The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Fitzy]

There's probably lots of lists out there ranking ideology, but here's one from 2015 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/member ... e/ideology

This one has a lot more moderate or even conservative leaning Democrats than Liberal leaning or moderate Republicans.

One thing to note, if I might draw your attention to the bottom of the list. 3 of the 4 most liberal:

1. Warren
3. Sanders
4. Franken

I'd be interested in seeing a methodology that had Franken and Warren anywhere near the center. This one is, if I'm reading it correctly, more about how members rank in comparison to other members. So it may not match the country in general.

[gbasden]

Center of the electorate which is true for everyone on that list but Paul.

Edit: Also agree that calling Paul a moderate is dubious at best.

You really think Manchin is in the center of the Democratic party? He's strongly pro-life, he's voted to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, he wants to defund Planned Parenthood, he supports Keystone XL, he's pushed to weaken environmental laws against strip mining - the dude even voted to confirm Sessions. I can see no way he's in line with the views of most Democrats. The same goes to a lesser degree for Donnelly. And Sasse certainly doesn't seem to be in line with the viewpoints of the average Republican these days, either. What am I missing?

The middle between left and right. Between Democrat and Republican. Not the center of each party.

Also he forgot Collins. I'd say she's more center than any of the Republicans on that list.

Sure, if the argument is who is in the center of the U.S. political spectrum (given a pretty wide margin), then I'd agree that most of those people fit. Flake has been called a perfect conservative, and I don't see him being terribly centrist, and Collins is definitely a better choice. But the middle is what you get when you average out the consensus of the left and the consensus of the right. Very few people really live in that space. And none of the people that live there are terribly beloved by their particular party. I'd argue that the averages are less important than the people who fall in the center of their particular party, and therefore seem to embody the philosophies of that party most faithfully.

[gbasden]

There's probably lots of lists out there ranking ideology, but here's one from 2015 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/member ... e/ideology

This one has a lot more moderate or even conservative leaning Democrats than Liberal leaning or moderate Republicans.

One thing to note, if I might draw your attention to the bottom of the list. 3 of the 4 most liberal:

1. Warren
3. Sanders
4. Franken

I'd be interested in seeing a methodology that had Franken and Warren anywhere near the center. This one is, if I'm reading it correctly, more about how members rank in comparison to other members. So it may not match the country in general.

Yes, sorry for being obtuse. I meant that none of those three are very far left when compared to the rest of the world. Since we have slid ever rightward as a country over the last 50 years, they are on the wacky fringe here now. I guess I'm part of the problem - since years of nominating boring centrist Democrats have gotten us exactly nowhere as compromise is dead, I'm ready to nominate a bomb thrower that can articulate progressive principles and fight for them.

[pr0ner]

Trump tweeted AGAIN tonight about needing a travel ban. I wonder who he was watching at the time.

[Rip]

I think we have vastly different ideas of where the center is if people think Warren and Franken can even find it.

Yes, I'd guess we do. If you put Warren or Franken or Sanders into a European Parliament, they wouldn't even be close to the farthest left member of the chamber.

Is that supposed to convince someone they are center? They aren't even the center of the Democrat party.

Neither side wants to hear it but I will give you three names from each party that are center of the electorate.

From the Democrat Party:

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

From the Republican Party:

Rand Paul
Ben Sasse
Jeff Flake

I wouldn't characterize Rand Paul as a centrist at all. He's a Libertarian with GOP roots. That's not a centrist.

If you look at his positions rather than political roots/affiliations he is very much in the center. In practice he is less libertarian than I am.

[Rip]

Center of the electorate which is true for everyone on that list but Paul.

Edit: Also agree that calling Paul a moderate is dubious at best.

You really think Manchin is in the center of the Democratic party? He's strongly pro-life, he's voted to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, he wants to defund Planned Parenthood, he supports Keystone XL, he's pushed to weaken environmental laws against strip mining - the dude even voted to confirm Sessions. I can see no way he's in line with the views of most Democrats. The same goes to a lesser degree for Donnelly. And Sasse certainly doesn't seem to be in line with the viewpoints of the average Republican these days, either. What am I missing?

