Even This Senate Has Its Limits
Wednesday, October 01, 2025
The good news: The White House is withdrawing its nomination of E.J. Antoni, an unqualified hack, to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The bad news is, of course, that the same outfit will nominate someone else, and receive the same great "advice and consent" from the body that confirmed the similarly unqualified likes of Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Bobby Kennedy to their cabinet posts.
Steven Lubet expounds on the good news at The Hill:
Economists from multiple conservative think tanks have weighed in against Antoni's appointment, citing his inexperience and incompetence.Low though their standards be, I guess it's good to know that there are some people this Senate won't confirm.
The American Enterprise Institute's Stan Veuger warned that Antoni's work "has frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction." His colleague Derek Scissors was even more dismissive, saying Antoni "writes drivel for political reasons."
David Herbert, of the American Institute for Economic Research, called for the Senate to reject Antoni's nomination, citing "his inability to understand basic economics."
Likewise, Daniel DiMartino of the Manhattan Institute called Antoni "unqualified for the labor market data collection and analysis role" when he doesn't know what he's "talking about." Jessica Riedl, another Manhattan Institute fellow, described Antoni's publications as "probably the most error-filled of any think tank economist."
That said, I hold out little hope that this represents any kind of turning of the tide against slavishly following Donald Trump. Until relatively recently, conservatives at least used to pretend to care about economics and free markets, so this was a bridge too far for them -- or at least they knew that more people would realize (than with, say, Kennedy) what a horrible mistake they would have made.
-- CAV
5 comments:
You are buying into the mainstream outlets characterizing of all these people as unqualified hacks. The problem is twofold. First, And most important, quite often, somebody who has no experience in an institution is not captured by it and is most qualified to shake it up. Second, and less important, is you can't necessarily always believe the characterizations of media outlets who politically oppose the policies that are going to be instituted. You actually can't believe them on almost anything, even things that they claim to be factual. Factual. Just because several such outlets back each other up.
We've discussed this before.
Just because previous government officials have been dishonest or incompetent doesn't make successors who might disagree with them competent.
I am confident that Kennedy, Hegseth, and Gabbard, whom I named, are hacks regardless of what their predecessors might have been.
For example, Kennedy stated in his book about Fauci that he disagrees that viruses cause disease, and that he considers himself an adherent of the miasma theory of disease. (He's actually wrong even about that. I think the correct term for his particular brand of quackery is "terrairn.")
If you disagree that not knowing that viruses cause disease makes the man at the head of HHS unqualified, I don't know what I can say to help you.
terrain
"If you disagree that not knowing that viruses cause disease makes the man at the head of HHS unqualified."
I don't disagree with that, but I would be happier if your posts would not just be always attacking Republican or MAGA foolishness, but would praise them when they get something right. Like trying to cut spending or deregulate or lower taxes or have a strong military -- to name four areas where their counters to the leftist direction of this country are desperately needed.
"I would be happier if your posts would not just be always attacking Republican or MAGA foolishness, but would praise them when they get something right."
I do occasionally give the administration credit for such things as energy freedom, but I have to qualify even that since Trump would rather rue by EO (which can simply be overturned by the next President) than by passing legislation. Also, his /readons/ for doing things, when he bothers to give them at all, are often bad, undermining whatever good he might do.
That said, start off with that, rather than basically accusing me of being gullible just because I happen to agree with leftist media that Kennedy, Gabbard, and Hegseth are hacks.
Yes, sure. An outsider can very well be just what the doctor ordered to shake up a corrupt institution -- as long as that outsider isn't incompetent, corrupt, or both.
Post a Comment