Posts

Trump to Follow Reagan Model in Federal Hiring Freeze

President-elect Donald Trump won’t be saying you’re fired, but he will be saying you’re froze as a one means of shrinking the bureaucracy.

Trump has pledged to reduce the federal workforce through attrition, and leaving positions unfilled through a hiring freeze.

It’s part of his first 100-day plan that he first laid out during his Oct. 22 speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. He said the freeze would exempt military, public safety, and public health personnel.

The hiring freeze doesn’t offer many details, but would likely be similar to a hiring freeze by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

“It’s smart for the Trump administration to do this in the first 100 days to let the bureaucracy know you’re there,” Donald Devine, who served as Reagan’s director of the Office of Personnel Management, told The Daily Signal. “Reagan did it and it lasted for a couple of months.”

Reagan’s first act after he was sworn in was signing a memorandum telling heads of executive departments to enforce a “strict freeze” on civilian federal employees. He reportedly was so eager, that he signed it before leaving the Capitol grounds.

“The purpose under Reagan was to reduce the workforce by 100,000 nondefense employees,” Devine said. “There were some firings, but it was 90 percent through attrition.”

President Jimmy Carter also had three hiring freezes, but were smaller in scale than Reagan’s freeze.

The hiring freeze is part of Trump’s six-point plan to reform Washington that includes initiatives to amend the Constitution to limit congressional terms, curbing regulation, and limiting the influence of lobbyists, all of which Trump said he would propose on his first day in office.

Some of these measures would require congressional action. However, a hiring freeze can be done through executive action.

The Daily Signal reached out to two federal unions, the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees. Neither responded by the time of this posting.

Federal Managers Association President Renee Johnson expressed her opposition to the freeze in a post-election statement congratulating Trump. The organization represents 200,000 supervisors in the federal government.

“As a candidate, President-elect Trump proposed a government-wide hiring freeze on his first day on the job, as well as attrition,” Johnson said. “[Federal Managers Association] has opposed arbitrary attrition policies in the past and notes the severe negative impact that a reduction of resources has had on services at agencies across the federal government.”

A 1982 audit by the Government Accountability Office (then the General Accounting Office) asserted the Carter and Reagan hiring freezes failed to save money.

“Any potential savings produced by these freezes would be partially or completely offset by increasing overtime, contracting with private firms, or using other than full-time permanent employees,” the 1982 GAO report said. “Decreased debt and revenue collections also occurred as a result of hiring freezes.”

The Reagan hiring freeze was successful, as a package with other efforts, in reigning in the federal workforce, contends Robert Moffit, senior fellow for health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation and a former assistant director of congressional relations at OPM during the Reagan administration.

“The hiring freeze was successful under Reagan,” Moffit told The Daily Signal. “If the president’s priority is really to drain the swamp, personnel is the place to start. Inspectors general can be a tremendous asset to a new administration as they were during the Reagan administration.”

He said that after the Obama administration, there should be an investigation into personnel matters at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services. He noted that the Reagan administration launched some department probes.

Moffit stressed an effective OPM will be key to reforming Washington.

“He will need a very strong OPM director that will hold civil service bureaucrats accountable, but will also protect the career bureaucrats from political appointees,” Moffit said.

Trump hasn’t announced an OPM director. However, he named Paul T. Conway, who worked in the George W. Bush administrations, to head up his OPM landing team as part of the transition. Conway served as chief of staff for Bush OPM Director Kay Coles James and was chief of staff to Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao.

Moffit had no predictions or preference for the next OPM director.

“Trump needs to make sure the civil servants obey the new leaders on implementing policy. But there is a big threat to the civil service when the big thick red line is crossed,” Moffit said. “There has to be a clear division between political appointees and civil service employees.” (For more from the author of “Trump to Follow Reagan Model in Federal Hiring Freeze” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump, the Alt-Right and White Racialism: A Mainstream Media Myth

There’s a national hissy fit at the moment about the threat of white racialism. D.C.-based reporters who somehow miss the 200,000-plus citizens each year that make the March for Life right past their offices have discovered … a room full of marginal losers in second-hand blazers who rented a room at a bistro and made Hitler salutes, claiming to “honor” Donald Trump. And these journos know a story when they see one!

