The Daly Weekly (2/14)

Vladimir Putin, Jeffrey Epstein, Matt Schlapp, and more.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw at me.

Let’s get right to it…

---

John, these public theatrical Democrat protests almost look cartoonish. And I don’t hear solutions. They just lost an election. Wouldn’t they be better served by holding Town Hall’s, etc, and listening to their constituents about how they can better serve them so they can win the next election. — Rob O.

Rob, the early signs are that the Democrats took no lessons away from the last election and the party’s sunken popularity among the general public. The fact that David Hogg is now the party’s vice-chair is another example of that disconnect. Many in Democratic leadership, at this point, seem to believe that the problem is that Dems haven’t been “activist” enough, or pushed identity politics hard enough. The opposite is true. The “woke” culture in America peaked a year or two into Biden’s presidency, and it’s been steadily losing ground ever since.

The Dems also can’t rely on a lot of their former positions to give them an advantage, because Trump has pulled the GOP hard to the left on virtually everything but political correctness. I’ll say this again: today’s GOP is closer to Bernie Sanders’ vision for America than it is Ronald Reagan’s. This leaves an opportunity for the Dems to latch onto some of the good things Republicans have abandoned. They’ve done a little bit of that, but Democratic leaders have mostly clung to progressive ideas, which are politically self-defeating for them at this point in American history.

I've got unsettling thoughts with the Putin/Trump situation. They have NOT spoken directly, I doubt they'll meet any time soon; I believe Putin would love to eliminate Trump. Trump quoted saying, “Well, let's just say I talked to him." O'Reilly's new book 'Confronting Evil’ has Putin on the list. I believe Trump is scared to meet him in person. Any thoughts on that? — Sharon H.

Maybe you’ve read or seen something that I haven’t, Sharon, but I thought they had spoken since Trump took back the Oval Office. Regardless, they’re scheduled to meet in person now. I don’t think Putin wants to eliminate Trump by any means. Trump’s been quite favorable to him (and hard on Putin’s adversaries) — more so than any other U.S. president would be. Trump’s personal affection for Putin is well documented, as is his parroting of Russian talking points against Ukraine and even our own country. Trump’s always casting aspersions on NATO (which Putin has to like), and Trump and Hegseth have already signaled profound weakness on negotiations with Russia, in regard to their war on Ukraine. So, all things considered, I think Putin probably feels pretty fortunate that Trump is our president.

And no, I don’t believe Trump is at all scared to meet Putin in person. They’ve met before, and, again, Trump admires Putin and his control over the Russian people. For Trump, it will probably be a real treat to catch up with Vlad.

Sir John: Trump says he wants to release all the secret classified documents on the JFK and MLK assassinations AND Epstein! Do you think he’ll really do it and release everything in total? I must admit, I’m really curious about Epstein‘s client list. What are your thoughts? —“The Truth Is Out There” regards from The Emperor

I haven’t paid much attention to this stuff, Emperor. I do remember Trump, last year, sort of dancing around the topic of releasing the Epstein info. It was during a Fox News interview, and Fox actually cut that part out. Like Bill Clinton, both Trump and RFK Jr. (Trump’s new HHS Secretary) were past Epstein associates (Kennedy even rode on his plane), though there’s no public evidence that they were involved in his wrongdoing. Whether or not Trump decides to release new information on Epstein is probably dependent on whether that information could come back to bite his administration. I assume he’ll probably release the JFK and MLK stuff, and I’m guessing there will be nothing particularly interesting that we learn from it.

John: You and I both are traditional conservatives, especially when it comes to advocating for limited government with regards to size, scope, reach, and regulation. What is your opinion on Trump's efforts to reduce the size and role of the federal government, both generally and tactically? Is this a threat to democracy, or a threat to the bureaucracy? — Steve R.

I don’t seem him reducing the size of government, Steve.

Like I’ve said on this website before, I’m all for trimming waste. DOGE is assisting with some of that (which is good), but with Musk and company repeatedly misrepresenting their findings, and using those misrepresentations to shut down the work of certain agencies that should be reformed (or otherwise restructured) rather than just smashed to bits, I think unnecessary chaos and pain is being created. And there’s also the issue of Team Musk being given the level of classified access they have (which may not even be legal).

