Monday, November 14, 2016

No 100 days. Please

Dear President-Elect Trump:

The media and punditocracy are full of speculation about your "100 day" program. It sounds like you and your team might actually be preparing for one. Don't do it. Please.

I know, every new president wants to repeat Franklin Roosevelt’s hundred days: a flurry of new legislation, executive orders and agencies, dramatically changing the country (for better or worse) and cementing his (or her, someday) place in history.

It's not the time, and you're not that president. You can only achieve a similar place in history with the opposite course.

It’s not 1932. We’re not in a national political and economic emergency. Our country does not need a massive dose of new laws, new regulations, new policies, and new agencies. It has lots of laws, regulations, and agencies that aren’t working.  

The task for our time is to fix the dysfunction, soothe the polarization, get the sensible compromises passed, and clean up the administration of government. Tax reform.  Regulatory reform. Entitlement reform. Immigration reform. Criminal-justice reform.  Fix health insurance. Fix Dodd-Frank. There are straightforward, bipartisan workable if not perfect answers to most of these long-standing messes that have been torpedoed by absolutists on one side or another.  Read the Paul Ryan "better way" plan, detailed and prepackaged. If you really think you can do better, work from that basis. You don't have to write a word of new proposals yourself. The more something is someone else's idea, the easier it is to get it passed.

Find a deal. Get it done. Quietly, behind the scenes. Let your opponents in both parties have a face-saving way to help you. Don't try to shove things down people's throats, either legislators or voters. That’s what great politicians do.
Clean up the administration. Appoint good people. Find a truce with Democrats to end the war on appointments that started with Bork. Get running the country out of the intense politics of the White House and back to the cabinet agencies. Clean up the executive orders and the politicized out of control regulatory agencies. 

We need peace on court appointments, and to rein in the politicized regulatory state. Appoint a libertarian, not a social conservative. Let Wickard V. Filburn (the case in which a man was prosecuted for growing wheat on his own land to make his own bread, without a Federal wheat marketing order -- found legal as control of interstate commerce) and Chevron be your litmus test, not Roe V. Wade. 

None of this is easy, none of this is 100-day stuff, and none of this is accomplished well in the limelight of the press, accompanied by constant spin.  Finding a solid, politically acceptable fix to  Obamacare will take months, and months more to get a solid bipartisan durable majority to pass it.  You cannot ram it down Democrats' throats as they rammed the original down Republicans'. Finding a solid, politically acceptable fix to Dodd-Frank will take similar amounts of time. You have four years, not 100 days. Your job is to soothe, to heal, to get people to the table, to get government working again. Spend your hundred days just getting a good team together and quietly meeting legislators and our friends abroad. 

Remember, most of Roosevelt's initiatives proved more damaging then helpful, were thrown out by courts, or had to be substantially reworked. He operated in a state of cheerful experimentation, happy to throw whatever he could at the problem to see what stuck. You do not have that luxury. Remember your predecessor's 100 days -- Stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank. That didn't work out so well, did it? 100 day legislation never does. 

You have had a wonderful three days, saying healing things right and left. Keep that up. Remind people that you were elected to clean up the government, not to render individual intolerance newly acceptable. 

Go on a tour. Start with our friends, not on big public negotiations with our enemies. Quietly, with no public statement, no spin doctors, no media, go reassure our allies that America stands with her friends, means what she says, and remains the leader of the free world. No more lines in the sand, constant spin, empty threats, empty guarantees, and needless public insults. No more talk about what we will not do. No more doubting our commitments. Speak softly, carry a big stick, and stop promising never to use it. 

Play a lot of golf. Throw some good parties. If the media are lampooning you as the do-nothing president, you're doing a great job. Eisenhower played this trick well. Throw away your twitter account. Look presidential, and let people project on you their hopes, not read in your unguarded statements their darkest fears. 

If you just got that done—mind the store; get the things the government is already trying to do to work with modest competence, with not one new Presidential initiative—the economy would take off like a rocket, and our polarization would fade. You would go down in history as the country’s great healer. Future presidents would emulate your first term, not Roosevelt’s.  This is the crying need in our time. By being an outsider, not beholden to particular ideologies or a political base, you are in fact the right person to do it. 