The middle between left and right. Between Democrat and Republican. Not the center of each party.

Also he forgot Collins. I'd say she's more center than any of the Republicans on that list.

Collins is on my list just a couple more spots down.

[Zarathud]

Trump has no idea what changing Air Traffic Control means for the country.

Government-run Air Traffic Control permits military control over our airspace in an instant. After 9/11, the government could ground every plane in the nation. Sure, it's inefficient but it's so for an important reason.

Redundancy and safety is the primary goal. Those "slips of paper" used to track planes? If technology goes down (say in the event of a terrorist attack or nuclear EMP), the controllers are instantly able to change over and keep getting airplanes down safely. Technology breaks and goes down. Not so cool when you're at a busy airport.

The airline industry hates that air traffic control and current safety rules limit the number of planes able to get into and out of airports. Transparent and slow regulatory processes mean that areas under flight paths have some input into the process. The airline industry expects more influence over the rules set by a private agency.

The government also dodges the requirement to staff a new generation of air traffic controllers. The generation hired by Reagan during the air traffic control strike are eligible to retire from a high-stress job, with decent benefits. Hiring has been limited due to Republican limits on government spending. The Republicans offload a staffing problem they created before it bites them in the ass.

The promise is "cheaper, faster and safer travel." What it means is continued government investment, with private interests more in control. We're giving up control of a critical government asset, on the promise that there will be more investment and efficiency. It's likely to be a terrible deal, especially with Trump in charge.

[Kraken]

Thanks for explaining that. I was all whatevs. (I only ride airplanes when compelled.)

[El Guapo]

This is genuinely pathetic (sad!). A pretend legislation signing ceremony for his air traffic control privatization proposal.

At an East Room event that was choreographed like the elaborate ceremonies for enacting major legislation, Mr. Trump signed a memo and letter to Congress outlining his principles for overhauling the nation’s air traffic control system. He handed out pens to lawmakers who had been invited to attend, and reveled in several rounds of applause.

But Mr. Trump’s announcement did not have any binding effect, and Democrats quickly denounced the proposal.

He did not take any action on Monday toward a broader $1 trillion initiative to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, including old and inefficient airports, a subject he spoke about many times as a candidate. His advisers say that package is months away, though Mr. Trump said in April that it would be ready last month.

My general impression on the substance here is that it could be done defensibly, but it being Trump I assume that he's going to try to award a giant contract to Trump Air Traffic Control. Which does the best air traffic control, just the best, everyone says so.

[Zarathud]

If Trump hands aren't signing fake Presidential orders, they're tweeting.

Fake President.

[pr0ner]

This tweet from an NBC reporter is pretty great. Includes a Trump tweet from this morning, plus a couple talking points from Conway and Gorka on TV yesterday.

Trump is also busy calling all the big US media outlets but Fox fake news, while patting himself on the back about Qatar.

[malchior]

Trump has no idea what changing Air Traffic Control means for the country.

Government-run Air Traffic Control permits military control over our airspace in an instant. After 9/11, the government could ground every plane in the nation. Sure, it's inefficient but it's so for an important reason.

I'm 100% not following this one. How would the government in a privatized scenario not be able to order the same thing? I severely doubt the proposal is unregulated private control.

Redundancy and safety is the primary goal. Those "slips of paper" used to track planes? If technology goes down (say in the event of a terrorist attack or nuclear EMP), the controllers are instantly able to change over and keep getting airplanes down safely. Technology breaks and goes down. Not so cool when you're at a busy airport.

The airline industry hates that air traffic control and current safety rules limit the number of planes able to get into and out of airports. Transparent and slow regulatory processes mean that areas under flight paths have some input into the process. The airline industry expects more influence over the rules set by a private agency.

I agree that the regulatory process would change but it doesn't necessarily mean *no control* - as above. And modernize doesn't mean you don't have non-technological backup procedures in place. The regulatory function will mandate that.

The government also dodges the requirement to staff a new generation of air traffic controllers. The generation hired by Reagan during the air traffic control strike are eligible to retire from a high-stress job, with decent benefits. Hiring has been limited due to Republican limits on government spending. The Republicans offload a staffing problem they created before it bites them in the ass.