No, none of the moral midgets in that room had anything to do with the Trump campaign. None of them wrote for Breitbart. None of them, in fact, had any national platform until these reporters gave them one, and catapulted the small-souled Richard Spencer into the highlight. (Like the producers of Springtime for Hitler, something tells me they’ll regret it.)

So what’s the proper journalistic response? For the leftwing media, it’s obvious. You need to cover this obscure gathering as if you’d infiltrated the Wannsee Conference, then demand that Donald Trump denounce these cranks (as he rightly did), and that he fire his strategist Steven Bannon (which he didn’t, shouldn’t, and won’t).

Imagine if a White Racist Organization Captured a Presidential Candidate

Like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, Spencer runs a national organization founded to advance white racial dominance. Unlike Richards’ group, Spencer’s has never succeeded in killing anyone, much less 300,000 a year, focused in poor and non-white neighborhoods. Spencer has not helped to pass mandatory sterilization laws of the genetically “unfit.” He has not helped a totalitarian government (China’s) enforce a brutal policy of forced abortions. No, compared with Planned Parenthood, Spencer and all his crew are about as important as the Bronies.

Hillary Clinton campaigned with Cecile Richards on behalf of her eugenics organization. Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award, named for its Nazi-linked founder. How many mainstream reporters demanded that Clinton renounce the racist legacy of that group which she openly, proudly supported? Not one. But let’s make Donald Trump answer for total strangers whom he has never heard of. That’s journalism, folks.

There are deeper issues here than brain-bleedingly obvious bias. While Spencer represents almost no one, there has been a shift inside the Republican party and the American electorate, and it is in fact important.

Jacksonian Nationalism Comes in from the Cold

There are many intellectual movements represented within the big tent that is the Republican party. Libertarians, religious conservatives, Jacksonian nationalists, and pro-business incrementalists all co-existed for decades. Back when the fear of Communism united them, these movements largely cooperated, making trade-offs where appropriate that compromised their ideological “purity.” The collapse of Communism provoked a widely noted “crack-up” within the broad conservative movement. The balance among these competing forces shifted, and major elements within this coalition began to feel less and less represented.

One of the most important “outsider” factions — and the one that Trump and Bannon speak for — is Jacksonian nationalism. This brand of politics values the interests of the nation viewed as one vast community over the promotion of abstract, intellectual projects, however appealing, such as promoting social justice, shrinking government, or spreading democracy abroad.

Jacksonians hold citizenship precious, akin to membership in a family. They view with suspicion international agreements, mass immigration from starkly different cultures, multinational coalitions, and promises that cooperation with other nations will prove as “win/win” as internationalists and libertarians insist. In fact, Jacksonians suspect that such promises are political cover for policies that benefit elites at the expense of the common man and the common good. There is nothing essentially racial about the Jacksonian worldview, so long as membership in the nation is open to all who are willing to assimilate to its culture and play by its rules.

For a fascinating (if lengthy) account of the conflict between Jacksonian nationalism and various forms of globalism, see Steve Bannon’s own essay contrasting Ted Cruz’s foreign policy with Marco Rubio’s, published at Breitbart during primary season.

We’ve Got Spam, Eggs, Sausage and Spam …

On the Jacksonian view, starting around 1992, the Republican party began to freeze out its concerns, in favor of a more ideologically coherent program that was dubbed neoconservatism. Jacksonians such as Patrick Buchanan described this newly dominant worldview concisely as “Invade the world, invite the world.” I noted in 2003 that for leading neocons, it seems that America is not actually an historic country in a fallen world, with both gifts and limits. Instead, it is a kind of ideological virus, which our military can spread around the world, and which every immigrant catches upon arrival. Jacksonians see our culture of freedom, hard work, ordered liberty and religious tolerance as the precious and fragile fruit of centuries’ struggle in England and America. For neoconservatives, that culture is the inevitable outcome of our creed, which could flourish equally among 319 million people from any other heritage. America is an abstraction.

