Sunday School Extra Credit: 12/1/19

Stepping away from impeachment and the 2020 race with this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, and instead I sat in on a conversation between Martha Raddatz and three veterans on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos who were discussing the Commander-in-Chief and his very active involvement in all things Navy these days.

Raddatz talked with Col. Dave Lapan, US Marine Corps (Ret), who served for 34 years and deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti; Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, US Marine Corps (Ret), a Cobra pilot with multiple deployments in over a decade of service, who has a PhD from the Korbel School; and Cdr. Kirk Lippold, US Navy (Ret.), a 26-year veteran who served on Aegis guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and who was the commanding officer on the USS Cole at the time it was attacked by al Qaeda.

She started by asking the veterans to react to comments made by fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who, in an op ed, said the president's order to restore Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's rank of the president's order to restore Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's rank,

"was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically, or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices." 

Lapan agreed, saying that Trump did "reach down into the chain of command, into the military personnel system in an unprecedented way" and also noted

I think this is the latest example that we've seen from the president that shows he has very little to no understand of the military that he professes to love. 

Lippold, on the other hand, believes Trump did the right thing, noting "you have to look at how the military justice system was performing at that time" and said it was failing, with a prosecutor removed.

The president made it very clear that he was disappointed that the system was not working as it was (supposed to). He wants to back his troops on the ground. This is very disconcerting in many ways to senior officers. 

And, he said, Spencer's comments and how he made them was "wholly inappropriate" and made him seem petty after being fired for cause.

Hunter was troubled that Trump's interventions "send some very concerning messages" after noting that it's important to think about all of this in the context of "the importance of moral in small unit leadership."

And rules of engagement are an incredibly, incredibly important system that is put in place for a reason, And the boots on the ground, the individuals that are making that split (second) decision to take a life or not take a life, to pull a trigger or not pull a trigger, need to know that those rules are there for a reason and that they mean something. 

They discussed a tweet from the president which states "we train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill."  Lippold said it was inappropriate, and to his thinking, it shows the president "is not fully grasping" that they are professionals, with standards and rules that need to be followed.

Hunter was asked to talk about "good order and discipline" and why that's so important.

...in the military, we are expected and we're trained and we are required to do things that often go very counter to human nature. We run towards conflict. We - we lean into it. And that's not something that's easy. It's not in our normal nature to o ti. And so to do it and not devolve into the idea of being a barbarian, that takes a lot of training, but it also requires that there are rules and constraints put in place. 

Lapan shared a story from a time when both he and Raddatz were in Fallujah, and one of our  convoys was caught up in a spot where traffic had been stopped, and an approaching vehicle started going around the ones that were stopped. A Marine shot at the vehicle, in a split-second decision that it was a threat. It turned out not to be the case, but

those are the kind of split-second decisions, life or death and I think that's the key to understanding good order and discipline. We talk about it, but most people don't understand that. 

Raddatz wondered two things - what kind of effect would this whole thing have on our troops on a go-forward basis, and how would they talk to their troops if they were in command today. Here's Lippold:

I would sit there and I would say the president made a decision. It was within his bounds to do so. That is not going to change how we are going to train to do business if we have to go to the tip of the spear and defend this nation. 

If I'm a commander, I am going to still run my unit to that standard, period, because I know that I'm operating under the guidelines and the long view of history is going to support that.  

And here's Hunter, on potential long-term affects.  She mentioned PTSD as something she worries about, and

You know, coming back from war, having made decisions to pull the trigger is hard. You know, it's something that I have worked through. And I think knowing the rules of engagement are meaningful, knowing that we made the best decisions for ourselves and for the people that are to the left and the right of us is something we need to continue to have confidence in and we owe it to those, you know, those young women and men who are over their right now, that they're making the right decisions. 

Raddatz wondered if this divides the force. Lippold said yes, before Raddatz even finished her thought, which was that

we have - we have different opinions right here. I'm thinking in the SEAL community and I'm thinking of the SEALS who - who support Gallagher - who support him and a whole bunch of others who think it's - that should not have happened. 

 Hunter suggested that's one of the "most harmful" long-term effects that you have is

that good order and discipline, rules of engagement, the chain of command both up and down also exists to unify us. And when there's - when the military becomes politicized, nothing good can come of it for the long-term health of the military.

