government

Will President Trump demand we shift to all-electronic transactions?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Just now (4:57pm on February 3, 2025), on Fox news’ The Will Cain Show, the host asked his guest, Margarito “Jay” Flores Jr (credited as “former Sinaloa cartel kingpin”) how we can disincentivize the cartels from bringing fentanyl into the US? In response, the key point Flores said was, “We need to focus on the bulk use of US currency.” The drug cartels want the almighty US dollar, so we need to remove their ability to get it.

This makes me wonder how long it will be before President Trump tells us we need to shift entirely to an electronic currency, “to protect us from fentanyl and Mexican gangs.”

I’ve written many times of the utility of physical currency, starting with my AnLab-winning article “The Coming of the Money Card: Boon or Bane?” (which appeared in the October 1996 issue of Analog). The ease of its use for person-to-person transactions, its desirability for things like tipping, the fact that using paper money enables the recipient to receive 100% of the value of the transaction (as opposed to a bank or clearinghouse taking a transaction fee, which is what happens with every credit card transaction, and is one of the insidious drivers of long-term inflation), and so on. While there is definitely a role for electronic currencies (I take credit cards when I sell books [though I have to charge an extra transaction fee to make up for the cost of doing so], and I receive electronic payments from distributors when they sell my books for me), requiring all transactions to be electronic strikes me as a monumentally bad idea.

There’s the tracking of every transaction, the fees associated with them, the fact that one has no real control over one’s own store of electronic currency, and so on.

And, with the current president and administration, I also wonder how much of that move will be in order to enrich those people personally. The Official Trump “meme coin” is currently valued at just under $20 per unit, with one billion available (https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/official-trump). Donald Trump is also the “chief crypto advocate” of World Liberty Financial (https://www.worldlibertyfinancial.com/), in which his family has financial interests (all of his sons are employed by the company).

Donald Trump Sure Can’t Pick ’em

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Thinking about Donald Trump’s choices of appointees for his upcoming administration.

His supposed business acumen apparently doesn’t extend into the realm of choosing the right people to do the jobs. I mean, look at all the people he’s hired and then fired. Uppermost in my mind at the moment is Christopher Wray, who he hired as Director of the FBI. Wray is resigning coincident with the end of Joe Biden’s term because Trump has made it quite clear that if he stays, Trump will fire him—even though the job has a ten-year term to keep it out of the political realm (see former director James Comey’s commentary in this article). And Trump keeps bad-mouthing Jerome Powell, who he appointed chair of the Federal Reserve in 2018, which similarly is supposed to be above politics.

Fair warning: I initially thought Trump had fired far more Cabinet secretaries than he has. But these numbers don’t take into account other appointees, aides, and advisors, such as White House Communications Director, Press Secretary, lawyers, and so on.

During the first Trump administration, he fired four Cabinet secretaries (three others resigned under suspicion of ethics violations or misuse of funds) and two chiefs of staff. In fact, he had 24 Secretaries and five Acting Secretaries lead the 15 Cabinet departments.

By way of comparison, only two of Biden’s Cabinet secretaries left office in the middle of the term (one to become Executive Director of the National Hockey League Players’ Association, the other to leave public life).

So Trump does have a track record for picking people who won’t stick around too long (either by their choice or his).

For a historical perspective, when I wrote The Presidential Book of Lists, I also looked at presidential cabinets. At that time, Theodore Roosevelt topped the list for the president who had the greatest number of people serve in one cabinet post: he had six Secretaries of the Navy during his seven and a half years in office. Three others (and TR himself) had five people serve in one post: Andrew Jackson (Secretary of the Treasury), John Tyler (Secretary of the Navy), Ulysses Grant (Secretary of War and Attorney General), and Theodore Roosevelt (Postmaster General). Trump joined the list with five Attorneys General (two confirmed, and three acting). He and Tyler are the only ones to do it in single four-year terms.

