notably include a lot "keep things the same, but make money instead of losing it".  It is not a great report, but on the other hand, it doesn't significantly push for privatization either.

Executive Order 13819: Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13819 is entitled "Adjustment of Certain Rates of Pay" and has 8 sections.  This EO defines the rates of pay for political appointees.  This is an annual item.

Section 1

This section references schedules 1, 2, and 3 as the rates of pay for General, foreign service and regarding the Veterans Health Administration and the Department of Veterans affairs.

Section 2

This section references schedule 4 for the rates of pay for Senior Executives.

Section 3

This section references schedules 5, 6 and 7 for the rates of pay for the Executive, the Vice President and Congress, and for justices and judges.

Section 4

This section references schedule 8 for uniformed service pay rates.

Section 5

This section references schedule 9 for locality based comparability payments.  The requirements of publishing notice regarding locality based comparability payments was done in this OMB notice in March, 2018.

Section 6

This section references schedule 10 for the rates of pay for administrative law judges.

Section 7

This section defines when the rates of pay come into force which is either Jan 1, 2018 or the first day of the first applicable pay period after Jan 1, 2018.

Section 8

This section indicates that Executive Order 13756 was superseded by this EO.

Schedules

There are 10 schedules attached to the Executive order

My Commentary

This Executive Order is part of the normal running of the government.  Each year the pay rates are set as required.  This EO was superseded in December 2018 as the rates were again changed.

Presidential Memoranda: Pipelines, TPP

Programming note: The memoranda below are the final memoranda to be reviewed for the current administration.  Following this post, we will begin looking at Presidential proclamations.

Construction of American Pipelines

This memorandum was issued on January 24, 2017 and is addressed to the Secretary of Commerce.  This memorandum asks the Secretary to submit a plant to the President to ensure that pipelines in the US are "produced in the United States" and provides some definition of what that is intended to mean.  A review of news regarding this seems to indicate that not much ultimately happened in the way of rule-making for enforcing the intent expressed so that the domestic steel industry would get a boost.

Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement

This memorandum was issued January 23, 2017 and is addressed to the US Trade Representative.  This was done to keep a campaign promise.  However, the US withdrawal did not kill the TPP, the remaining signatories continued the trade pact although it now covered significantly less traded goods.  The philosophy that the administration follows is that bilateral negotiations are good whereas multi-lateral negotiations are bad for the US on the basis that in multi-lateral negotiations, the US cannot wield as much influence..

The Mexico City Policy

This memorandum was issued January 23, 2017 and is addressed to several cabinet members.  It revokes the Presidential memorandum of January 23, 2009 and instead implements the opposite policy.  This policy regards abortion and funding NGO's and other aid organizations based on whether or not they provide information to women about abortion.

Hiring Freeze

This memorandum was issued on January 23, 2017 and is addressed to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.  While there a large number of caveats listed in the memorandum, it has effectively put a hiring freeze on the executive branch and there are regularly stories in the news how the executive branch departments and agencies are struggling to keep up with the workload required.
There is a long-term plan that was to be created by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  The freeze was lifted on April 12, 2017.

Presidential Memoranda: Permitting and the Armed Forces

Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces

This Memorandum was issued on January 27, 2017 and is addressed to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  It has 4 sections.

Section 1

This section defines that the policy of the US is to rebuild the US Armed Forces.  To be honest, no one ever presented to me any explanation of why the armed forces needed rebuilding.  I have never thought that the armed forces had faltered.  There could be an argument that we need to have larger armed forces and that their equipment needs to be updated with more technologically advanced equipment, but that is not what is being communicated.

Section 2

This section calls for a readiness review to be performed and that a report to the President is made of its findings.  Additionally, it directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a budget amendment to enlarge the military budget.  Overall, a plan to increase readiness shall be developed and implemented.

Section 3

This section discusses reviews of the National Defense Strategy, Nuclear Posture Review and Ballistic Missile Defense Review.  There is not a lot of details in terms of what the direction will be for these reviews.  It is not clear whether that means that the administration did not know what direction they wanted other than just "rebuild", or if there was something sent verbally that did provide the directions but it was sinister and as such could not be written down.  In any case, rebuilding the military was a slogan from the campaign.  Additionally, it should be noted that the President also campaigned on pulling back from having a global presence and bringing the troops back because we had no business being in ... wherever.  And yet this memorandum was a marker to increase military spending: power for the sake of power?  Looking back from now (December 2017), the budget has been such a difficult item that very little on the President's agenda has been funded.  Significantly, there has been questions as to whether the military will be able to spend more in 2018 that it did in 2017 given the current impasse in the Senate.