Lippold, who agreed that Trump did the right thing in firing Spencer, seemed to agree.

The military today, I think unfortunately at the senior levels, has become more politicized that it's ever been in our history. And I think at the end of the day, those troops on the ground, those sailors on the ships, want to know that the chain of command has their back.  

The last work goes to Lapan, who painted a somewhat disturbing picture of things, I think.

The divisiveness that we've seen, people taking sides now, more politicization of the military and I'd say it's gone way down at the ranks, it's beyond senior officers when you have, again, troops showing up at events with the president in MAGA hats; (the) Commander in Chief holds events for troops but they're not supposed to be partisan events. And I think the force now wonders and we see divisiveness that's happening because of these things that we've seen the Navy secretary fired over. This president has often talked about how much he admires the military, how much he has done for the military, it's all about the strength of the military. And I'd ask what these pardons have done to further that goal. Rather than making the military stronger, I think he's weakened the military, in these days.

Strength in power, vs strength in morale, in obedience to rules, in respect for the good order and discipline that our military relies on. Think about that.

See you around campus.

OrangeVerse XXXIX: We're Gonna Have a Good Time

As you know, the president finally made a trip to visit American servicemen and women in a combat zone, something he had previously said he wanted to do, would do, but after all, he had a very busy schedule, don't you know. Trump and the Great First Lady Melania flew Christmas evening to spend time at the Al Asad Airbase, where he met first with military leaders and then with the troops.

His full comments are here, including the multiple falsehoods on the military pay raise, which has been widely reported. Some of the verse below may not have made it to your news feed. Enjoy.

At Ease

Well, first of all at ease. At ease. 

Let's have a good time.

Let's have a good time. 

And we had an incredible meeting that lasted,

for about an hour, and you have no idea

what we've come up with. 

You're going to be so happy.

You're going to be so happy.

As I was Just Saying

and we have some ideas

that are more than ideas, 

that are going to be just - 

We like to win.

Do we like to win?

We're going to win.

We came in, we were -

we felt very safe coming in.

It was a pretty difficult journey

in certain ways, but we felt

very, very good, very safe. 

And also we knew exactly

where we were going...

You're Always on My Mind

Melania and I are thrilled 

to be here with

...the greatest military and -

especially as we get all of this

billions and billions of dollars

of new equipment that I approved...

You're getting such new equipment

 your eyes are popping, right?

Your eyes are popping.
You're getting the best equipment...

And I just want you to relax. 

Let's have a good time 

for a few minutes, and then

I'll be heading to

another location, and then

I'll be heading back.

But I have you totally

in mind - totally

in mind.

Lots of Six Months

Go ahead

Get them

Go get them

Go get them

Go get them

Nope

Nope

And we're doing it.

And you're doing it.

You're doing it.

Just the remnants.

Defending our Homeland

We want to have strong borders.

The Democrats don't

want to let us have strong borders - 

only for one reason. You know why?

Because I want it.

You know, I think, 

just standing here

looking at all these brilliant young faces

these warriors.

You're warriors.

You know, you're

modern day warriors.

That's what you are.

But you gave me an idea

just looking at this warrior group.

I think I'll say 

I don't want the wall

And then they'll give it to me.

That's another way of doing it.

That's another way of doing it. 

No, we have to have it.

Prevent Defense

We don't play prevent defense anymore

We're not doing that. 

That's why when you see me

doing things, I always have

things on my mind.

I always have lots of things in mind - 

things that you have in mind too,

but a lot of other people don't.

A lot of the media

doesn't want to report it correctly

but we have a lot of

things in mind.

But do you ever see at - like in football

where a team is holding the other team scoreless - 

they can't throw; they can't pass.

They can't do anything... And they say 

"Let's change to prevent defense" 

and that's what happens

And you know what it does?
it prevents them

from wining...

We don't like prevent defense.

We want real offense

and real defense

And that's what we're doing.

We Flew All Night on Christmas Evening
It was worth every minute.
 Our faith and confidence
in you is absolute and total. 

You are the sentinels
who watch over our nation.
You are the warriors
who defend our freedom.
You are the patriots
who ensure the flame of liberty
burns forever bright.