I also looked at the presidents who had the greatest number of people serve in their cabinets. That list naturally skewed toward the more recent Presidents because the size of the Cabinet has changed over time, from the four officers who served Washington (Secretaries of State, Treasury, War, and Attorney General) to the 15 who currently serve. Harry S Truman topped the list with 34 Cabinet officers, an average of 3.4 per department. Ronald Reagan was right behind him, with 33 Cabinet officers (2.5 per department; only one of his Secretaries served the full eight-year term). Tied for third were Richard Nixon (31 Cabinet officers, 2.6 per department) and George W. Bush (31 Cabinet officers, 2.2 per department—the Department of Homeland Security was created during his term). Tied for fifth place were Theodore Roosevelt (29 Cabinet officers, 3.2 per department) and Bill Clinton (29 Cabinet officers, 2.1 per department—four of Clinton’s Cabinet officers served out his entire eight-year term). Now we can add Donald Trump’s first term to that tie.

To take account of the growing number of Cabinet departments, I also calculated the number of officers per Cabinet department (and then split the list between one-term and two-term presidents). Topping the list of those serving two terms was Ulysses Grant (3.6 officers per department—25 Secretaries, 7 departments). Tied for second were James Madison (3.2—16 Secretaries, five departments), Andrew Jackson (19 Secretaries, six departments), Theodore Roosevelt (29 Secretaries, nine departments), and Harry Truman (34 Secretaries, 10 departments). Topping the list of one-termers was John Tyler (3.5 officers per department—21 Secretaries, six departments). Next was Chester Arthur (2.4—17 Secretaries, seven departments). Third was Gerald Ford (2.1—23 Secretaries, 11 departments). Fourth was James Buchanan (2.0—14 Secretaries, 7 departments). And then Andrew Johnson (1.86—13 Secretaries, 7 departments). Donald Trump joined the list slightly ahead of Johnson (1.93 officers per department—29 Secretaries, 15 departments).

Only four Presidents served their terms without replacing any Cabinet officers: William Henry Harrison (admittedly, he died one month after being inaugurated), Zachary Taylor (died sixteen months into his term), Franklin Pierce (the only President to have served a full term with his original Cabinet), and James Garfield (died six months into his term).

[Edited several hours after posting to add:] A friend asked: How did you count those Secretaries who resigned in the wake of the events of January 6, 2021.

I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t. Skipped right over them. However, I did count Attorney General William Barr’s resignation on December 23.

Other than Barr:
* Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao resigned January 11, 2021.
* Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos resigned January 8, 2021.
* Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf resigned January 11, 2021. In his resignation letter, he cited “recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary.” Two days after he resigned, Wolf said that Trump was partly responsible for the storming of the Capitol.

The reason I left them out of my analysis is that their resignations did not result in new Secretaries or even acting Secretaries. Their workloads were picked up by the deputies, who were never appointed to the Secretary’s position.

Thanks for catching that oversight.

Who else is he paying, or paying him?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Donald Trump is a convicted felon, joining the ignominious ranks of Aaron Burr[1], John C. Breckenridge[2], and John Tyler[3]. Even though his conviction was on the least consequential of the four cases currently pending against him, we now live in a world where a former President of the United States is a convicted felon. But does it really mean anything? Those who support him so ardently will continue to support him. Those who do not support him don’t need new reasons to not support him. And the undecided voters—the key to most elections in this country—are a small and shrinking percentage this time around, since the major candidates are both completely known quantities.

The conviction itself is not the sad event. The sad event was when Donald Trump shamed the office by fomenting insurrection during the ballot counting. It was the entire year of 2020, when he spent so much effort making people mistrust the electoral system, because he knew he wouldn’t be able to win a fair election. It was when he urged others to help him cheat just to retain the office he could not legitimately claim. And those things will be adjudicated in the further trials… if they are ever allowed to proceed.

The current conviction is simply a confirmation of what we’ve known about Donald Trump all along: that he’s a liar, a grifter, a thief, who will do or say anything to protect himself, regardless of its legality or morality.

While the actual crime is fairly small potatoes, it is entirely in keeping with Trump’s character. What makes it so egregious is that it was committed by a presidential candidate. But even that is something we should (unfortunately) have come to expect from him. He keeps telling us who he is; we are the fools for constantly being surprised. He keeps begging us to pay attention only to the show that he is, to not look behind the curtain. And that’s what this case was about: the hidden back-story that is even less appealing. And that’s been his entire career. Keeping a porn star from saying he’s a sexual predator? That’s tiny. What I want to know is why is he still the only president in living memory to not release his tax returns? What is hiding in those documents that he so assiduously does not want people to know about him?

[1] Vice President Aaron Burr (1801–05) arguably committed treason by working with Mexico to overthrow Spanish rule in 1807, but was acquitted due to the paucity of evidence.

