Your long term point on soft vs hard power has some validity, but what is happening at the moment is more of a correction than an abandonment of the soft power mode.
USAID was a corrupt money grift without accountability. It's now back under the thumb of the State Department where it belongs. Trump's disruptive chaos is creating the environment for change. Change that would be resisted under the older ossified system. Also, the US was being played for a monied patsy by numerous foreign allies, and taken advantage of by enemies like the CCP.
First priority is to get the 36 trillion debt bomb under control, and cuttinf off the swamps money is the best way to achieve that. We're only one month into the chaos, would be worthwhile to see what shakes out by the 6 month mark.
We would definitely agree with much of what you're saying, Dick!
National / sovereign debt is a MASSIVE problem and needs addressed immediately. That led to the line "the reality of much-needed reform to control fraud, waste, and abuse and runaway government spending." It raises questions about the prudence of congress and the executive seeking to raise the debt limit...
Concerning USAID: We agree that reform was desperately needed. It's true across much of our government. And we're totally fine with USAID returning to the control of the State Department. In fact, makes sense to us. However, to place it there requires congress to repeal, amend, or otherwise change the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (which was a Republican sponsored bill passed by Republican controlled House and Senate).
Now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that "USAID was a corrupt money grift without accountability" seems an extraordinary claim. Most of the 'evidence' cited in the Executive Order is rather circular. And, of course, there is accountability--albeit clearly not effective. Both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have oversight responsibilities. Further, there is great irony in firing an IG that requests assistance to ensure accountability.
Nevertheless, we agree that we will see how everything shakes out over time. We are hopeful that the Administration will succeed in: controlling the budget and debt and reducing wasteful spending. After all, we're optimists!
Your long term point on soft vs hard power has some validity, but what is happening at the moment is more of a correction than an abandonment of the soft power mode.
USAID was a corrupt money grift without accountability. It's now back under the thumb of the State Department where it belongs. Trump's disruptive chaos is creating the environment for change. Change that would be resisted under the older ossified system. Also, the US was being played for a monied patsy by numerous foreign allies, and taken advantage of by enemies like the CCP.
First priority is to get the 36 trillion debt bomb under control, and cuttinf off the swamps money is the best way to achieve that. We're only one month into the chaos, would be worthwhile to see what shakes out by the 6 month mark.
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
We would definitely agree with much of what you're saying, Dick!
National / sovereign debt is a MASSIVE problem and needs addressed immediately. That led to the line "the reality of much-needed reform to control fraud, waste, and abuse and runaway government spending." It raises questions about the prudence of congress and the executive seeking to raise the debt limit...
Concerning USAID: We agree that reform was desperately needed. It's true across much of our government. And we're totally fine with USAID returning to the control of the State Department. In fact, makes sense to us. However, to place it there requires congress to repeal, amend, or otherwise change the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (which was a Republican sponsored bill passed by Republican controlled House and Senate).
Now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that "USAID was a corrupt money grift without accountability" seems an extraordinary claim. Most of the 'evidence' cited in the Executive Order is rather circular. And, of course, there is accountability--albeit clearly not effective. Both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have oversight responsibilities. Further, there is great irony in firing an IG that requests assistance to ensure accountability.
Nevertheless, we agree that we will see how everything shakes out over time. We are hopeful that the Administration will succeed in: controlling the budget and debt and reducing wasteful spending. After all, we're optimists!