What about your campaign promises? Keep one thing in mind: you were not elected for your policies!  Yes, you talked about immigration and trade on the campaign trail, and you paid some lip service to social issues. But we all know you were not the policy-wonk candidate. That is now a huge advantage. If anyone can pivot on a dime, it's you. You were not elected to shove a different set of policies down your opponents' throats, by any means. 

You were elected because you are not Hillary Clinton. You were elected in revulsion at the corruption, the hypocrisy, the ram-it-down-their-throats nanny-state regulations, and their increasing politicization. You were elected to fix the process, dysfunction, and incompetence of government. You were elected because people are sick of working at Wal-mart, can't get a loan, and their health insurance premium just skyrocketed as they found out there isn't a doctor in 300 miles that will take it. You were elected because people want a prosperous economy with opportunity for them. They don't really care how you get it.

Your followers want rule of law, and competent administration. They do not want a laundry list of new policies, programs, and regulations. They do not want a 100 days. 

Read the polls. You are now president of all the country, and the vast majority of that country -- even the majority of your supporters -- does not want to waste this moment on draconian trade, immigration, and social issues. 

On the other hand, if you try the 100 days that I start to hear percolating out from the media -- disruptive anti-immigrant steps, sure to generate horrible stories in the news, big moves against trade, and hard line on social issues including abortion, gay marriage and other gender rights -- you will simply and needlessly tear the country apart. 

And you will pave the way for President Elizabeth Warren. This is the one chance in your and my lifetimes to put a stake in the heart of politicized nanny-state progressivism. Its corruption and hypocrisy are exposed.  You have one chance to replace it with a socially tolerant, pro-growth, pro-opportunity agenda, and to make it work. There will be no second chance. If you tear the country apart by deporting immigrants, with the New York Times and NPR covering every destroyed family, and by starting a hopeless campaign against abortion, gay marriage, or other social issues, you will simply feed their propaganda machine. 

There is no 100 days in the constitution. Your job is only to faithfully execute the law, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Period. That would be plenty! The country would be happy with modest competence. We do not need a flurry of new, half-baked initiatives. Nor does your eventual reputation as president. 

Let this 100 day tradition die, and bury it! 


  1. Dear John,

    I have read your blog since it began. When I disagree with you, my first thought is, "What did I miss?" Not this time, though.

    (1) Trump was elected for his policies: Immigration, Obamacare, trade, and the Supreme Court. If he pivots, he's a one-term president.
    (2) Trump is not "anti-immigrant" as you call him. He is for enforcing the law, which in the present context makes him "anti-illegal-immigrant". There's a BIG difference, and I am shocked that you can't see it. Conflating illegal and legal immigration is no small error. It is perhaps the wont of the elites to think that selective enforcement of the law is no big deal and to overlook it -- note all but one of the presidential candidates from both parties had no trouble with failing to enforce immigration law -- but I am shocked, positively shocked, to find you in that category. Say it ain't so!

    I don't think it's going to be 100 days, I think it's going to be 100 hours. It will be easier for the mendacious presstitutes to inflame the public if they can focus on one policy proposal per week or month rather than one per minute. And if you think the NY Times is serious about "rededicating itself to reporting honestly" then I've got oceanfront property in Chicago that I'd like to sell you.



    1. You are confusing populism with policies.

    2. Perhaps the message of Mr. C is that the how you get it done can be almost as important as the what. Getting 75% of the what by means preserves an option for the remainder. Show folks how stuff works, deliver some success, and you open opportunity to do more rather than foreclose it.

  2. You seem to be saying that Mr. Trump should not aggressively pursue the ideas that won him election. I can't imagine even a slight possibility of that. He can only upset his constituency by failing to pursue his agenda aggressively. The aggressive course may well lead to him "simply and needlessly tearing the country apart", but I don't suspect that that is a problem for the adminisration in any practical sense. It will be easy to get people to rally around the flag when the time comes.

    1. The fundamental problem Trump has is that his agenda will not accomplish the goals that he has promised his supporters he will accomplish.

      Your comment: "The aggressive course may well lead to him "simply and needlessly tearing the country apart", but I don't suspect that that is a problem for the adminisration in any practical sense." left me aghast.

    2. I think it's been made clear by his campaign that neither taboo nor tradition are likely to constrain this president. I too am aghast at the implication, but can only operate under the assumption that Mr. Trump will continue to do anything it takes to "win" no matter what costs he externalizes. Shame on us if w fail to imagine that he may govern in the same manner that he campaigned.

