Post New

https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/the-logic-o...

There's no coup.

There's no destruction.

But you know what *is* there?

The door. In the form of a bus, airport, port, railway station, whatever. If libs don't like it, there it is.

Wow. "Love it or leave it". Haven't heard that since 'Nam. How very undemocratic of you. (lower-case 'd')

There's no coup.

There's no destruction.


Says the guy who said “Burn it all down.

Says the guy who said “Burn it all down.


Yes I did.
Because the left has destroyed so much of what should be making the country work.

And now they're rooting out all the losers who have been stealing money for years inside the government, and those people are now Finding Out.

People like this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senior-usa...

Two top security officials at the US Agency for International Development were put on administrative leave Saturday night after refusing to allow officials from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to access systems at the agency, even after DOGE personnel threatened to call law enforcement, multiple sources familiar told CNN.

Here's a question, actually a couple, that the media won't ask.

What "higher authority do these dimwits think they're answering to? Because it sure isn't the US Constitution.
What are they trying to hide?

It's also good to see democrats called out for their performative, violence inducing political statements as JD Vance did today.

No longer should anyone sit around and allow them to rile up their crazies.

Here's a question, actually a couple, that the media won't ask.

What "higher authority do these dimwits think they're answering to? Because it sure isn't the US Constitution.
What are they trying to hide?

These questions have been answered several times already on this board.

Either you missed them or don’t understand basic accounting concepts.

This is the payment system that was set up to ensure that legal payments authorized by our elected officials (such as Congress and the President) and are processed accurately (correct amount and payee) and timely. It was not set up to determine who gets paid.

There is ZERO need to get access to the system to find out who gets paid or how much they get paid. The only reason the non-US unelected citizen wants access is to block legal and previously authorized payments by elected officials.

There is a 100% chance they will fuckup something that harms our nation’s finances and reputation.

Just like the tariffs started by the current moron-in-chief. Even the right-wing Wall Street Journal called them the dumbest tariffs in history.

Because of Trump and his minions, we are headed for a depression. Hope you’re prepared.

There is one immutable lesson that nature teaches us over and over; you can’t fix stupid.

These questions have been answered several times already on this board.


Interesting. So you think you know what USAID is trying to hide? Do tell.

This board actually doesn't answer any questions.

Oh, forgot something:

Because of Trump and his minions, we are headed for a depression. Hope you’re prepared.

DOGE has saved, in 11 days, around a billion dollars from going to useless DEI programs.

There's some depression going around, yup.

Interesting. So you think you know what USAID is trying to hide? Do tell.

There is actually NOTHING in the payment system that would allow ANYONE to answer your question.

If you think USAID is hiding something you would need to look at what our elected representatives in Congress and our elected President authorized them to spend money on. Then, you would need to audit USAID’s records to see if they followed what our elected officials budgeted for them. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PAYMENT SYSTEM.

The question is, what proof do you have that USAID is hiding something?

This board actually doesn't answer any questions.

Actually, this Board answers lots of questions.

For some reason, you refuse to understand the answers.

There's no destruction.

The destruction is under way, this is the beginning. We hope things don't get too bad - for the sake of the people after us. BTW - where's the riots? You've already tried a self-coup, so what's one more? :) As the Chinese would say it, we are living in interesting times.

An inflationary recession may be in the offing. Why offend Canadians? If it weren't for the oil, we'd have a trade surplus with them.

Interesting. So you think you know what USAID is trying to hide? Do tell.

This board actually doesn't answer any questions. - Dope

----------------

I think it is amusing that the Dems think the Office of the President is somehow required to provide a reason. He has the power to declassify even the top top top most sensitive secrets but needs a reason to access the records of any executive branch departments, except where specific legislation restricts access, such as Tax Returns.

If he is required to provide reasons, who exactly, besides voters, sets in judgement of his reasons?

What "higher authority do these dimwits think they're answering to? Because it sure isn't the US Constitution.

This has to be the pinnacle of ironic statements.

What "higher authority do these dimwits think they're answering to? Because it sure isn't the US Constitution.

They’re actually standing up for the actual Constitutional order, trying to prevent a hostile takeover of the government.