[2] Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1857–61) was representing Kentucky in the US Senate in 1861 when he declared that the Union no longer existed and that Kentucky should be free to choose her own course. He enlisted in the Confederate army, was indicted for treason in U.S. federal district court in Frankfort on November 6, 1861, and on December 2, 1861, the Senate declared him a traitor and expelled him.

[3] President John Tyler (1841–45) presided over the Washington Peace Conference in February 1861, which was an effort to prevent the Civil War. The convention sought a compromise, but Tyler voted against the conference’s resolutions. At the same time, he was elected to the Virginia Secession Convention, and presided over it as well. Tyler voted for secession, and negotiated the terms for Virginia’s entry into the Confederate States of America. On June 14, he signed the Ordinance of Secession, and then was elected to the Provisional Confederate Congress, where he served until just before his death in 1862. In November 1861, he was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives but he died of a stroke before the first session could open in February 1862. Because of his allegiance to the Confederacy, his was the only presidential death to go unrecognized in Washington.

The decline of news interviews

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

As much as I’m annoyed by the double-talking, deflecting, lying politicians, the interviewers aren’t doing much better.

This morning, I watched parts of both NBC’s Meet the Press and CBS’s Face the Nation, and they both share the same problem.

On Meet the Press, the host/interviewer was talking with Senator J.D. Vance. She asked him, if he had been vice president on January 6, 2021, would he have voted to certify the election, or done what Donald Trump wanted. Each time, he deflected, noting that “it’s you who wants to keep talking about that election. We’re focused on the present and the future, and in the present, we have the massive border crisis,” and the drug crisis, and whatever else usually comes at the end of that litany. A perfect opening to ask “Okay, so as a member of the Senate, what are you doing to address that border crisis, and drug crisis, and all the rest?” But she just let the pitch go by, and went back to “But you might be on Trump’s list for vice president in the next campaign. What would you have done in 2021?”

On Face the Nation, the interviewer was talking with Speaker Mike Johnson. After four rounds of “President Biden doesn’t need any legislation to fix the border crisis,” without a return question of “then what do we need the Congress for?”, she showed several clips from Johnson in 2019 saying “an impeachment should not be a one-party action.” A great intro for the House’s current impeachment activity against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. “So why are you moving this impeachment now?” to which he responded, “Mayorkas has broken the laws. We’ve got three committees investigating,” etc. But there was no return question of “you’re going through all the motions, as the Democrats did before you, but it still looks to be a one-party activity.” Or the even easier question: “You say he’s broken the laws. Which laws?” As most interviewers these days do, she ended with “We hope to have you back, because there are so many more things to talk about.” Completely missing the irony of the fact that each question-and-response was repeated four times, so of course they couldn’t get to too many issues.

Mind you, I didn’t watch the entirety of either program, but I did also see that each also had National Security Council Spokesman Jake Sullivan. Meet the Press asked him if, in the ongoing response to the death of the three US soldiers in Jordan, we could expect attacks in Iran itself. He said “I’m not going to comment on our activities and plans on television.” The interviewer’s response to that? “So you’re not ruling it out?” And he responded, “I’m not going to talk about it on television.” Five times they went through that back-and-forth.

Yes, I understand that repeating a question can sometimes get the interviewee to break down, get angry, and snap out an unintended answer. But come on, people, listen to the responses you’re getting. You can follow them to even more interesting questions and non-answers. I’m disappointed in you.

Conflicting job qualifications?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

There are a bunch of elections running around my mind these days: national, local, clubs and associations, and historic. In many of them (but not the one in which you’re a candidate, so don’t worry, I’m not talking about you), it seems to me the skill set necessary to be a successful candidate is not only completely different from the skill set necessary to be a good office holder, but sometimes completely at odds with it.

Consider, for example, the presidency of the USA. To be a good candidate for the job, one has to be an incredible fund-raiser, be a glad-hander, be photogenic (with an equally photogenic family, or at least a compelling family story), be able to whip up crowds of enthusiasm, and be able to speak in sound bites. And in the modern era, one also has to be a staunch ideologue, in order to whip up the enthusiasm of the extreme members of one’s own political party. But to be a good president, one has to be able to think deeply about important issues, and then make hard decisions about them; to be able to negotiate with people in equally powerful positions from (perhaps) less powerful countries; be able to keep secrets about the biggest issues that would bring in incredible amounts of publicity; be willing to compromise on almost everything in order to accomplish anything; and be able to inspire people to be selfless and to aspire for greatness.