For Jacksonians, from 1992 until the rise of Donald Trump, the GOP was like that Monty Python restaurant where, whatever you ordered, what you were actually getting was Spam. Supposedly “hardline” conservative leader Paul Ryan was working with radical left-wing Democrats to pass immigration amnesty. Republican president George W. Bush was inviting thousands of “refugees” from Central America, to compete for jobs that Bush’s big business allies were outsourcing to foreign countries, or else to subsist on American welfare. Bush also pretended that the intolerant dictates of the Quran itself were “perversions” of Islam, which in his mind was apparently Unitarianism, plus hummus. None of these policies were acceptable to Jacksonians. But none of their objections had anything to do with crank theories of race.

Are Human Beings Interchangeable Parts?

Racialism is evil, and if actually put into practice would devastate America, as tribalism shattered Yugoslavia. But globalism as practiced by leftist internationalists and blithe neoconservatives is equally destructive. It pretends that human beings are interchangeable, or instantly malleable to economic or government incentives — that they can be controlled by the kinds of levers that smart, prosperous people with prestigious college degrees learn to manipulate. The geniuses who ran the European Union decided that a million Muslim colonists would fit right in to Germany, Sweden and Denmark — and accused the terrified citizens who objected of being — you guessed it — racists!

Both racialism and globalism are toxic and destructive. Which one is more powerful in America? Which one is respectable, from the U.N., the EU, and the Vatican to every major university? Which one gets people attaboys and cushy jobs? Answer those questions, and you know which heresy is more dangerous right now.

Cheap Grace Isn’t Worth its Price

It doesn’t take much courage to read the transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials and tell the world, “I am against this!” Of course, you should be against it, along with dog-fighting and kiddie porn. But you don’t deserve any laurels for “taking a stand” on such issues. Sorry, snowflakes. You’ll have to find another way to win those merit badges.

C.S. Lewis wrote (in the voice of Screwtape) about the danger of picking up “cheap grace” by following moral fashions, instead of seeking and serving the truth:

The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under.

It’s much tougher, and therefore more important, to ignore fashion and instead question the ideologues who are currently in power, from worldwide bureaucracies and federal agencies to posh colleges and self-serving church hierarchies. Jacksonians are right to fear the globalism which these elites are promoting, especially in the form of mass colonization of Western countries by newcomers with alien values. But to fight this globalism, you’ll pay a price. Part of that might be that you’re slandered as a racist, as Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have been. If you care for the common good, you will just have to soldier on. (For more from the author of “Trump, the Alt-Right and White Racialism: A Mainstream Media Myth” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who’s Funding the Rioting Against Trump?

As the violent post-election riots continue, many observers are becoming aware that much of the rioting is the work of paid protesters who have been instructed to use violence. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s national security advisor, told a gathering of Young America’s Foundation the demonstrators are “paid anarchists.”

Both Donald Trump and Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) have publicly criticized the paid rioting. As the word is getting out, Twitter hashtags of #paidprotest and #fakeprotest have been started, identifying the operations.

The left has been paying “AstroTurf” activists for years — “astroturf” movements seem to be natural grassroots movements but were actually created and funded by others for propaganda. Project Veritas Action, the organization of conservative undercover videographer James O’Keefe, filmed Democratic operative Scott Foval discussing paying people to engage in violence at Trump campaign events. Several protesters admitted they were paid $16 an hour to demonstrate against Trump.

The Billionaire Funders

Billionaires are funding left-wing groups organizing the protests. A strategy document was uncovered in the hacked and leaked emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. Sent from his think-tank Center for American Progress and shared with MoveOn.org, it asked leftist billionaires George and Jonathan Soros, Peter and Jonathan Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, Steve Bing, and John Sperling to fund “grassroots” protest efforts. Jonathan Lewis, who inherited his fortune from his father Peter Lewis, the founder of Progressive Insurance, agreed to fund the protests this year.

The lefty organizations place ads on Craigslist recruiting activists to agitate in large cities. A typical ads says, “STOP TRUMP — up to $1500/week. Hiring immediately! Call Today Start tomorrow! $15-$18 hourly rate + bonus + overtime up to 77 hours per week!”

One of the groups placing the ads is Community Outreach Group, a Planned Parenthood affiliate. Planned Parenthood received $553.7 million dollars in tax dollars last year, so taxpayers may be indirectly funding the protesters. Left-wing billionaire George Soros and his family are top contributors to Planned Parenthood. Soros himself contributed $1.5 million to the organization this election cycle.