    3. I agree with your assessment of Tramp's fundamental problem. (And further that what I have to say is shocking.)

      I do not think that not being able to deliver what he promises will ulimately impede him, however. Trump has shown during the campaign an ability to disregard a level of opprobrium that would wilt any other politician. He appears to be unconstrained by both taboo and tradition, and I'm simply saying that that ought to be considered when theorizing about his first 100 days and beyond.

    4. Trump won on promises we have been waiting for….. Let him lead -- Let him make the decisions …. A monolog of 'things he should do " things he shouldn't do" ---- you don't know the whole story behind anything he will do… Mind your own beeswax.

  3. I'm not sure how statements like "ban all muslims entering the country" or "no more Syrian refugees" can be construed as anything but anti legal immigration.

  4. Professor Cochrane - I read your piece and decided I should write a comment saying that you were being unrealistic. It turns out that the two anonymous posters ahead of me illustrate the point far more convincingly than I could make it.

    Donald Trump quite deliberately played a game of division and hate and now he will reap the whirlwind for it.

  5. Very powerful and straightforward. Nothing to add or subtract.

  6. hi Doc: i like it; well said. as for some of the shocked comments above, i.e., he *has* to stick to his pledges, methinks they missed your part one how DJT should do it vs. exactly what. the media (Fox included) is already lambasting him for a purported flip on the ACA even though he's been clear on his view re. pre-existings for quite a while. laying low and draining the swamp and getting the administrative state under control (as well as getting a constructionist on the SCOTUS) i agree will do a lot to get the economy rolling again; the consequent growth will take care of a lot of the rest. Q.E.D. (as my old econ prof was wont to write)

  7. If this were a petition, I would sign up to it, wholeheartedly.

    Donald Trump has already surprised us twice: by winning the Republican primaries, and by winning the general election. He may surprise us again: by acting along the lines of John Cochrane's 'plan' for economic growth.

    Donald Trump is a difficult to understand man: he talks a lot, but rarely explains himself. In one of the rare instances I have found, he said about the 'plan': "I'm going to do it, because the pundits want it. But the truth is I may end up with much better than what I'm projecting, because it's all a negotiation." (WSJ video "Enough with the nice" September 2015)

    I found Scott 'Dilbert' Adam's writings on Donald Trump's persuasion technique quite revealing. But still find it hard to imagine how he could set up the 'deal' John Cochrane is suggesting.

  8. "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."

    Sun Tzu

    If the media are lampooning you as the do-nothing president, you're doing a great job. Eisenhower played this trick well.

    Eisenhower didn't have to wait very long until Joseph Stalin died in March of 1953 (Ike took office in January of 1953). Armistice was reached with Korea in July of 1953. More than 100 days for sure, and a little bit of luck doesn't hurt either.

  9. Obama did not pass Obamacare in the first 100 days. A lot can be done in the first 30 days. Repeal regulations, executive orders, repeal and replace Obamacare.

    1. "A lot can be done in the first 30 days ... replace Obamacare."

      I don't believe that either Trump or the House Republicans have produced a blueprint for a replacement for Obamacare.

  10. You're right John, and from what I read in his first "100 days" plan is a lot of repealing of bad laws (which you mentioned), cut and simply taxes etc. and doing the job the federal government is supposed to do, i.e protect the border.

    Trump said so much in his 60 minute interview as well. The trade deal renegotiation stuff will obviously take longer and will likely never happen other than as a show. Paul Ryan already said no to tariffs or anything like that.

    So you're right, and this seems to be what he has promised. I disagree with you on immigration because that fits in with your definition of doing what the government is supposed to do.

    PS: Why don't you pitch yourself for a position in the administration?

  11. And another one of the "silent majority" seems to come out. This is not the bigots that most people assume are Trump's largest share of supporters. It's those who are tricked by Trump's vagueness, to the point they go into their own little personal bubble of imagination of what the Real Donald Trump (and not his public persona) will do whatever it is that goes in your wishful thinking once he becomes president. I know this is a letter of advice, and maybe I'm a bit more skeptic than you to the point I find it pointless because Trump is not one known for listening to academics, but it does seem to be written by someone living on a different planet. None of this wishful thinking seems to be reflected on Trump's first post election interview.