Fair point but a sort of sunk cost fallacy. This might be political but the current ATC is ridiculously bad considering what is possible. So the staffing issue might be a motivation but it doesn't change that the ATC system is completely out of date and needs to be modernized.

The promise is "cheaper, faster and safer travel." What it means is continued government investment, with private interests more in control. We're giving up control of a critical government asset, on the promise that there will be more investment and efficiency. It's likely to be a terrible deal, especially with Trump in charge.

I don't really follow this line of thought. The problem with the current ATC is that they have continually failed to modernize. That is because the Government is *terrible* approaching *absolutely wretched* at managing IT projects. Like bottom of the barrel bad. And the FAA is particularly bad at them and running
the ATC modernization program in general. There are tons of reports about it if you were inclined to read them. The NextGen has been a complete shit show. It isn't about paper tracking or other odds and ends.

The fact remains that they ground planes especially into the crowded hubs especially in the midwest and NE because they can't manage the workload. And that is due to the technology being so, so, so bad. The airlines are beginning to accurately predict when flights will be cancelled and offering to re-route you *days* early because they actually model the weather - go figure! The FAA has been terrible on this issue but the airlines haven't spoken up because they are also under their thumb on regulatory issues.

Anyway, if the FAA hadn't totally failed with ATC for decades the drumbeat wouldn't be so bad. I believe the airline industry saw an opportunity with Trump to press on an issue that is affecting their customer service in very adverse ways.

[RunningMn9]

Trump has no idea what changing Air Traffic Control means for the country.

I would boil the problem down in a slightly different way.

What is the fundamental priority of Government-run Air Traffic Control?
What is the fundamental priority of Privately-run Air Traffic Control?

The answers to those questions are wildly different.

[Zarathud]

Anyway, if the FAA hadn't totally failed with ATC for decades the drumbeat wouldn't be so bad. I believe the airline industry saw an opportunity with Trump to press on an issue that is affecting their customer service in very adverse ways.

There is no drumbeat. The airline industry found a pliable, receptive ear.

I think you underestimate the challenge of modernizing ATC. FAA was left to fail by Republicans with hiring freezes and budget cuts.

Congress and the President could try to make government work again. But they won't.

[Default]

It's like depriving an athlete of food and water for three days, and then cursing him because he can't run a marathon.

[malchior]

Anyway, if the FAA hadn't totally failed with ATC for decades the drumbeat wouldn't be so bad. I believe the airline industry saw an opportunity with Trump to press on an issue that is affecting their customer service in very adverse ways.

There is no drumbeat. The airline industry found a pliable, receptive ear.

Actually there has since the 80s. They've tried modernizing 3 times. And I agree they are seizing on an opportunity after dealing with this shit show for so long.

I think you underestimate the challenge of modernizing ATC. FAA was left to fail by Republicans with hiring freezes and budget cuts.

I'm sure it is tough. Like I said they've failed 3 times. Still I have seen government IT projects first hand. They are always fucking disasters. I challenge you to look at reports from the OIG about the FAA mismanagement before you point at the usual subject of funding. They don't mention funding as a leading factor - it is mismanagement. Repeatedly.

Congress and the President could try to make government work again. But they won't.

This is true - they could hold the agencies accountable. I'm not saying privatization is the only solution. It is a possible solution though. They could also figure out why IT program management constantly fails in the government. I think that'd be worth looking into to be honest. They are again *awful* at it. Not that private companies haven't ever fucked up big projects - because they do all the time - but the government track record merits a tear down of the whole thing from requirements -> procurement -> execution -> AAR. It is a huge boondoggle says someone who probably gets paid out by that inefficiency.

[malchior]

It's like depriving an athlete of food and water for three days, and then cursing him because he can't run a marathon.

Except this isn't what is happening. It is because the marathon alternatively runs through the desert,and up the side of a mountain for no reason. Then the marathon doesn't have enough water available at some water stations and too much at other water stations. The staff also sends some runners the wrong direction and they can't find the finish line.