Section 4

This section includes the usual fine print to assure the constitutionality of the directives issues.  As well, it directs the Secretary of Defense to have it published in the Federal Register.

Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing

This memorandum was issued on January 24, 2017 and is addressed for the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.  It has 4 sections

Section 1

This section states the policy that the regulatory state needs to be deconstructed because regulation is adversely impacting the manufacturing sector of the US.

Section 2

This section directs the Secretary of Commerce to solicit comments from the public regarding streamlining the permitting process.

Section 3

This section directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit an action plan to the President on how the permitting process will be streamlined.

Section 4

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to assure its constitutionality.

Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline

This memorandum was issued on January 24, 2017 and is addressed to the Secretaries of State, the Army and the Interior.  It has 4 sections

Section 1

This section invokes Executive Orders 11423 and 13337 as sources to direct the Secretary of State to use "Presidential permits" as a means to issue the required permits for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Section 2

This section invites TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P to re-submit the application to the Department of State.

Section 3

This section directs the Secretaries of State, the Army and the Interior to cut short all internal reviews and pretty much mandates that the decision, insofar as the Federal Government is concerned, is to issue the permit because the President says so.  Frankly, this is another example where Trump has not respected due process.  Trump's definition of due process seems to be application of influence to the extent necessary so the decision will go in your favor.

Section 4

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to assure that the directives in the memorandum do not overstep the bounds of the executive branch.

Executive Order 13781: Executive Branch Reorganization

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13781 is entitled "Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch" and was issued on March 13th, 2017.  This EO has 3 sections and was promoted as part of the "drain the swamp" strategy.

Section 1

This section defines the policy that the executive branch should be reorganized to eliminate unnecessary agencies.  This will then improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the Executive Branch of the government.

Section 2

This section has 5 subsections.  The first subsection directs the heads of agencies to provide a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) within 180 days.  The second subsection directs the Director to request public comments and suggestions by way of notice in the Federal Register which is here.  The third subsection requests a report from the Director compiling the information from the first two subsections which is to be submitted to the President.  The fourth subsection details what the report is to cover which includes finding where multiple agencies are doing the same thing or where it would be preferable that State or local governments or private industry should perform those functions.  The report should also include recommendations for legislation to help meet the policy goal expressed in section 1.  The last subsection directs the Director to seek input from the heads of agencies and other persons or entities outside the Federal Government where appropriate.

Section 3

This section contains the necessary legal fine print to assure that the EO is constitutional.

My Commentary

Taken on face value, this seems to be a laudable goal.  Eliminating redundancy is good in any organization.  The difficulties will lie in how to make value judgments regarding whether the Federal Government should be performing some administrative or regulatory function and how intangible benefits are weighed against cash costs in the performance of functions.
Clearly the current administration campaigned on the plank of cutting back the government.  What this EO sets into motion is a reduction in the size of government.  In the President's proposed budget, this included cut backs on the workforce in a number of agencies, but it would appear to me that those cutbacks were not associated with this EO and probably developed independently.
The notice for comments was issued 5/15/17 and the period for comments closed on 6/12/17.  Per the www.regulations.gov site, 2,019 comments were recorded.  On April 12th, the Director issued this memo which asks primarily for agencies to find ways to cut the work force.
In the end, there are valid efficiencies that can be made by way of moving to use higher levels of technology in the course of service delivery and the rest of the day to day work of the government.  However, it is clear that the focus here is to determine what can be shut down.  It will depend on how hard the heads of agencies will fight against the President and Director as to how much of the government will be eliminated.

Memorandum of June 21, 2017

In the Federal Register, a memorandum dated June 21st, 2017 was published.  This Memorandum was quite short, but rather cryptic.  It states:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 10005 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) (the “Act”).

