garlicksauce.bsky.social
UVM political scientist. Congress, lobbying, state politics. Author of "Pre-Existing Conditions: How Lobbying Makes American Health Care More Expensive" (to come in 2025, OUP) www.alexgarlick.com
1,145 posts
2,557 followers
672 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
This is to say nothing of the potential marginal tax rate increase that Trump's people floated (although Trump shot it down himself). Just look at how in his feelings Gasparino is. He's basically a Trump designated market pumper, and there's steam coming from his ears.
comment in response to
post
and while I said they are still "on track" to cut taxes via reconciliation, the tail risk on nothing passing is probably increasing a bit. I'd still put it at less than 10%, but by this point in 2017 they had already passed AHCA "repeal and replace" through the house (before failing in Senate, obvi)
comment in response to
post
One curiosity with the shrinking cuts is WHERE DID ALL OF THE DOGE "SAVINGS" GO? 1) As many of us were saying, there's not that much non-programmatic fat to trim. 2) DOGE was never about efficiency or savings, it was a demolition derby to reach other policy goals. Or as Matt said:
comment in response to
post
Truth hurts
comment in response to
post
We could’ve used a bit more coaching tonight
comment in response to
post
yeah, he always lies, but he's also never claimed that he doesn't want to cut medicaid like he's doing now. I don't believe it, but it's harder to read than usual.
comment in response to
post
pulling the rug on their own faculty's retirement plans seems particularly egregious to me. I've never understood the budgeting down there, they put $46M into a freaking squash court.
comment in response to
post
Uncertainty is warranted here. I'd say there's a 40% chance the GOP nominates a candidate of the Roy Moore/Herschel Walker quality in one of those seats, to say nothing of an election that has a non-zero chance of Trump attempting a Putin style tandemocracy.
comment in response to
post
Gotta get those right people on the bus
comment in response to
post
I formed this theory after my corporate boss made me read "good to great" while I was at a company that was in a process of going "good to basically bankrupt"
comment in response to
post
my personal theory is that business literature falls for survivor bias more than anything else, has this been documented in any way?
comment in response to
post
it's crazy how they learned nothing of the Biden administration's issues with this. Consumers don't care about macroeconomic trends when their prices don't come down
comment in response to
post
Where does this leave Congress? It's a pretty sad state, and I have to agree with Massie that the Congressional Republicans have turned the 119th Congress into a vestigial organ during this turbulent 100+ days period.
comment in response to
post
Foreign Aid spending is the one thing that DOGE truly quashed, as memorialized by Trump's faux SOTU listing of the canceled programs, but Republicans (like McCaul) see purpose in many of those and will bring them back.
comment in response to
post
it's good to hear something (anything) is being approved, but it's a more clever attack than anything they did in the first term because the public is not following this at all.
comment in response to
post
This has been going on for a while and is getting LESS bad (I hesitate to say better)
Thanks for reminding me to put my reviews in by May 5th in case NIH still exists in the fall
comment in response to
post
Canceling a round of NIH fundings has broad effects on higher ed (more than targeted strikes on U.Maine or Harvard), so (1) this should further embolden higher ed leaders to coordinate (like the recent letter), (2) give congressional Democrats a target, how can you not win defending CANCER research?
comment in response to
post
this lowers this year's expenditures, and sets a lower baseline for the future (following a rescission). It's a clever tactic for (1) Trump's White House to trample Congress's power of the purse, (2) allow congressional Republicans to avoid scrutiny for cutting CANCER RESEARCH of all things.
comment in response to
post
this is basically my position too. Politics is not a spectator sport!
comment in response to
post
but change it in which direction?
comment in response to
post
or Apollo 13
comment in response to
post
Three Body Problem, the Martian
comment in response to
post
was there any advantages to that, as opposed to dividing it by lecture?
comment in response to
post
Flexible by definition
comment in response to
post
Great stuff @jenvictor.bsky.social and @mattngreen.bsky.social!
comment in response to
post
if it's paid in full, why we giving the pentagon a trill a year?
comment in response to
post
Now the movie depicted Obama admin officials (and came out with him still in office), but even a contemporaneous review by critic @vincemancini.bsky.social showed the creeping support for authoritarianism depicted in a film. And something that hits way different with the way feds are behaving today.