[RunningMn9]

I'm not saying privatization is the only solution.

I'll ask you directly. What is the *only* fundamental purpose of a privatized air traffic control solution?

[malchior]

OIG Audit Report on Nextgen process failures. The only mention of funding is the elimination of a planning function - and it was discontinued after years of not doing much of anything. Those planning functions were transferred to other entities which dropped the ball. I admit you could tenuously argue that it is sequestration related but at the time of the report they hadn't updated some of their planning processes for a decade! That is mismanagement first and foremost.

[malchior]

I'm not saying privatization is the only solution.

I'll ask you directly. What is the *only* fundamental purpose of a privatized air traffic control solution?

I don't understand what is being asked but it seems like a trap.

[Zarathud]

Let me help. The airline industry intends to control a privatized ATC. They will introduce their own inefficiencies for their own profit agenda, sacrificing safety.

The #1 goal of ATC is for air travel to be safer than anything else -- because planes falling out of sky will freak out the public.

Cut the planning and oversight, then express shock that the process is mismanaged? QED

[Max Peck]

I'm not saying privatization is the only solution.

I'll ask you directly. What is the *only* fundamental purpose of a privatized air traffic control solution?

I don't understand what is being asked but it seems like a trap.

What is the primary function of any private enterprise? Profit.

[malchior]

Let me help. The airline industry intends to control a privatized ATC. They will introduce their own inefficiencies for their own profit agenda, sacrificing safety.

The #1 goal of ATC is for air travel to be safer than anything else -- because planes falling out of sky will freak out the public.

Cut the planning and oversight, then express shock that the process is mismanaged? QED

Obviously this is talking to a wall. The OIG has issued dozens of reports. I've linked one that shows mismanagement at the FAA. Industry experts talk about the FAA being a mismanaged mess for years. Is it funding at the root of it all? Maybe but probably not. Nonetheless it is a mess. And luckily there is a model to follow since the Canadians did it successfully. We could look at what our peer did and learn or we can just keep repeating the same mistakes that have plagued this process since the 80s.

In any case, this sounds like a lot of partisan grousing to me. Was what Trump signed actually a plan? Of course not it was empty bullshit to kick off his empty infrastructure plan. That however does not mean the Government should walk away from figuring out a path to a fix. And yes that might include privatization which isn't automatically less safe.

[malchior]

I'm not saying privatization is the only solution.

I'll ask you directly. What is the *only* fundamental purpose of a privatized air traffic control solution?

I don't understand what is being asked but it seems like a trap.

What is the primary function of any private enterprise? Profit.

The 'privatization' plan I heard was a non-profit corporation aka the Canadian model.

[Max Peck]

I'm not saying privatization is the only solution.

I'll ask you directly. What is the *only* fundamental purpose of a privatized air traffic control solution?

I don't understand what is being asked but it seems like a trap.

What is the primary function of any private enterprise? Profit.

The 'privatization' plan I heard was a non-profit corporation aka the Canadian model.

That may be (Is it Trump's plan, or a previous one? Trump & Co don't strike me as the sorts to champion a legitimate non-profit solution.), but I was guessing at the nature of RunningMn9's trap.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Trump et al. have stated the plan is to hand over operations to a non-profit. Probably the Trump Foundation.

[Rip]

I'm not saying privatization is the only solution.

I'll ask you directly. What is the *only* fundamental purpose of a privatized air traffic control solution?

Same as the fundamental purpose of any private company doing government work, making money. Yet they consistently outperform the government at every turn. I guess the issue becomes what is the fundamental purpose non-privatized government endeavours. The answer it would seem is to spend as much money as possible while accomplishing as little as possible.

[malchior]

There was a bill for a non-profit corporation similar to Nav Canada that was a political hot cake a year or two ago. I figured Trump's remarks were based on that plan. And to be clear - I believe the nature of the push back being due to partisan politics around the ATC union. I don't know is busting the union was part of the plan but it doesn't have to be. As a hypothetical about a possible set of issues causing this to be a street fight versus solving a problem: perhaps if one side acknowledged that the FAA is crap at running these projects and the other side said that heck it can still be unionized even in the non-profit...voila perhaps a compromise could be forged and a problem could be solved.