The link in the above did not actually work for me, so here is a different link that should work.
What this is saying is that the President is delegating the responsibility under section 10005 of the Act to the Secretary of Defense.  This is a rather ironic development.  During the campaign, Trump stated that he did not need the generals and that he had a special secret plan for defeating ISIS.  Since taking power, he has issued an Executive Order which requests that a plan is developed by the Generals as to how to defeat ISIS.  Section 10005 provides for spending ($2.4 billion) on defense subject to the President providing a report to Congress (potentially with a classified appendix) on the strategy to defeat ISIS.  So basically, Congress is having trouble getting information on what the current strategy is.  Sad!
Some news outlets, I believe have written this up as Trump delegating his powers as "commander in chief".  This is definitely overstating what is in the memo.  But clearly, the president does not seem to have an interest anymore on figuring out how to defeat ISIS and so has passed the task on to the Secretary of Defense.  Logically the Secretary of Defense would have in large part been involved in the writing of any strategy document, but this oddly pushes the buck down the chain but is within the pattern of behavior we have seen many times before by the President.

Analysis of the President's Budget Message

The President released his FY2018 budget on May 23rd, 2017.  In this post, we will review the President's message and I will provide commentary thereon.

 

 

This Budget’s defining ambition is to unleash the dreams of the American people. This requires laying a new foundation for American Greatness. Through streamlined Government, we will drive an economic boom that raises incomes and expands job opportunities for all Americans. Faster economic growth, coupled with fiscal restraint, will enable us to fully fund our national priorities, balance our budget, and start to pay down our national debt.

Here in this second paragraph of the message, we see some stated goals of the administration and it defines what the administration is looking to achieve with the release of this budget.  Indeed, talk of a balanced budget has long been missing from Congress and the Whitehouse.  During the 2006-2008 financial crisis, it was deemed necessary to do whatever is required to avert the possibility of a new Great Depression with high unemployment, deflation and mass suffering.  The President at the time did what had to be done, damn the consequences to the debt, to keep the greater economy from crashing even though the financial markets had.  But in some ways, the previous Presidents failed because in rural American, de-industrialization continued, small towns and family farmers suffered when unlike their urban cousins whose lives did largely return to normal, these rural residents quietly applied for government aid and sometimes resorted to alcohol and drugs when the psychic pain proved to be too much to handle.

In the press, the budgetary control aspect has been described as overreaching as well as cruel.  I concur.  However, are we on a path that will lead soon (possibly before 2020) to a further financial crisis because of the US Government debt?  I have memories of the early 1990's where one of the memes at the time was a hyperinflationary spiral in the style of Zimbabwe besetting the US due to increasing budget deficits.  In the past eight years, it seems that there has been a complacency that has set in with regards to government deficits.  One would have thought that the Republicans who controlled Congress since 2010 could have negotiated some progress on reducing the deficit, but this has not happened.

Our moral commitment to replacing our current economic stagnation with faster economic growth rests on the following eight pillars of reform:

 

Health Reform. We need to enable Americans to buy the healthcare they need at a price they can afford. To this end, we must repeal Obamacare and its burdensome regulations and mandates, and replace it with a framework that restores choice and competition. This will lower the cost of care so that more Americans can get the medical attention they need. Additionally, Medicaid, which inadequately serves enrollees and taxpayers, must be reformed to allow States to manage their own programs, with continued financial support from the Federal Government.

At this point, an eight point agenda is laid out to express the key policy aims of the administration and also to discuss briefly how these are achieved through this budget.  Up first is Healthcare.  The idea that Amercians can "buy the healthcare they need at a price they can afford" is the trick required.  Currently, Americans cannot do that.  The government does not and will never actually provide healthcare except for Veterans.  Most people cannot absorb the consequences of a negative catastrophic health event and need to have insurance.  The government largely does not provide insurance other than Medicare and Medicaid.  Often right-wing opinion leaders invoke government-run health care or health insurance to argue extreme libertarian positions.  This is a straw man argument because if we ever get to universal coverage in the US, it will be because Congress has provided a legal framework that assures that everyone gets coverage although the insurance and services will be provided by private parties.  This works in other countries, why not here?

Just one other point.  So many people were up in arms because of the individual mandate where everyone has to get healthcare insurance, but yet everyone seems to be fine with requirements for liability auto insurance.  That is hypocritical.

Tax Reform and Simplification. We must reduce the tax burden on American workers and businesses, so that we can maximize incomes and economic growth. We must also simplify our tax system, so that individuals and businesses do not waste countless hours and resources simply paying their taxes.

