OPINION:
One of the few entertaining elements of living and working in Washington is that every once in a while, someone — someone who should know better — says something that is so aggressively ridiculous and nonsensical that it cannot be ignored.
For example, way back in the fall, the world’s richest man promised us all that the Department of Government Efficiency would produce $2 trillion of savings from the federal government. Given that all of the federal government’s discretionary spending amounts to about $2 trillion annually, that seemed like a difficult target. Not surprisingly, to date it is unclear that DOGE has saved anyone any money at all. Don’t quit the day job, Elon.
Or perhaps you prefer Peter Navarro’s assertion during the first anxious days of the tariffs that they were mostly negotiation stratagems and that there would be 90 trade agreements in 90 days. This was especially egregious because Mr. Navarro should have known better, having served in the first Trump term, when the administration could barely bring home the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It turns out trade deals are complex. Who knew?
More than 90 days into the tariff regime, and we have one trade deal with the United Kingdom and one announced with Vietnam.
Don’t forget then candidate Donald Trump’s promise to bring peace to Ukraine in one day. That didn’t happen, but, as best anyone can tell, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been reduced to receiving partial dispensations — each one lasting two weeks — to keep killing.
Legislation always brings out the most ridiculous, and H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) has been no exception. In the run-up to voting for the legislation, a member of the House Freedom Caucus noted that he received assurances that President Trump will make sure the Inflation Reduction Act energy tax credits will be “dealt with” (whatever that might mean). The problem with that is the tax credits are firmly embedded in statute. They have already been “dealt with.” Those whose wish to take advantage of the credits need only follow the rules laid out in … the very legislation for which the members of the House Freedom Caucus just voted.
Surely, either the congressman or whoever he was talking to in the administration must understand that. Or perhaps they don’t.
Finally — and most wonderfully — Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, told a reporter that her vote in favor of the legislation was “agonizing.” That may be the most aggressive gaslighting in the history of legislatures. For those of you who just got here, as part of negotiations over the bill, Ms. Murkowski asked for $25 billion for rural hospitals; she got $50 billion. She asked for more generous nutrition assistance. Done. She asked for a handful of changes to the alternative energy tax credits. No problem, senator.
Productive for Alaska’s senior senator? Absolutely. “Agonizing”? Spare me. Maybe hauling away all that cash hurt. Maybe she felt bad that she took all that candy away from the other children. Here’s the truth: The senator came into the negotiations with a few, clear objectives. She had a plan and she executed it. The Senate would be a better place if everyone were as clear-eyed, direct and ruthless as she.
It is Lisa Murkowski’s world; we’re just living in it.
Everyone else should keep that nonsense coming. It is the only real entertainment this city has to offer.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times. He has worked in Washington way too long.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.