Moveon.org placed an ad on Craigslist in New York hiring anti-Trump activists for $18 an hour. The ad said, “We only want protesters under the age of 30. … We prefer minorities.” The organization is not only funding the demonstrators but creating a fake impression of who they are. Moveon.org is also funded by Soros.

Another ad is from the Fund for the Public Interest, the largest fundraiser for progressive causes in the United States. Soros funds many of the umbrella organizations underneath it. The Progressive Unity Fund provides the financial backing for Act Now To Stop War & End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition, which started much of the rioting after the election.

What the Left Wants

The left is trying to cover its tracks. Two leftist “fake news debunking sites” are trying to distract people from investigating the paid protesters by citing a fake article about a paid protester as evidence it’s not happening. In fact, the fake article was written by a man who deliberately tried to fool Republicans into sharing incorrect news in order to help Clinton.

However, the organizations behind the rioting clearly indicate they intend to continue the demonstrations. They are planning to demonstrate at Trump’s inauguration January 20.

It is not clear what the lefty organizations seek to achieve with the protests. Trump won the election fairly and it will be extremely difficult to persuade enough electors to change their votes to Clinton. There are rumors that the left wants to generate dislike for Trump in order to start impeachment proceedings after he enters office, but with a Republican-controlled House and Senate that is equally unlikely.

Their goal must be to artificially create the appearance of a mass dislike for Trump, in order to influence others and generally undermine his administration. With the Republican advantage in the Senate so small, the left has to get only three or four senators to start opposing Trump to change the balance of power in the Senate. They may also be preparing for the mid-term elections, where Democrats hope to regain seats in Congress by capitalizing on what they hope will be Trump’s unpopularity. (For more from the author of “Who’s Funding the Rioting Against Trump?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Dismisses Notion of Offering Senator a Spot in Cabinet – ‘No Thank You’

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who has been one of the most outspoken Republicans against President-elect Donald Trump, will not have to worry about serving on Trump’s Cabinet.

When speaking with New York Times reporters Tuesday, Trump made it clear that he’s not interested.

Trump reportedly said Ayotte “would love a job in the administration.”

When asked by reporters if the senator could potentially have a spot in his Cabinet, the president-elect replied, “No thank you.”

Earlier this month, Ayotte lost her re-election bid to New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat.

Ayotte withdrew her support for Trump in October after the release of a 2005 tape in which the New York businessman made lewd comments about women.

“I wanted to be able to support my party’s nominee, chosen by the people, because I feel strongly that we need a change in direction for our country,” she said in a statement. “However, I’m a mom and an American first, and I cannot and will not support a candidate for President who brags about degrading and assaulting women.”

Trump also had harsh words for Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., who also withdrew his support for Trump after the tape was released.

“I can no longer look past the pattern of behavior and comments that have been made by Donald Trump. … My wife, my daughters, my mom, my sister and all women deserve better,” Heck said in October.

Like Ayotte, Heck lost his bid for re-election, falling to Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto.

In his time with reporters Tuesday, several of whom were live tweeting highlights of the meeting, Trump said he noticed a shift among some prominent Republicans who had been critical of him before his Nov. 8 victory.

Conservative columnist George Will had suggested Trump choose Ayotte as his attorney general. (For more from the author of “Trump Dismisses Notion of Offering Senator a Spot in Cabinet – ‘No Thank You'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin: ‘Will Trump Be Nixon or Reagan?’

“I have a serious question,” said Mark Levin on his radio program Tuesday night. “Will Trump be more Nixon or Reagan?” His question focused on the policy positions of the two former Republican presidents.

Some of Trump’s recent comments should have conservatives wondering — perhaps not quite worrying — but wondering. The new president-elect has walked back or been silent on many major campaign promises, including the building of a border wall, cancelling the Paris climate agreement, and prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

“Of course, we are told to ignore this,” Levin said. “I want [Trump] to succeed, but I want him to do the right thing.”

Listen to the full clip below:

Now, before the inauguration, is the time to hold Trump to his word and pressure him towards conservative policies. Once he is president it will be very difficult to influence him. So, why are so many in conservative media ignoring Trump’s softer rhetoric? (For more from the author of “Levin: ‘Will Trump Be Nixon or Reagan?'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Critics Voice Disappointment After Trump Vows to Drop Investigation

President-elect Donald Trump asserted Tuesday his administration would not further investigate his vanquished opponent Hillary Clinton.