 

Here, I have to agree with the idea of simplification of taxes, specifically income taxes.  Surcharges, tax credits, tax deductions all have been used as a way to implement social policy through tax policy and every administration has been guilty of doing this.  However, I strongly feel that the tax burden does need to increase, although the distribution of the tax burden needs to be looked at.  I do not see any issue with a marginal tax rate of 80% for income over $1,000,000 (although I admit it is easy for me to say because it will never affect me personally).  Further, since the 1980's, I think that the idea of supply-side trickle down economics is largely debunked.

Immigration Reform. We must reform immigration policy so that it serves our national interest. We will adopt commonsense proposals that protect American workers, reduce burdens on taxpayers and public resources, and focus Federal funds on underserved and disadvantaged citizens.

The policy here is to restrict immigration into the US.  There is an attempt to use an economic argument to cloak the true motivations: bigotry and xenophobia.  Between attracting the world's best and brightest and needing young people to mitigate the ongoing demographic shift, there are good reasons to increase immigration.

Reductions in Federal Spending. We must scrutinize every dollar the Federal Government spends. Just as families decide how to manage limited budgets, we must ensure the Federal Government spends precious taxpayer dollars only on our highest national priorities, and always in the most efficient, effective manner.

This is the opposite side of the coin from the Tax Reform bullet point above.  Republicans have long argued, especially on the libertarian wing, that the US government has become involved in too many facets of everyday life and that it is issuing too many rules and regulations (see below).  To achieve a balanced budget, you must reduce spending, increase taxes or a combination of both.  I think there is a need to have a look at the effectiveness of spending and do something about programs that can be clearly shown to be ineffective, but this budget makes assumptions wholesale and cuts everything in sight.

Regulatory Rollback. We must eliminate every outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective Federal regulation, and move aggressively to build regulatory frameworks that stimulate—rather than stagnate—job creation. Even for those regulations we must leave in place, we must strike every provision that is counterproductive, ineffective, or outdated.

What is the yardstick to be used?  There are regulations relating to the disposal of lead.  These lead to companies that utilize lead having higher costs and substitute materials are more expensive to incorporate into processes and products.  Should these regulations be repealed because this would stimulate job creation?  What of environmental clean-ups and health care costs when factories be toxic to their workers and the surrounding flora and fauna?  Do we add these to the additional jobs column as well?  And yet regulations were passed because it was determined that the costs in human life, suffering and degradation of the environment, although they cannot be measured in dollars and cents, were more than some number of jobs that were lost.
This approach invariably privatizes the profits but socializes the costs.  At some point when plant is shut down and quarantined as a site contaminated by hazardous materials, the corporation will bail and leave government to deal with the mess.

American Energy Development. We must increase development of America’s energy resources, strengthening our national security, lowering the price of electricity and transportation fuels, and driving down the cost of consumer goods so that every American individual and business has more money to save and invest. A consistent, long-term supply of lower-cost American energy brings with it a much larger economy, more jobs, and greater security for the American people.

Oddly, this statement is actually oxymoronic.  Currently one of the drags on the American economy is actually the low price of oil.  Many companies in the oil and gas sectors are reducing personnel and cutting back on capital expenditures because current and future projects will not provide a return on investment unless the price of oil rises somewhat.  Yes, this will increase the price of gasoline and electricity, but it is not a 1:1 relationship.  Stimulating the Energy sector to pump more oil and gas and create more electricity will lower oil prices because demand will remain flat.  Because of the recent increases in energy efficiency and the relatively small size of the manufacturing sector, reduced energy costs will not swell manufacturing significantly or drive down prices for manufactured products.

Welfare Reform. We must reform our welfare system so that it does not discourage able-bodied adults from working, which takes away scarce resources from those in real need. Work must be the center of our social policy.

This statement is dogma disconnected from reality.  U3 unemployment rate is at near record lows.  The reason why the population participation rates are so low is because of all the old people who have retired but have not died yet.

 

 

Education Reform. We need to return decisions regarding education back to the State and local levels, while advancing opportunities for parents and students to choose, from all available options, the school that best fits their needs to learn and succeed.

