Angus King

So there's malice in terms of this, what I believe is taking pleasure. Have you ever heard Elon Musk express a moment of remorse about the people's lives who are being upended and screwed up? No, zero. In fact, he's on the stage at that conference with his sunglasses and a chainsaw grinning about how cool it is that he's destroying people's lives. This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.

So there's malice in terms of this, what I believe is taking pleasure. Have you ever heard Elon Musk express a moment of remorse about the people's lives who are being upended and screwed up? No, zero. In fact, he's on the stage at that conference with his sunglasses and a chainsaw grinning about how cool it is that he's destroying people's lives. This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.

So there's malice in terms of this, what I believe is taking pleasure. Have you ever heard Elon Musk express a moment of remorse about the people's lives who are being upended and screwed up? No, zero. In fact, he's on the stage at that conference with his sunglasses and a chainsaw grinning about how cool it is that he's destroying people's lives. This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.

Now, what's going on in Social Security, I think, is a little bit of both. At first, I thought they just didn't know what they were doing and they were cutting offices just for the sake of firing people. But now it appears that they really are trying in a subterfuge way of destroying Social Security, which there are people in this country have been trying to do since 1935.

Now, what's going on in Social Security, I think, is a little bit of both. At first, I thought they just didn't know what they were doing and they were cutting offices just for the sake of firing people. But now it appears that they really are trying in a subterfuge way of destroying Social Security, which there are people in this country have been trying to do since 1935.

Now, what's going on in Social Security, I think, is a little bit of both. At first, I thought they just didn't know what they were doing and they were cutting offices just for the sake of firing people. But now it appears that they really are trying in a subterfuge way of destroying Social Security, which there are people in this country have been trying to do since 1935.

I'm not going to betray any private conversations, but I will say that many of them know that this is dangerous. But rationalization is very powerful. And we all want to rationalize the position that we're taking, particularly at a moment like this. And so one of the most common refrains I hear is, yeah, this is dangerous, but the courts will take care of it. to me, that's a cop-out.

I'm not going to betray any private conversations, but I will say that many of them know that this is dangerous. But rationalization is very powerful. And we all want to rationalize the position that we're taking, particularly at a moment like this. And so one of the most common refrains I hear is, yeah, this is dangerous, but the courts will take care of it. to me, that's a cop-out.

I'm not going to betray any private conversations, but I will say that many of them know that this is dangerous. But rationalization is very powerful. And we all want to rationalize the position that we're taking, particularly at a moment like this. And so one of the most common refrains I hear is, yeah, this is dangerous, but the courts will take care of it. to me, that's a cop-out.

We hope the courts will take care of it, but that presumes that the administration, that the president will obey the orders of the court. If not, where are we then? So, you know, I keep trying to sort of prick their consciences, but it's, and by the way, the framers assumed that, that this separation of power would be policed by the people in power to protect their own prerogatives and power.

We hope the courts will take care of it, but that presumes that the administration, that the president will obey the orders of the court. If not, where are we then? So, you know, I keep trying to sort of prick their consciences, but it's, and by the way, the framers assumed that, that this separation of power would be policed by the people in power to protect their own prerogatives and power.

We hope the courts will take care of it, but that presumes that the administration, that the president will obey the orders of the court. If not, where are we then? So, you know, I keep trying to sort of prick their consciences, but it's, and by the way, the framers assumed that, that this separation of power would be policed by the people in power to protect their own prerogatives and power.

In other words, there's writing in The Federalist that the Congress would not cave into an autocratic president because they wouldn't want to give up their own authority.

In other words, there's writing in The Federalist that the Congress would not cave into an autocratic president because they wouldn't want to give up their own authority.

In other words, there's writing in The Federalist that the Congress would not cave into an autocratic president because they wouldn't want to give up their own authority.

Self-interest as a check. It was supposed to, that's the way it was supposed to work. But the framers didn't contemplate political parties. They hated the idea of political parties. In the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address talks about the danger of parties, but sure enough, within about five or 10 years, we had the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. We had Adams and Jefferson.

Self-interest as a check. It was supposed to, that's the way it was supposed to work. But the framers didn't contemplate political parties. They hated the idea of political parties. In the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address talks about the danger of parties, but sure enough, within about five or 10 years, we had the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. We had Adams and Jefferson.

Self-interest as a check. It was supposed to, that's the way it was supposed to work. But the framers didn't contemplate political parties. They hated the idea of political parties. In the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address talks about the danger of parties, but sure enough, within about five or 10 years, we had the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. We had Adams and Jefferson.

And so now what we have is party loyalty is trumping, excuse the term, institutional loyalty. Rather than fighting for the prerogatives, these folks are putting their party first, saying, you know, we've got to be loyal to our president. And it doesn't help that this president is notoriously vindictive. The current rumor is they're being told, if you buck us, we will primary you. And this is new.

And so now what we have is party loyalty is trumping, excuse the term, institutional loyalty. Rather than fighting for the prerogatives, these folks are putting their party first, saying, you know, we've got to be loyal to our president. And it doesn't help that this president is notoriously vindictive. The current rumor is they're being told, if you buck us, we will primary you. And this is new.