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons,” Trump said in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times.

The news came after a rough campaign where Clinton faced an FBI investigation into classified information sent and received on her private email server.

FBI Director James Comey announced in July he was not recommending a prosecution. However, 11 days before the election, he announced he was reopening the probe, only to close it two days before Election Day.

The FBI is reportedly also investigating potential ties between donors to the Clinton Foundation and actions taken by Clinton when she was the secretary of state.

“It was a premature decision [not to continue investigating Clinton] because we don’t know what evidence on the email server or Clinton Foundation will emerge,” said Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group, told The Daily Signal.

“It shouldn’t be the call of the White House anyway, but should be left up to the new attorney general—and IRS commissioner—whether to investigate,” Flaherty continued, noting the IRS should look into the nonprofit status of the Clinton Foundation. “Prosecuting Hillary might seem like piling on from a political sense, but if she broke the law, this is a decision that should be left to law enforcement.”

Trump’s comments to The New York Times followed an interview earlier Tuesday with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway in which she expressed a similar view. Trump said his administration would not pursue further investigation into the email server or the Clinton Foundation.

Trump further told the Times, “we’ll have people that do things,” which the newspaper said could mean the FBI, but Trump was clear he would not push the investigation.

Following her defeat, The Daily Signal reported that Clinton faced at least four legal probes. Regardless of Trump’s decision, she could still face scrutiny from Republican-controlled committees in the House and Senate, as well as a Federal Election Commission investigation of her presidential campaign.

During the second presidential debate, Trump told Clinton, “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton expressed disappointment in Trump’s decision.

“Donald Trump must commit his administration to a serious, independent investigation of the very serious Clinton national security, email, and pay-to-play scandals,” Fitton said in a statement.

“If Mr. Trump’s appointees continue the Obama administration’s politicized spiking of a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, it would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to ‘drain the swamp’ of out-of-control corruption in Washington, D.C.,” Fitton continued. “President-elect Trump should focus on healing the broken justice system, affirm the rule of law, and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton scandals.”

The matter muddies the waters beyond what the FBI might already be investigating about Clinton, said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

“It’s a little disturbing for a president to say, ‘I’m showing mercy and the fate of my political opponent is in my power,’” Shapiro told The Daily Signal. “It’s not his place to decide which political enemies to go after or not go after. The FBI and the Department of Justice should go forward without political interference.”

Shapiro added this could be politically costly.

“I think more of his supporters voted against Clinton than for him, so it would have been better to stay silent rather than act like a benevolent leader who holds the fate of his opponent at his whim,” Shapiro added.

Conway, Trump’s campaign manager and current adviser in the transition, presented the case for turning the page during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday.

“I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy,” Conway said. “If Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing to do.”

Conway added, “I think he’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them.”

Trump foreshadowed that he might not pursue a special prosecutor during an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” after the election.

From a political standpoint, Trump’s decision could be mixed, said Gary Rose, chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart University.

“This does make him more statesmanlike because it probably is for the good of the country to move on, even if his base will not be all that happy,” Rose told The Daily Signal. “It does seem to turn the page and provide a way to say ‘I’m a statesman.’ But, if a crime was committed, perhaps that wasn’t his call. A line might have been crossed.” (For more from the author of “Clinton Critics Voice Disappointment After Trump Vows to Drop Investigation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Markets Rise to New Records — Expert Says Trump Cabinet Picks Might Send Them ‘Through the Roof’

Four days before President-elect Donald Trump was elected to the White House, there was one thing most of the economic experts agreed upon: If Trump won, the markets would lose.

Pre-election forecasts included one by Citigroup of a 5 percent drop in the Standard & Poor’s 500. Barclay’s was estimating a 13 percent drop. CMC Markets in Singapore projected the economic dismay would top that of Brexit, which led to a 5.3 percent decline in the S&P index.

As with a lot of other pre-election predictions, they got it wrong.

On Monday, for the first time in over a year, all three of the major American stock indices closed at record highs.

The Dow Jones industrial average went up 88 points, the NASDAQ rose 47 points and the S&P 500 climbed 16 points.