[RunningMn9]

Talk to me about the Canadian non-profit. How is it "privatized"? Where does the funding come from? If it comes from the private sector, and the entity isn't being run for profit - what is the incentive to attract private financing? Or is all of the funding somehow public, but organizing into a non-profit corporation some kind of magic bullet for slicing through govt red tape?

[noxiousdog]

There was a bill for a non-profit corporation similar to Nav Canada that was a political hot cake a year or two ago. I figured Trump's remarks were based on that plan. And to be clear - I believe the nature of the push back being due to partisan politics around the ATC union. I don't know is busting the union was part of the plan but it doesn't have to be. As a hypothetical about a possible set of issues causing this to be a street fight versus solving a problem: perhaps if one side acknowledged that the FAA is crap at running these projects and the other side said that heck it can still be unionized even in the non-profit...voila perhaps a compromise could be forged and a problem could be solved.

There have been private/public partnerships for years that have operated safely and efficiently. Almost our entire power network operates in this manner. They can be formed as either for profit (limited like utilities), or non-profit.

I don't know that it's the right way to go, but clearly something needs done. When Trump initially said that the FAA was a disaster, I didn't believe him, but this modernization is decades hold and hasn't gone anywhere. I'd be willing to try something new especially if there is a template for success.

[Max Peck]

Talk to me about the Canadian non-profit. How is it "privatized"? Where does the funding come from? If it comes from the private sector, and the entity isn't being run for profit - what is the incentive to attract private financing? Or is all of the funding somehow public, but organizing into a non-profit corporation some kind of magic bullet for slicing through govt red tape?

Nav Canada:

Meet NAV CANADA

We are Canada’s Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) managing 12 million aircraft movements a year for 40,000 customers in over 18 million square kilometres – the world’s second-largest ANSP by traffic volume.

Our airspace stretches from the Pacific West coast to the East coast of Newfoundland and out to the centre of the North Atlantic, the world’s busiest oceanic airspace with some 1,200 flights crossing to and from the European continent daily. It also stretches from the busy U.S-Canada border with major international airports to the North Pole where aircraft fly polar routes to reach Asia.

We are also the world’s first fully privatized civil air navigation service provider, created in 1996 through the combined efforts of commercial air carriers, general aviation, the Government of Canada, as well as our employees and their unions.

Our revenues come from our aviation customers, not government subsidies. By investing in operations and controlling costs, we strive to keep customer charges stable, while improving safety and flight efficiency.

Safety is our first priority. Our safety benchmark of IFR-to-IFR losses of separation has seen a steady reduction since 1996, and our record is now among the best in the world.

Our customers and the service we provide are the focus of our operations. Our efforts are directed to helping them improve their flight efficiency and providing cost effective services. In doing so, we help to reduce the impact of aviation activity on the environment.

We invest in infrastructure, upgrade our systems, and develop our own advanced air traffic management (ATM) technology. Our NAVCANatm line of integrated ATM products, applications and services is sold internationally and deployed at more than 100 sites worldwide.

Recognized for our safety record, technology, sound business practices and community involvement, NAV CANADA is a leader among world air navigation service providers and a proud partner of the global air transportation industry.

More info here.

[noxiousdog]

Talk to me about the Canadian non-profit. How is it "privatized"? Where does the funding come from? If it comes from the private sector, and the entity isn't being run for profit - what is the incentive to attract private financing? Or is all of the funding somehow public, but organizing into a non-profit corporation some kind of magic bullet for slicing through govt red tape?

There's two ways you can do it.

One is to sell preferred stock or bonds. The investors have limited rights, but get a fixed coupon.

The other, which I think is more likely, is a fixed profit margin like most utilities. The government would put out a bid and some group of investors would offer to do it for some profit margin with penalties for safety or other violations. Auditing is heavy. In the bid would be how they planned to collect income. Because it's a fixed profit margin, if the expenses fell, the rates would have to be reduced as well. If expenses rise, they can ask for fare increases.

For something as large as the FAA, I'm would guess the government would have some form of equity stake that would be lowered over time.