Mind you, the same dichotomy (although on a much smaller scale) seems to obtain for most any office that is elected: mayor, congressman, club official, you name it.

Having grumbled about this state of affairs — which is the same state we’ve been in for a very long time — I can’t see that there’s any better way to choose who we want to elect to office. But I sure wish there was a better way.

Don’t pay any attention to logic

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I find it ironic that Donald Trump keeps pushing for “complete and total presidential immunity” to block his forthcoming trials for orchestrating an attempted coup (see, for example, this article). Follow it through logically: if a president has complete and total immunity, wouldn’t President Biden ordered Trump’s immediate imprisonment, probably in a supermax prison or a deep hole in the ground? “For the national good,” of course. But even if he shouldn’t do it, well, complete and total presidential immunity.

In other presidential news, last night I spoke to Central Texas Mensa about the presidents. My talk, “Hail to the Chiefs! (and their Vice Presidents, and First Ladies…)” was very well received, and I was thrilled with the audience. I’m available to speak to your group, as well.

Shouting into the political wind

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I just completed my absentee ballot for this year’s election here in New York City’s 45th assembly district. As with the linked article, I, too, have a dearth of choices. For two of the races (judgeships), there was only one candidate, while for the State Supreme Court, there were seven candidates for the six seats (five of them were endorsed by all three parties represented on the ballot [Democratic, Republican, and Conservative], one is Democratic-only, and the other Republican and Conservative only). And in the City Council race, there is the incumbent (registered Democrat) running as a Democrat, Republican, and Conservative, while his opponent (registered Republican) is running as an independent.

For the unopposed judgeships, I wrote in votes for “None of the Above,” as I did for five of the six seats on the Supreme Court (I only voted for the Democratic-only candidate). For the City Council, the incumbent couldn’t be bothered to tell us his top issues, nor to answer the questions about his positions on the major topics, while his challenger strikes me as too religiously doctrinaire, so I wrote in myself.

Why am I posting this, along with that article link? Because I agree with it emphatically… and I can’t think of any simple way to get us out of the mess. We have the vote… but we’ve given the two major parties so much power over all the features of our government that they’ve made our vote completely meaningless. While political gerrymandering is less of an artificial impediment here in New York City (there’s no feasible way I can imagine to make the districts competitive between the parties, when the overwhelming majority of registered voters are all in one party), it also results in the extremists who can’t even talk with the other side, which is the dysfunction we’ve been seeing in Washington. So I’m voting “none of the above” in protest of the system. As absentee ballots, they won’t be noticed; as write-in votes, they’ll be recorded as “write-in votes,” and no one will even bother to read whose name I wrote in. I think I’m just shouting at the wind, but it does make me feel marginally better. Then again, climate change will probably kill us before the political extremists can truly ruin the world, so there’s that.

Cut loose the Trumpians

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 1 Comment

Watching the Keystone Kops routine in the House of Representatives as the Republican “party” tries to elect a Speaker, is it finally time for them to admit they are no longer a party, but a coalition? It sure seems to me like it’s time for the Republicans to cut loose the Trumpian party and admit they do not have a majority, that the Democrats currently have a plurality in the House. Then the Republicans could negotiate a coalition government with the Democrats, who are actually willing to govern, as most of the Republicans are, and cut out the Trumpians who only want to watch it all burn.

Mike Pence announces his campaign for high priest

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I just listened to Mike Pence announce his campaign for pope… er, priest… um, religious leader. I mean, wow! From his point of view, every right listed in the Constitution is a “god-given right.”

It started with his wife’s introduction of him, noting that he is here because of his humility before god. And then he took the stage to introduce himself, telling us he is a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. Well, that’s very nice, but we don’t (or shouldn’t) elect religious leaders in this country.

It’s almost like he’s forgotten the last phrase of the Constitution’s Article VI: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” While he wasn’t saying his Christianity is required to be president, he certainly made me—as someone who is not a Christian—feel like I won’t be welcome in his United States.

Mind you, none of this is a surprise; it’s nothing new from him. It’s just that a Christian President Pence would not be hidden by the masking effect that Vice President Pence had in Grifter-in-Chief Trump’s shadow.