“So far, stock markets are betting that Trump’s fiscal polices, if implemented, would be bullish for stocks that have been waffling up until recently,” wrote Mark DeCambre on MarketWatch.

“The thinking is that a plan to increase infrastructure spending and cut corporate and personal income taxes will boost growth prospects, which is bullish for stocks,” he wrote.

Even the doom-and-gloom forecasters were coming around.

” … [P]resident-elect Trump has already left a significant imprint on financial markets. In contrast to many predictions before the election — including our own — and unlike the aftermath of the Brexit vote in the UK, the surprising outcome has generally lifted risky asset prices as well as nominal interest rates,” said a Goldman Sachs market letter cited by MarketWatch.

It may get even wilder.

“A name-brand Wall Street friendly Treasury secretary on top of tabbing [Mitt] Romney for state would send this market through the roof, that is if there even is a roof,” predicted Jim Cramer of CNBC, noting that the meeting between Trump and one of his fiercest foes in the GOP was a powerful signal that Trump could exceed expectations as president.

Wall Street investment banker Steve Mnuchin, who was a part of Trump’s campaign, and Rep. Jen, Hensarling, R-Texas, are considered two of the top candidates for the Treasury job, according to MarketWatch. (For more from the author of “Markets Rise to New Records — Expert Says Trump Cabinet Picks Might Send Them ‘Through the Roof'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Pro-Second Amendment Platform Could End Gun Sales Boom

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to push to relax gun laws when he takes office, but significant changes in the firearms industry began as soon as he was elected – and some put the law of unintended consequences squarely in the cross hairs.

For instance, while Trump’s unapologetic pro-Second Amendment stance may be good for gun owners, it has already dealt a blow to manufacturers, who enjoyed record sales throughout President Obama’s eight years in office. Stocks in companies like Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. plunged on Nov. 9, and experts say it is because Trump’s election erased fears that guns would become harder to get.

“A lot of people were buying guns simply because they were worried Hillary Clinton’s regulations would make it more costly and more difficult to buy guns, and people are not going to feel quite the need to go out and buy guns now,” Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott told FoxNews.com. “I think the stock market is a pretty good predictor of what’s going to happen, and the fact that you see drops in stock prices by almost 20 percentage points –I think that’s pretty significant.”

While the government does not publish an official number of gun sales, background checks, a gauge of how many people try to buy guns, skyrocketed under President Obama. In 2008, 12.71 million background checks were conducted, a number on pace to double this year, to set an all-time record. (Read more from “Trump’s Pro-Second Amendment Platform Could End Gun Sales Boom” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Like Obama’s First Term, Most Americans Want Trump to Address These Two Policy Areas

In many ways, incoming president Donald Trump and outgoing president Barack Obama couldn’t be more different. Trump is brash, while Obama is smooth. Trump’s worldview is more nationalist, while Obama’s is more globalist. Obama is a liberal ideologue, while Trump is a centrist pragmatist. Yet, in other ways, it’s actually kind of startling to see how similar the two men are, and by extension, how similar the country is to where we were eight years ago.

A new poll from Reuters/Ipsos finds that a plurality of voters want President-elect Trump to make health care his top priority when assuming office. In second place was a concern over jobs and the economy. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

In 2008, America had just been rocked by one of the worst financial crises in history. After two terms of George W. Bush, the voters were ready for something different, and due to economic insecurity, they rejected John McCain’s promise of a foreign policy presidency for Obama’s promise of “hope and change,” with an emphasis on health care reform and salvaging the economy from ruin.

It wasn’t at all surprising that change should win out in those troubled times over the decayed establishment. People felt vulnerable and needed new ideas to try to push the country back on the right track. What is surprising is that after eight years of “hope and change,” people still largely feel the same way.

Donald Trump’s election is undeniably a call for change, as many commentators have pointed out. What this shows is that the status quo — the things people thought they wanted in 2008 — have proven utterly unsatisfactory. Back then, there was a sense of great urgency to repair the nation’s broken health care system. And make no mistake, it was broken.

But Obamacare, Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, has been such an abject failure that the same sense of urgency remains undiminished today. Rising premiums, sky-high deductibles, and a malfunctioning market where insurers continue to drop out of the program are making Americans less medically secure than ever, despite the president and his cronies repeatedly assuring us that it’s working great. We know through direct experience that it isn’t.