But going back to my original point, conservative economist Jessica Riedl (who I’ve interviewed on this website before) posted a great summary last week of the federal spending situation, which I’ll re-publish here. It’s a few paragraphs long, but I think it’s an important read:

“Why aren’t you cheering Trump & DOGE? I thought you wanted spending and deficit cuts!"

Because I’ve been doing this for 25 years and can’t be tricked by gimmicky nonsense. Trump’s first term added $8 trillion in enacted spending hikes and tax cuts to the deficit - half of which was unrelated to the pandemic. This time around, Trump has proposed roughly $8 trillion more in tax cuts and spending hikes over the decade. And right now, a GOP Congress is preparing to abandon most reconciliation cuts and instead add $325 billion this year in new spending. We’re headed towards $4 trillion deficits within a decade.

So, no, I don’t get excited when DOGE cancels $1 billion in govt contracts. Or saves $3 billion in federal workforce reductions out of a $7,000 billion budget. Not when Trump and Congress are also preparing to add $800 billion more annually in proposed new tax cuts and spending.

And no, the huge savings are not coming. Even (unrealistically) eliminating 20% of the federal workforce would save $60 billion, and overhauling federal systems to sharply reduce payment errors may save perhaps $80 billion (and is probably unlikely too). For all of DOGE’s bluster, administrative and executive reforms would at best save 1-2% of federal spending and offset only a small fraction of Trump’s red ink agenda.

That leaves trying to unilaterally impound spending such as USAID—which is wildly illegal—or actually going to Congress to pare back spending the constitutional way. But Trump has already taken Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans, border (and interest) off the table, which is 2/3 of all spending and is driving deficits. And the GOP Congress seems ready to give up on cutting the remaining one-third of spending. Want to cut spending and the deficit? How about they stop passing budget-busting bills. Don’t brag about your coupon-clipping frugality at the same time you are buying a $250,000 Ferrari. I’m not going to cheer Trump and DOGE for adding “only” $750 billion to deficits instead of $800 billion. We’re still going backwards.

I’ve spent decades studying the federal budget. I know that $7 trillion(!) behemoth inside and out – where the money really goes, and where the savings opportunities lie. So I can also detect bullshitters who talk tough about trillion-dollar spending cuts without doing their homework. It’s the ones who claim most spending goes to undefined “waste,” federal salaries, immigrants, foreigners, Ukraine, or non-working welfare recipients. It’s the ones who claim we can easily balance the budget or cut $1 trillion without specifying exactly what line-items to cut. Or that we can return to 2019 spending levels for each program, which means a 20% inflationary cut, defaulting on the federal debt, and kicking off every senior who has since retired into Social Security and Medicare. It’s all hot air and empty bluster. Tough talk without following through on anything substantive. Just wait until you see the final deficit numbers in October.

And this is why GOP movements to cut spending always fail. They make absurdly ambitious promises without doing their homework, understanding where the money goes, and specifying real plans to fix it. You can’t significantly cut the deficit just by cutting waste, firing bureaucrats, and defunding immigrants and foreigners. There are no easy short cuts. You have to stop cutting taxes and then address Social Security, Medicare, defense, and a lot of other popular programs. Wake me when the GOP goes there.

So, no, I will not get excited about a couple billion in DOGE savings on one hand while Trump pushes Congress to add $8 trillion over the decade in tax cuts and spending with the other hand. I’m not that gullible.

By the way, Riedl’s fully scored plan for stabilizing the debt can be read here.

I never cease to be amazed by “Bob” in the comment section declaring over and over again that you and Bernie “refuse” to talk about topics that I’ve seen both you and Bernie talk about on this website. Does the stupidity of it all ever wear on you? — Alex D.

I was sort of taken back by it when he first subscribed, Alex. But it became clear after a while that the algorithmic, almost Tourettes-like responses were so entirely unserious that I shouldn’t take them to heart. I mean, “Bob” literally (not figuratively) accused Bernie and I of the attempted murder of Donald Trump… because we criticize the guy. Frankly, I’m not even convinced Bob’s a real person, but whoever is behind the account is apparently using a valid credit card, so he/she/it is free to comment here.

First, condolences on your dad.

My question: It looks like CPAC’s Matt Schlapp is in hot water again, with seven witnesses this time saying they witnessed him sexually assault a man at a bar. Thoughts? — Ben G.

Thanks Ben.

This keeps happening with Schlapp, and I don’t think it’s because he’s being targeted by “the deep state.” I think the guy has a serious problem. We’ll see where things go legally.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.