    Furthermore, what worries me about Trump is the US is a world power, and even as a non American, whatever Trump's policies are they will still likely affect me. Especially when it comes to foreign and environmental policy. Playing around with disbanding NATO and dismissing climate change is not very reassuring. He even seems to want to blast the ozone hole open just so he can have hair spray like in the old days (after a large recovery that has resulted from worldwide regulation on CFC).

    1. A bit of insight: in U.S. politics rhetoric and reality almost never mirror one another. The two are generally correlated, but only loosely. Campaign "plans" are best understood as vehicles to express a candidate's principles in a way under informed voters can understand/digest.

      As such, you should cut Grumpy some slack. Here in the U.S. we are ALWAYS forced to guess what the "Real" president elect is going to do. Now granted, the Trump campaign season fantasy was a bit further afield from reality than the norm (at least for a candidate that actually managed to get past the primaries), but this is a difference of degree, not type.

      So maybe Grumpy doesn't know who the "Real" Trump is, but neither does anyone else, including you. You also have no idea what Clinton would have really done if elected (or Sanders, or Cruz, or anyone else). Given that, I'll stick with the glass-half-full vision of Trump for the time being. He might not have been my pick, but I lost (all my preferred candidates were out of the running fairly early on), so it's time to move on and hope for the best.

  12. John, Excellent post.

    I don't think anyone knows right now if this guy is just an unprincipled showman, or a rational business manager capable of understanding posts like yours. I hope it's the latter.

  13. Screw the left, just like they screwed everyone with obamacare without a single republican vote or even a reading of the bill.
    Screw them HARD-FAST-and stack the court for years to come.
    There is nothing more delightful than liberal tears.

    1. The doom of the Trump movement lies in its tendency to view this as some sort of personal revenge or payback against people they don't agree with. Watching on election night I was particularly struck by the seething bitterness of Corey Lewandowski - even as his man was winning. I am seeing the same attitude in on-line comments.

    2. I was a bit surprised to find George W Bush speaking out against letting anger drive policy:

  14. I think this is what happens when an avowed technical economist dismisses the knowledge in all of the other social sciences. He becomes blind to the obvious. Although Prof. C is an excellent financial economist, the other social forces dominate the animating force of Trump's coalition. Namely, tribalism (yes, a mixture of racism, xenophobia, and irrational suspicion of those not like "white" people) seems to have trumped (pardon the pun) all other considerations.

    Implicitly, the Trump voters have chosen a form of white supremacy to back, which is quite incoherent in its broader implications about economic policy. What is clear is that he has mandate to make life miserable for those who are not "white". I put the word in quotes because it has become a vague moniker for those we relate to.

    1. You might want to try reading John's post again, this time while attempting some level of comprehension. He's not denying your "other social forces", but is instead exhorting Trump to ignore them and instead focus on implementing the more sensible parts of his candidacy. Quite why anybody would object to this is mystifying.

    2. That's one model of the world: Cochrane is really bright, but technical, too nerdy to see the forest for the trees. Personally, that doesn't mesh up with lots of his other writing and my experiences having seen him speak. But it could be true.

      Another model could be that there is really no shortage of media and blogs writing pieces highlighting Trump's alleged racism/xenophobia/tribalism etc. So Cochrane decided to take another route. One which focuses on using his expertise in I guess what you would call a more technical/wonky perspective of the world to try to encourage Trump to succeed.

      I mean, the guy isn't some autist-savant who is so caught up in equations that he doesn't understand social dynamics... Really...

    3. Except that Trump won more Hispanics than other GOP presidential candidates, won every income bracket $50k and above, and won less white people than other GOP presidential candidates.

      And except the fact that the Dem political platform was overtly racist and kept telling "white" people that the aim of their party was their dwindling.

      But of course, racism xenophobia bla bla bla. This is why you lost, and will keep loosing.

      You need to find some new slurs. Clearly, the ones you've been yelling for the past 8 years haven't been working.

    4. "So Cochrane decided to take another route."

      It seems to me that Professor Cochrane sees a President elect whose campaign rhetoric is incompatible with the real world. Given the fluid nature of Trump's agenda - it makes sense Professor Cochrane to be throwing in his view to attempt to influence the ultimate choice of policy. I disagree with the Professor's policies but given his policy preferences his strategy is correct, if a bit unrealistic. Trump's base and most of the Republican party would go nuts if Trump tries to appoint a libertarian to Scotus.