Similarly, the economy remains in heavy focus. While it’s clear that we are not in the same desperate position we were in 2008, the recovery has been one of the slowest in history. And despite the official jobs numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, once again direct, personal experience tells voters that work is hard to come by, and small businesses struggle under a regulatory burden that is undeniably worse than it was before Obama took office. While again, the White House assures us that they “saved or created” millions of jobs through stimulus packages, bailouts, and quantitative easing, the results of all these policies have not inspired confidence in the electorate.

It’s hard to draw any other conclusion than that Trump’s election is serving much the same purpose as Obama’s election did in 2008, although with one important difference. While voters certainly viewed Obama as a condemnation of the Bush administration, Bush had not come into office promising to do the very things that formed the basis for Obama’s campaign. Today, we see that health care and the economy, the two policy issues Obama most aggressively tackled, remain the chief source of voter anxiety.

In other words, Obama didn’t just fail to keep the country happy, he failed at his own stated goals in such a spectacular way, that somehow Donald Trump (I still can’t believe it) is now going to be president. Eight years from now, will we once again be desperate for change? For all our sakes, I hope not. (For more from the author of “Like Obama’s First Term, Most Americans Want Trump to Address These Two Policy Areas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Wants a Short-Term Spending Package. Will Congress Back Him?

President-elect Donald Trump requested Congress pass a short-term spending bill to fund the government through March, according to reports.

House Republican members are looking to pass a spending bill, or continuing resolution, that would fund the government through March 31.

A continuing resolution funds government programs short term through appropriations legislation.

“I would say the simple solution for a lot of us here is just look at the [continuing resolution],” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, told reporters Wednesday at a monthly forum with lawmakers and journalists on Capitol Hill. “Set the [continuing resolution] at the 1040 spending level [$1.040 trillion] … so there’s an opportunity for the new Congress to be seated and the new president to be sworn in and pick it up from there. We know what that path looks like. It’s clean, it’s simple, and it should be doable.”

Senate Republicans have raised concerns over waiting to allocate federal funds for 2017.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has told reporters he would support a spending bill that would fund the government through September. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., favors passing a long-term term spending bill now, CQ Budget Tracker’s David Lerman wrote in a Thursday morning email briefing.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says those who support a short-term spending bill are “idiots” and “will do great damage to the military and our ability to defend the nation.”

“Whatever the House can pass, we’ll pass over here,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.

In a closed-door meeting Thursday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was reported to have been in favor of a short-term spending bill.

“A long-term spending bill is a needless concession to Democrat priorities,” Rachel Bovard, director of policy services at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “It makes absolutely no sense for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to waste time cutting a long-term spending deal with a departing president, when Republicans will have unified control of the government in January.”

The now lame-duck Congress must pass a spending bill to keep the government from shutting down.

The government is currently funded until Dec. 9.

“I don’t think anybody expects that [Trump] balance the budget the day he gets here,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters on Wednesday. “So he’s got to have some runway for that.”

The Hill reported on Thursday:

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., told reporters that Trump was driving factor behind the short-term spending bill—which his committee had largely opposed.

“I would have certainly liked to have finished up our bills,” Rogers told CQ Budget Tracker. “And we were making good progress. But time is running out. And secondly, we thought it important that the new president have input on the spending plans.”

An omnibus spending bill funding the government for longer than a short-term package would be a “mistake,” Heritage’s Bovard wrote in a recent op-ed.

“Furthermore, any long-term bill will limit President-elect Trump’s ability to implement his agenda upon taking office,” Bovard said. “If Republicans are at all strategic, they will pass a short-term bill into early next year, therefore giving themselves and the new president the maximum ability to implement GOP priorities.”

Vice President-elect Mike Pence met with House Republicans Thursday morning on Capitol Hill.

“We’re going to be working with the administration to make America strong, more prosperous, and to do the things that frankly President [Barack] Obama hasn’t been able to do in the last eight years and we’re pretty excited,” Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, told reporters Wednesday.

Ryan met with Pence Thursday, both desiring to work “hand-in-glove over the next two months.” (For more from the author of “Trump Wants a Short-Term Spending Package. Will Congress Back Him?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.