That's who you are.
That's who you are.

OrangeVerse XXXV: Drumming up Support

The president came to New York yesterday, to drum up support for two Republicans seeking to hold on to their seats in Congress.

Trump made an appearance at Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division, to sign an apparently nameless military spending authorization bill and to mispronounce the name of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who made a very brief appearance on stage with Trump. Oh wait, it wasn't a nameless bill, it was the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, according to the White House website. Trump must not have known that, right, because he failed to mention McCain's name?

Vice President Mike Pence flew in to Fort Drum to deliver yet another obsequious introduction for the president. I have no idea how much it cost, but it had to be worth it for a five-minute speech that, pointedly, also did not mention McCain's name, I'm sure.

These two, I swear... Anyway. When the president speaks, poetry leaks. Or something. Excerpts:

Atten-HUT!

So I want to start by saying

At Ease. Just Relax. Do you have seats? 

You can sit down. Come on. Sit.

If you want to stand you can. We'll just get 

one.big.standing.ovation, right?

NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act

is the most significant investment

in our military and our warfighters in modern history 

and I am proud

to be a big, big, part of it. 

It was not very hard.

You know, I went to Congress

I said let's do it. We got to do it...

And that's what we did.

Not Even Close

Because we know that to survive 

and having that survival of our freedom

it depends on the might of our military.

And no enemy on earth

can match the strength courage and skill

of the American Army and the

American Armed Forces.

Nobody is even close.

They never will be.

Fur Elise

And I have to tell you about Elise. 

She called me so many times. 

I said, I don't

want to take her call.

She wanted me to be here

I said I won't be able to, we'll

have to change a lot of scheduling.

But that didn't suit her.

She didn't stop. And here I am. Here I am.

Elise, come here. Come here, Elise.

Listen Listen Listen

Listen to this now.

So we've been trying to get money.

They never gave us money

for the military for

years and years and it was depleted.

We got $700B. And next year

already approved we have $716B

to give you the finest

planesandshipsandtanksandmissiles

anywhere on Earth. 

Nobody makes them like we do.

And very, very far distant

in this case - jobs are very important in all cases

but in this case, military  might

is more important than even jobs.

But all of this 

equipment is made right here

in the USA and it's the

best equipment on Earth.

Nobody makes it like we do.

Right? Right? Bueller? Anyone?

America is a 

peaceful nation

But if conflict

is forced upon us

we will fight

and we will win

Right General? Right? Right?

Better believe it Generals.

They're the guys.

We're powered by

the unstoppable force

of the United States Army.

Very Special. 

And then he talked about jobs and himself, and jobs, and himself, and himself, and called out by name one of the soldiers and an Army wife who selflessly helps others, and he talked about fake news, and General Patton, and himself, and Space Force! And then he turned his attention back to the soldiers in front of him and thanked them for their service. 

And then he went off to Utica to stump for Claudia Tenney, a name that's much easier to pronounce than Stefanik.

Or John S. McCain. 

OrangeVerse XXXI: Equipment and Other Things

The president had a couple of opportunities (before a bilateral meeting, and before a presumably bilateral luncheon) to talk about wealth-sharing with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.  The Crown Prince is here to celebrate big arms deals and stuff like that.  And, of course, for the poetry slam.

Thank

you 

every

body.

 It's a 

great 

honor to 

have the 

Crown Prince 

with us. Saudi 

Arabia has been a very 

great friend and a big 

purchaser of equipment

and lots of other things. 

And one of the biggest

investments in the United 

States is their - I guess it's

your big investment - is 

buying stock in companies 

and various other things

in the United States and creating 

jobs.We've become very good friends 

over a fairly short period of time. I was 

in Saudi Arabia in May. And we are bring-

ing back hundreds of billions of dollars

into the United States. And we understand

that, and they understand that. Some of the

things that - have been approved and are cu-

rently under construction and will be deliver

-ed to Saudi Arabia very soon, and that's for 

their protection. But if you look in terms of

dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -

that's peanuts for you. You should have increased

it $880 million, $645 million, $6 billion - that's

for frigates; $889 million, $63 million - and that's 

for various artillery. Some of the things that we're

now working on and that have been ordered and

will shortly be started in construction and delivered:

the THAAD system - $13 billion; the C-130 airplanes

the Hercules, great plan - $3.8 billion; the Bradley

vehicles - that's the tanks - $1.2 billion; and the P-8

Poseidons - $1.4 billion and what it does is it really

means many, many jobs. We're talking about over

40,000 jobs in the United States. So we make the

best equipment in the world. There's nobody even

close and Saudi Arabia is buying a lot of this equip-

ment and a lot of people are at work making the e-

quipment, no only for us - because we are, as you

know, we're getting a $700 billion military propo-

sal. And that's even a lot for you guys. But we're

getting a $700 billion military plan this year and

716 will be next year - $716 billion. So we really

have a great friendship, a great relationship. I

would really have to say the relationship was

to put it mildly, very, very strained during the

Obama administration. And the relationship now

is probably as good as it's really ever been and I

think will probably only get better. Tremendous

investments made in our country. And that means

jobs for our workers, jobs for our people. Also 

defense. We're talking about defense and we're 

working very hard with Saudi Arabia. And they

're also footing a big part of the bill for defense

- the whole Middle East. And we know what's

happened in the Middle East. And it has not 

been a pretty picture for the United States or

for anybody. And a lot of things are changing,

and they're changing very rapidly. As you know

ISIS is now - we've recaptured almost 100 percent

of the territory, as you probably have heard before

anybody. But we've captured close to 100 percent

of the territory held by ISIS. We've moved very

rapidly, very quickly. And that's really coming

to an end in that part of the world - it's coming

to an end. And we'll be able to get out of certain

areas that we've wanted to get out of for a long

period of time. And other countries can handle it.

At this point, they'll be able to handle it.

So it's a great honor to have your and

your representatives here Crown Prince -

thank you very much. Thank you for

being here. Thank you, Mr. President.

Actually the relations between Saudi

Arabia and the United States of America,

it's old relation. We are the oldest ally for

the United States of America in the Middle East.

More than 80 years of alliance and big interest - 

politically, economically, and security, in dif-

fierent area - a lot of area. And the foundation

for relation, it's really huge and really deep. It's an
honor to have the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia with us

and his representatives, many of whom I know and I met 
in May when we were over there, where a promise of $400 
billion was made by Saudi Arabia for the purchase of our eq
uipment and other things.And the relationship is probably the 
strongest it's ever been. We understand each other Saudi Arabia 
is a very wealthy nation and they are going to give the United States 
some of that wealth, hopefully in the form of jobs, in the form of the 
purchase of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world. 
There's nobody even close.

Sunday School 2/11/18

One classroom only today -- fighting a cold and trying to be considerate of my fellow students. 

The lucky winner today was CBS News' Face the Nation, with Major Garrett hosting. His guests were Kentucky's junior senator Rand Paul; Budget Director and acting head of the CFPB Mick Mulvaney, Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, and House Freedom Caucus chair Mark Meadows of North Carolina.

Let's start with Mulvaney, who described the the Rob Porter situation as "reasonable and normal," much to Garrett's surprise.  Here's how Mulvaney explained things:

The president had someone working for him who came to him and said, look, I have been accused of this. I have been falsely accused of this. Please don't believe it. It's not true.

If your cameraman came to you and said that to you, you probably would give that person the benefit of the doubt, or at least you would want to do that because you know that person and you trust that person.

That's what the president did up until the time that it became obvious, when the photographs came out, that the person was not being honest with the president. And that person after that happened, we dismissed that person immediately.

So, that's an ordinary, and it's a very human reaction to the set of circumstances. You don't want to throw people based just upon the allegation. But as soon as it became apparent to us that the allegations were true, Rob Porter had to go.

Mulvaney failed to respond to questions about Trump's comments that Porter was denied due process and that hopefully he'll go on to great things, while his ex-wives, well, you know... 

On the budget, he blamed the Democrats for the deficits. Here's that exchange.

MM: We were hoping that we could sit down with the Democrats and figure out a way to get additional funds to the military to respond to these threats. Publicly, the Democrats said they wanted to help fun the Defense Department. Privately, though, what they said was, they would not give us a single additional dollar for defense unless we gave them dollars for social programs

MG: You knew they were going to say that...