  15. Whether or not Trump imposes import tariffs on China and others, the damage is done. The rationalists have bid import prices up an annualized 6% already. What does the Fed do and what happens to inflation. FDR extended a garden variety recession into a ten year depression with the New Deal, price and wage control and protectionist polices, coupled with a restrictive monetary policy. Again, I'm not optimistic unless his congress can control him.

    1. David,

      You have your history mixed up a bit here.–Hawley_Tariff_Act

      "However, in spite of his opposition, Herbert Hoover yielded to influence from his own party and business leaders and signed the bill."

      "Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke against the act while campaigning for president during 1932."

      "After winning the election, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the now-Democratic Congress passed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. This act allowed the President to negotiate tariff reductions on a bilateral basis, and also treated such a tariff agreement as regular legislation, requiring a majority, rather than as a treaty requiring a two-thirds majority."

      And so, courtesy of an Act instituted by Congress under the Roosevelt Administration, Trump (as President) has the ability to implement trade policy (including tariffs) with a simple majority vote from Congress.

      The problem with tariffs is that they can become a tit-for-tat exercise. Here, I am reminded of the scene from the movie "Apocalypse Now" where Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) explains his methods:

      ""We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying ... We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile ... a pile of little arms. And I remember I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realised ... like I was shot. Like I was shot with a diamond. A diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought my God, the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realised they were stronger than we. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love, but they had the strength to do that. If I had 10 divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly."

      Obviously I am not advocating a trade balance negotiated at gun point, but instead I am advocating the sentiment that Kurtz echoes - be prepared to do what your competitor is unwilling or unable to do.

      Any tariff implemented by the U. S. can easily be offset by another country and so tariffs become pointless exercises in futility. Any monetary policy intervention by the U. S. central bank can be replicated by the central bank of another country and so currency manipulation becomes an equally pointless exercise in futility.

    2. Frank, fair enough. But if tit-for-tat hurts both sovereigns, why engage in a futile exercise in the first place? Importers and exporters get hurt on both sides. There are two sides to a market. Buyer and seller.

    3. David,

      Like I alluded to with my Colonel Kurtz / "Apocalypse Now" reference - do what your enemy / competitor is unwilling or unable to do. I just gave two examples of what doesn't work (tariffs, central bank open market operations).

      There are actions that can be taken by the United States that cannot be reciprocated.

    4. Frank, what actions? I suspect getting strangling regulations and a draconian tax code out of the way would give the US enormous comparative and competitive leverage visa-vis the globe. How does annual average real growth of about 1.2% since 2007 make us competitive? BTW. Thanks for the correction on FDR.

    5. David,

      The last time the U. S. maintained anything close to a balance of trade was in 1975.

      The intervening factor that prevented the U. S. from running a large trade imbalance was the fiscal limitations that the gold standard / Bretton Woods agreement placed on the U. S. government. That agreement was torn up by Nixon in 1971.

      Absent a return to the gold standard, the U. S. could do a number of other things:

      1. Assess a tariff on U. S. Treasuries held overseas payable only in U. S. Treasuries. In this way the relative prices of tradeable goods and U. S. debt is changed. That is one big problem with currency depreciation - sure U. S. goods become less expensive to buy overseas but so do U. S. debt and equity become equally less expensive to buy overseas.

      2. The U. S. could finance it's budget deficits with equity sales (instead of debt sales). In this way the U. S. could ensure that it's deficits are financed domestically. That government "equity" would consist of securities sold by the U. S. Treasury and only redeemable through the payment of taxes to the internal revenue service. In this way, they would be worthless to international investors that don't pay U. S. taxes but still have value to domestic investors.

      3. Existing debt contracts could be altered so that they are legally limited in the real interest rate they can offer. Meaning creditors (in the event of deflation) would receive a fixed real interest rate even if the nominal interest rate they received became negative.

    6. Frank, There is a lot to think about per your suggestions. I'm sure I'll have questions.

  16. Okay, so, you seem to have never heard of Donald Trump, or who he is, or anything he's done. Tip: he is not in fact a blank slate fictional character onto whom you can project every quality you hold virtuous.