I'm not aware of any studies that show why this tends to work better than government entities. My guess is that being a corporation and taking salaries off the government budget allows them on average to attract better talent. It also allows them to spend more as they set their own budget instead of having to ask a government legislature (or 50 of them).

You can do searches of privitized government functions. There are successes and failures. I feel that with proper government oversight (lack of corruption, good review and auditing), it succeeds quite often.

[Smoove_B]

You can do searches of privitized government functions. There are successes and failures. I feel that with proper government oversight (lack of corruption, good review and auditing), it succeeds quite often.

Can it be done? Sure. Is this the person, the administration or the time to address the airline industry? Hell-to-the-no. Read more here:

In short, it would represent one of the largest transfers of a government asset in U.S. history—taxpayers have spent north of $53 billion on these facilities in the last two decades—affecting an estimated 35,000 workers, according to the AP.

...

The GAO also pointed out that Trump’s proposed private ATC system would gave it unlimited “leeway regarding its user fee structure,” but it struck an optimistic note, saying, “an oversight board made up of stakeholders—such as commercial air carriers, business and general aviation, government officials, and unions ... might not require economic regulation because the board’s membership has a vested interest in keeping rates at appropriate, cost-based levels.” (The operative word to stress there is might.)

...

The closet example to what Trump proposes to do can be found in Canada, which privatized its system in 1996 and handles an estimated one-tenth of the traffic overseen by the FAA. The CRS says the creation of the entity, NAV CANADA, has appeared to help maintain stable rates, but—according to the GAO—it has presented difficulties elsewhere; for one thing, the private entity siphoned a stream of skilled staff that left Canada’s safety regulator unable to fill key jobs.

I wouldn't trust the Trump administration to build monument bench and plaque. Retool the aviation industry? Get the F out of here.

[noxiousdog]

I would trust the Trump administration to build monument bench and plaque. Retool the aviation industry? Get the F out of here.

Oh, no doubt. I assumed we were discussing this as a theory where it would be well thought out as in the Nav Canada example. With Nav Trump you'd have pilots doing one things and ATC doing something else while the PA announcer lied about them both.

[Paingod]

What is the fundamental priority of Government-run Air Traffic Control?

To meet regulatory requirements!

What is the fundamental priority of Privately-run Air Traffic Control?

For the lowest bidder to find the least expensive way to meet regulatory requirements and maximize profits!

[Zarathud]

Busting the ATC union advances Republican ideology.

Watched a Republican friend training to be an air traffic controller during the Bush administration become disillusioned over the deliberate sabotage of the agency by his party. The freeze that kept him from getting hired was the last straw. Listened to his blow-by-blow coverage for years.

They have talent, but no one could hire. After the associates degree, the on-the-job training process is 2-3 years. That training will be the first thing cut. The hope is for computers to do the job instead, but that leaves no redundancy if the system goes down.

[malchior]

FWIW the bill was pre-Trump. The UK also followed this model and it worked for them. I don't see it as some wacky right-wing idea. It is something that someone else worked out many of the kinks on and could be used as a road guide. Or we can keep throwing money into a pit. Still the point about a Trump administration overseeing the implementation is on point.

[malchior]

In short, it would represent one of the largest transfers of a government asset in U.S. history—taxpayers have spent north of $53 billion on these facilities in the last two decades—affecting an estimated 35,000 workers, according to the AP.

For this to happen, there would need to be a payment to the Government for the assets which is likely a big hurdle. A solution might be a Government backed loan program. In effect, the Government would be loaning the non-profit the startup capital to buy the assets and amortize it over time. A giveaway would be a non-starter.

The GAO also pointed out that Trump’s proposed private ATC system would gave it unlimited “leeway regarding its user fee structure,” but it struck an optimistic note, saying, “an oversight board made up of stakeholders—such as commercial air carriers, business and general aviation, government officials, and unions ... might not require economic regulation because the board’s membership has a vested interest in keeping rates at appropriate, cost-based levels.” (The operative word to stress there is might.)

And the utility space models that work could be leveraged to address this.

[malchior]

[malchior]

David Frum get's his wish --