MM: Well, but publicly they were not saying that. Publicly they were saying they wanted to defend the nation. They all say that Democrats care as much about defense as Republicans do. But when the rubber meets the road, they don't. They held the Defense Department hostage, and we had to pay that ransom.

Apparently, it seems, Mr. Mulvaney did in fact just fall off the turnip truck. Who knew?

Next up? Rand Paul, not in Kentucky but in Palm Beach - not sure if he was at Mar-a-Lago or some other swanky place. He was on the show to talk about deficits. Garrett asked him about the trillion-dollar Trump deficits, after Paul talked about going into office to fight the trillion dollar Obama deficits.

...I think one of the questions, see, Republicans, I think, are not willing to ask themselves is, can you be fiscally conservative and be for unlimited military spending? There's sort of this question, is the military budget too small, or maybe is our mission too large around the world? And because Republicans are unwilling to confront that, they want more and more and more for military spending...

I think the mission is beyond what we need it to be. We're actively in war in about seven countries, and yet Congress hasn't voted on declaring or authorizing the use of military force in over 15 years now.

Garrett pressed him on his support of the Republican's tax cuts which also added to the deficit and to our debt problems, and how he reconciled that.

I think if you're for tax cuts and for increasing spending, that's hypocritical. But if you're for tax cuts and you're also for cutting spending a corresponding amount, see, I would offset the tax cuts with spending cuts. And there are a few of us that would actually do that.

But, of course, the Senator voted for the Republican tax cuts, which had no spending cuts, just growth, growth, growth to make up for the $1.5T added to the deficit. Hmmm...

He continued

When we had the budget deal that lowered the taxes, I also had an amendment to look at and try to control entitlement spending at the same time to pay for the tax cuts. But, interestingly, I could only interest three other Republicans. We had four votes total to try to control entitlement spending. And that's where the money is.

So, even if we have out of control military spending and unauthorized wars in seven countries, we need to cut domestic spending to pay for tax cuts.  Hmmm...

Adam Schiff did his usual shtick about FISA and the Nunes Memo and the FBI and Mueller - nothing new there,so not repeating any of it.

Mark Meadows, on the other hand, is a fresher voice, and he's not happy with the Republican leadership

I can tell you, the real problem with this particular one is that our leadership caved, the swamp won, and the American taxpayer lost... At some point, we're going to have to say, Mitch McConnell, enough is enough. 51 votes on anything that is of national security interests, it is time that we change this. The American people, you viewers right now, could care less about the traditions of the Senate.

What Meadows and others of his ilk don't appreciate is that many of us don't care a hoot about having a simple majority decide things as important as national security... And if Americans had wanted the Republicans to shove whatever they wanted down our throats, McConnell would have his 60-vote majority in the Senate. But I'm pretty sure that's falling on deaf ears, would you agree?

See you around campus.

Trump in Transition (v20)

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individual to serve in any capacity in the US Military.

Our Military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."

No, Mr. Trump, thank you for being so considerate of our tax dollars and how the military blows them on healthcare.

People have actually investigated this issue, the burden of the "tremendous medical costs" that would become crippling to the military if transgender members were allowed to serve. For example, here is some info from an article in Scientific American (which might actually be somewhat of an oxymoron under the Trump administration):

A June 2016 study from the RAND Corporation estimated that there were between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender active-duty service members — out of 1.3 million service members in total — and noted that not all of them would seek treatment related to gender transitioning. The study also estimated that the cost associated with medical care for gender transition would only increase military health care expenditures by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million each year — an increase of between 0.04 and 0.13 percent.

The same article references another study, too:

A September 2015 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reached similar cost estimates.

 The study estimated that there were about 12,800 transgender service members who would be eligible for medical care. But it hypothesized that fewer than 200 would require care for gender transition each year, based on the percentage of transgender people who sought such care outside the military and the percentage of Australian service members who sought transition-related care.

The overall estimated cost to the Pentagon: $4.2 million to $5.6 million — what the study’s author called “little more than a rounding error in the military’s $47.8 billion annual health care budget.”