This statement is a dog whistle to conservative Christians who wish that their schools which include the inculcation of students with unscientific religious based prejudices should also be able to get Federal funding.  Words fail me to describe just how destructive this would be if passed.

 

To unleash the power of American work and creativity—and drive opportunity and faster economic growth—we must reprioritize Federal spending so that it advances the safety and security of the American people.

This Budget, therefore, includes $639 billion for the Department of Defense—a $52 billion increase from the 2017 annualized continuing resolution level. This increase will be offset by targeted reductions elsewhere. This defense funding is vital to rebuilding, modernizing, and preparing our Armed Forces for the future so that our military remains the world’s preeminent fighting force and we can continue to ensure peace through strength. This Budget also increases funding to take care of our great veterans, who have served their country with such honor and distinction.

Echoes of 1984 (the book by Orwell) where war is peace.  It is nonsense to try to achieve freedom through a police state.  Incarceration rates are the highest in the world and to top that off, recidivism rates are also very poor.  With all the extra money pouring into the military there will be reasons to push to use the capability as well.  And as it has been discussed above, some of the actions and priorities will decrease the security of the American people rather than increasing it because of unintended consequences of the simplistic thinking that has been applied.

The Budget also meets the need to materially increase funding for border security, immigration enforcement, and law enforcement at the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. These funding increases will provide additional resources for a southern border wall, expanded detention capacity, and initiatives to reduce violent crime, as well as more immigration judges, u.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and Border Patrol agents. The Budget also invests significant resources in efforts to combat opioid abuse.

This strikes me as a move towards a police state.  The resources applied to combat the effects of opioid abuse are probably law enforcement and not for prevention or treatment.  The administration seems to think that the only solution is to lock up people who have done something wrong, no matter how small.  This is headed towards East Germany in many ways.
 

In these dangerous times, our increased attention to public safety and national security sends a clear message to the world—a message of American strength and resolve. It follows through on my promise to focus on keeping Americans safe, keeping terrorists out of our Nation, and putting violent offenders behind bars.

It does not send a message of strength and resolve.  This sends a message of fear, hatred of others and of a new introversion.  The unintended consequence of all of the additional law enforcement and military is to instill fear in the population.  Yes, there are bad people out there, but not significantly more now than 8 years ago.  When the conversation is all about wrong-doing, it ends up being self-fulfilling and one of the things that might drive up crime statistics from their relatively low levels currently is that more people will become desperate.  Some of the policies and priorities listed in the budget will have unintended consequences of creating desperation because of cutbacks in the social safety net and other things.
 

As this Budget returns us to economic prosperity, it will also allow us to fund additional priorities, including infrastructure, student loan reform, and initiatives to help working families such as paid parental leave. We will champion the hardworking taxpayers who have been ignored for too long. Once we end our economic stagnation and return to robust growth, so many of our aspirations will be within reach.

As has been mentioned in the media, the concept that this plan will get us back to a balanced budget is a complete fiction based on bad assumptions and bad math.  Based on what has been legislatively achieved in the first 4 months, there is serious doubt that any intricate measures will actually be able to be passed by Congress and signed by the President.  "The hardworking taxpayers" that are championed by this budget proposal are not the people who voted for Trump.  They are not the urban middle class that voted in high proportions for Clinton.  They are the 1% who have disproportionate influence on the politicians.  The policies of this administration are not strongly fostering growth, in fact a budget such as this one will actually reduce GDP because it is reining in spending.  If the budget were to spend $400 billion less next year, to maintain the current anemic 2% growth, private industry or consumers will have to increase their spending by $400 billion.  If they do not, then growth will come in at 0%.
 

It is now up to the Congress to act. I pledge my full cooperation in ending the economic malaise that has, for too long, crippled the dreams of our people. The time for small thinking is over. As we look forward to our 250th year, I am calling upon all Members of Congress to join me in striving to do big and bold and daring things for our Nation. We have it in our power to set free the dreams of our people. Let us begin.

It is a good thing that this proposal is a pipe dream and just a political document.  It is wrong in so many ways.  Because of the 52-48 split in the Senate, getting a budget passed will be really difficult.  There are other financial legislation needed as well such as continuing resolutions and raising the debt ceiling.  I think that having a government shutdown within the next couple of years is going to be 50-50.  The country is too divided.  We need a unifier, but is the gap too great for anyone to be able to step in?