  17. Going a little off topic:

    If Trump imposes meaningful trade restrictions or tariffs on imported goods and consumer prices in the United States go up as a result is that increase in prices "inflation" that the Fed should respond to with an increase in interest rates?

    1. Absalon,

      The significant differences between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the GDP deflator can be found here:

      The short hand version is that the GDP deflator does not include import prices (since net imports subtract from GDP) while the CPI includes all goods that are purchased domestically (imports included).

      In Taylor rule terms:

      The inflation rate being used is the GDP deflator. And so if the central bank maintained a Taylor Rule type of guide for monetary policy while tariffs were implemented, it is conceivable that the CPI could rise with no counter action by the Federal Reserve.

      Is it any wonder that the central bank refuses to be tied down by any type of Taylor Rule? Any rule (however well thought out) they adhere to can be undone by bad fiscal policy - something John Taylor never bothers to mention or point out.

    2. and if Trump restricts the import of softwood lumber or beef and the price of domestic production goes up is that "inflation".

    3. In response to import restrictions on softwood lumber or beef, do U. S. consumers eat more chicken / pork and use more hardwood lumber and less softwood lumber?

      In conjunction with import tariffs does the cost of domestic production of these goods fall with reduced tax rates?

      I was trying to keep my explanation simple by illustrating how the central bank (operating under a "Taylor" type rule) might respond to the knock on effects of tariffs and / or trade restrictions.

      Obviously there are a lot of moving pieces to consider when assessing the impact of any single policy - for instance, substitution effects and tax code changes described above.

  18. Slightly off topic but any thoughts on "Minneapolis Plan" yet?

    1. Zack,

      I presume you are referring to John's statement:

      "Finding a solid, politically acceptable fix to Dodd-Frank will take similar amounts of time."

      The Minneapolis plan (like many others) stipulates that banks should finance themselves with greater reliance on equity share sales. That is certainly one way to go.

      Another is for the federal government to finance itself with equity share sales (as opposed to Treasury bond sales).

      I favor the latter solution for several reasons:

      1. It provides the appropriate separation between fiscal and monetary policy.

      2. It can be implemented without Congressional approval.

  19. John,

    "Read the Paul Ryan better way plan, detailed and prepackaged."

    And the cracks are starting to show:

    "House Republicans were set to hold a secret ballot on changes to their internal conference rules that would have allowed lawmakers to direct spending to projects in their districts under certain circumstances."

    "Based on what lawmakers were saying in the meeting, it was likely that an earmark amendment would have passed, according to a source in the room."

    “Ultimately, the Speaker (Ryan) stepped in and urged that we not make this decision today, the source said."

    "Reps. John Culberson of Texas (Republican), Mike Rogers (Republican) of Alabama and Tom Rooney (Republican) of Florida filed an amendment to GOP rules that would ease the earmark ban by creating a new process for targeted spending."

    Can Paul Ryan steer Congress to his "Better Way" or will he be strung up by the mob that is Congress?

    If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the mob. Funny how politicians forget what got them elected in the first place.

    This is exactly why we need tax policy changes made by a body totally independent of the machinations of Congress. Hoping for 500+ Representatives and 100 Senators to hold the line on anything is like plugging a hole in a dike with your finger.

  20. And why is it a secret ballot. After riding around on their high horses for all the Obama years they should have the courage to stand up and say they want to bring back pork barrel politics.

  21. I am disagree in a lot of points but I am a legal Hispanic immigrant and as many other legal immigrants am fed up with illegal immigration !!! I am fed up with the invasion that is ruining our schools, hospitals and job markets. Ending illegal immigration and enforcing the immigration laws is one of the main reasons why my whole family voted for Mr Trump !!!

  22. If it takes Trump a year instead of 100 days, that's OK by me. But he was elected to make thoroughgoing changes. The most important of these are: ending illegal immigration, purging leftists from DoJ and IRS, rescinding Obama's executive actions, ending Obamacare, ending political correctness at DoD and restoring relationships with allies, making regime leaders in terror-supporting countries responsible with their lives for ending the support of terrorism.

    That's a start.

  23. This post is asking a foaming-at-the-mouth Rottweiler to deal poker.


Comments are welcome. Keep it short, polite, and on topic.

Thanks to a few abusers I am now moderating comments. I welcome thoughtful disagreement. I will block comments with insulting or abusive language. I'm also blocking totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. I am much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.