It's good that Trump is paying attention to out of control costs in the military, even as he proposes massive increases in military spending. Perhaps he's aware of this article in the failing NY Times back in 2010 which discussed comments by former Bush and Obama administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who tried and failed to make changes to the military's health insurance program:

"Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive," Mr. Gates said in a much-noticed speech in May. Defense budget analysts say that rising health care costs will make less money available for new weapons, repairs to a worn-out arsenal and quality-of-life programs like schools on military bases. 

"In the long run, it could actually limit our ability to field a military of sufficient size," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

That's some scary stuff right there, don't you think? Military healthcare costs may actually be putting you and me in jeopardy!

There's lots of information on efforts to reign in these costs, including raising the minuscule 'enrollment fee' for the military's TRICARE insurance plan, which is offered for life even to the millions of military retirees who now work in the private sector and are eligible for health insurance through their jobs. As Robert Gates and others who came after him found, the military lobby is large, it is active, and it has the ear of Congress, so change does not come often, or quickly.

But, the reality is, not accepting or allowing trans people to serve in any capacity - not as translators on the front line, not as analysts, not as cyber experts, not as drone pilots -- isn't going to make a dent in the military's health care budget.

But there is something that can be done that would make a dent, I think: accepting and allowing only people who choose a lifetime of dependent-free living. Single, no kids, no baggage, and no plans to ever stop being singe, kidless and baggage-free.

According to the 2015 Demographics Profile of the Military Community (emphasis added),

Overview of Military Families Across the Active Duty and Selected Reserve population, there are 2,120,505 military personnel and 2,783,141 family members, including spouses, children, and adult dependents.

Here are some facts about those dependents:

• Of the military personnel, 43.1 percent are single with no children, 34.9 percent are married with children, 15.6 percent are married without children, and 6.3 percent are single with children. 
• Overall, 41.2 percent of military personnel have children in 2015, compared to 39.9 percent in 2000. 
• Of the 1,758,365 total military children in 2015, the largest percentage are between birth and 5 years of age (37.5%), followed by 6 to 11 years of age (31.3%), and 12 to 18 years of age (24.2%). Fewer children are between 19 and 22 years of age (7.0%); however, children ages 21 to 22 must be enrolled as full-time students in order to qualify as dependents. 
• More than half (50.5%) of military personnel are married. 
• Of the 1,012,251 military spouses, nearly one-quarter (23.5%) of spouses are 26 to 30 years of age, while 21.3 percent are 31 to 35 years of age, 20.3 percent are 41 years of age or older, 20.1 percent are 25 years of age or younger, and 14.8 percent are 36 to 40 years of age.

I would suggest that providing healthcare for these 2.78 million freeloaders is considerably more costly than it is to provide health care for a small handful of trans people who may decide to transition on the government's dime.

Not only that, but the constant disruption of worrying about spouses, adult dependents, and children while trying to achieve decisive and overwhelming victory must be a huge and bigly burden on our troops, their commanders, and even on Trump's personal generals. We clearly need to nip that worrying in the bud.

And we certainly cannot continue to abide the more than 6% of military people who are single parents -- that is completely unacceptable! We know the only good family is one with a daddy and a mommy who are married to each other.

And here's another idea - check out this graphic, again, from the 2015 Demographics Report:

There were more than 865,000 civilian DoD employees?  For heaven's sake, outsource them! Get them off the government payroll and into the private sector where they belong!

Have the Dealmaker in Chief personally negotiate a cut-throat bargain with the private companies to give us these services on the cheap. Let the private sector treat these budget-suckers like the rest of Americans are treated -- you know, the people caught in the pro-business, market-driven deregulate-a-thon who go to bed every night wondering if they'll still have benefits when they wake up in the morning.

And the best part of my plan?

No one has to check anyone's 'particulars', if you will, to make the decision. It's clean, clear, and straightforward; no messing around in medical records, and no brightly-lighted inquisition rooms required.

Trump in Transition (v10)

Some additional appointments from The Apprentice to catch you up on from the past week.

There's former Texas Governor and occasional presidential candidate Rick Perry, who last week was tapped to be Secretary of that Department he wanted to eliminate, you know the one, right?

Um, oh boy, um, you know, the one that's all about peppiness, um, shoot. Not the Department of Memory, that's not the one. Heck I wish I had the energy to remember this stuff. Oh wait, is that it? Energy? Yeah, that's the one.

And there's the tapping of  Navy SEAL and one-term Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior, even though it seems, according to this report in Salon, that Zinke may have lied about his travel while a member of the vaunted SEAL Team 6, saying he was traveling for business when it was to remodel his house or visit his mom.

Or the fact that Zinke, who has a geology degree and two Masters' degrees, has an abysmal 3% rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his supporting special interests over protecting the environment, making him yet another Trump appointee who seems to have opinions and principles in conflict with the agency he was tapped to run. But not to worry, according to the announcement from the Transition team:

America is the most beautiful country in the world and he is going to help keep it that way with smart management of our federal lands. At the same time, my administration's goal is to repeal bad regulations and use our natural resources to create jobs and wealth for the American people, and Ryan will explore every possibility for how we can safely and responsibly do that. 

At least we now know we don't need to #MakeAmericaBeautifulAgain - whew!

And then there was the announcement about a new White House National Trade Council (NTC),

The formation of the NTC further demonstrates the President-elect's determination to make American manufacturing great again and to provide every American the opportunity work in a decent job at a decent wage. 

And, we're told,

The mission of the NTC will be to advise the President on innovative strategies in trade negotiations, coordinate with other agencies to assess US manufacturing capabilities and the defense industrial base, and help match unemployed America workers with new opportunities in the skilled manufacturing sector.

Mind you, I think that "defense industrial base" would include Lockheed Martin and the F-35s which, back in 2011 we learned from this article in The Atlantic, cost more than Australia, or would they be excluded because #TweetingatDawnDonald just asked Boeing to give an estimate on a mess of F-18s which he thinks might be cheaper, since he already scapegoated Boeing into dropping the price on two Air Force One planes? Oh dear, my head hurts.

But is that what they mean by 'trade' council -- to 'trade' defense contractor A for defense contractor B? Um, no, that's not it.

The NTC will also lead the Buy American, Hire American program to ensure the President-elect's promise is fulfilled in government procurement and projects ranging from infrastructure to national defense. 

Unless, of course, see Lockheed Martin and Boeing.  But wait - that little-word, campaign slogan stuff, Buy American, Hire American (which, to my delight, is #BAHA) is not all there is to this.

The NTC will work collaboratively and syngeristically with the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, the Council on Councils, and the Domestic Policy Council to fulfill the President's vision of peace and prosperity through military and economic strength. 

Oops. I got carried away for a second, that Council on Councils doesn't belong there, sorry. Back to the real stuff.

For the first time, there will be a council within the White House that puts American manufacturing and American workers first, and that thinks strategically about the health of America's defense industrial base and the role of trade and manufacturing in national security.

So: a council to end all councils, except the councils it meets with supercalifragilistcally, to make sure our military/industrial complex is keeping us peaceful and prosperous, except for expensive military stuff? And to come up with cool new trade-deal stuff?

Two things come to mind. One, the POTUS-elect is the master of the Art of the Deal, so I'm surprised he would need a council to help him with deal-making.

And two, do these folks understand where our manufacturing jobs have gone, other than the ones in the military contracting field? Trump campaigned on this, but promises and facts are different things, according to an article in the Financial times.

The US did indeed lose about 5.6 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. But according to a study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, 85% of these job losses are actually attributable to technological change - largely automation - rather than international trade. 

The think-tank found that although there has been a steep decline in factory jobs, the manufacturing sector has become more productive and industrial output has been growing.

 Don't buy the robots are taking our jobs part? Think there's something else behind it? OK.

Ask Trump why he makes his stuff in other countries, and why his daughter does. Is it because they want to make a bigger profit and that's easier to do that when the products you sell are made for hands full of pennies and sold for fists full of dollars?

Maybe it's education, or the lack thereof? We've seen reports for a while now about American factories not being able to fill jobs because kids getting out of high school, or even college, aren't capable and companies are unwilling to invest the money and effort in training them if they're just going to quit - or fail - anyway.

Or maybe, we just want to save money and would buy the cheap stuff at WalMart even if we were making enough money to buy the more expensive, American-made stuff?

Lots for the new NTC to think about, well beyond China and bad trade deals. Maybe the Council on Councils I made up earlier in this post can work on all that other stuff, so we really understand what we need to do to bounce back, other than ordering a few dozen more F-35s.