They lost this particular battle and now the 6 trillion dollar US Treasury Payment System is now on the computers at Musk’s X/Space X


And to think you were outaged when it was discored that there might have been a confidential memo or two in Hillary’s basement.

Never mind what Trump had stashed in his basement, or what sensitive data on ever American now resides in the corporate data centers of Elon Musk.

Are you really that blind?

But you know what *is* there?

The door.

No. NO! HELL NO!!!

There is no door. What you are proposing is that people who love their country abandon it so that oligarchs can take over everything. That is not the America I grew up in. That is not the America I have lived in.

If you are suggesting that the options are to fight or to become refugees, dependent on the good will of other countries, I choose to fight.

--Peter

If you are suggesting that the options are to fight or to become refugees, dependent on the good will of other countries, I choose to fight.

--Peter

--------------

Agree. Too bad the stream of millions of economic migrants making false claims as a refugee didn't feel the same way. I do believe that most of them were duped by the cartels who profit immensely for selling false hope. Mu opionion is as long as they don't turn to crime, they can stay for a while as we figure out some sort of status that will allow them to stay.

At least, we finally have a president who has taken notice and designated the cartels as the terrorist organizations that they are. As Trump often says, we will see what happens. Or better as Dope often says, FAFO.

The only reason the non-US unelected citizen wants access is to block legal and previously authorized payments by elected officials.

There might be another reason.

https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-x-money-visa-...

Adding a payment system to X (nee Twitter).

How much of a step ahead would it be to scrape all of the payment data from the Treasury's payment system and use that to pre-populate your banking information into X? What kind of a security problem is that for each of us personally? Could this be the biggest leak of personal information ever?

Keep in mind that the Treasury's payment system makes direct deposits to virtually all Social Security recipients. And to a great many taxpayers who get refunds on their tax returns. It makes payments (again, many of them electronic) to every company that sells goods or services to the Federal government. And to every employee working for every piece of the Federal government, from the President of the US down to the army private just starting boot camp, to the data entry clerk in the IRS.

Forget getting banking info from just one bank, he's just been given access to banking info for the majority of individuals and business in the country.

--Peter

(reposted to fix formatting)


The only reason the non-US unelected citizen wants access is to block legal and previously authorized payments by elected officials.

There might be another reason.

https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-x-money-visa-...

Adding a payment system to X (nee Twitter).

How much of a step ahead would it be to scrape all of the payment data from the Treasury's payment system and use that to pre-populate your banking information into X? What kind of a security problem is that for each of us personally? Could this be the biggest leak of personal information ever?

Keep in mind that the Treasury's payment system makes direct deposits to virtually all Social Security recipients. And to a great many taxpayers who get refunds on their tax returns. It makes payments (again, many of them electronic) to every company that sells goods or services to the Federal government. And to every employee working for every piece of the Federal government, from the President of the US down to the army private just starting boot camp, to the data entry clerk in the IRS.

Forget getting banking info from just one bank, he's just been given access to banking info for the majority of individuals and business in the country.

--Peter

Because the left has destroyed so much of what should be making the country work.

Is that the reason why the economy has been doing so well? And employment is doing well? Because the left destroyed it?

If you are suggesting that the options are to fight or to become refugees, dependent on the good will of other countries, I choose to fight.

Whatever.
Pack your sh1t and head to the mountains Red Dawn-style. Don’t forget the it will take a lot of solar cells for you to power up the Tesla and your espresso machine.

Cohesion.

Civics.

Culture.

Lacking.


So the call to Americans - ain't shit. There is not a cohesive Americans - your fault not mine.'

BEST YouTube got is Corporate Democrats taking the House in 2026 which is a done deal and then if you be quiet, corporate Dems take 2028.

That's about as much of a "call" you can make.

You need a country, with a citizenry, as one ---- to do any more than that.

But that stuff is over Jedi, stop the beaver cleaver flag waving Paul revere in school stuff.

Ok. :) No problem.

Hey, didn't you see? They're gonna form the lib Wolverines and take to the hills!
Colorado is kinda bad this time of year at the higher elevations, though.

Hey, didn't you see? They're gonna form the lib Wolverines and take to the hills!

You have a very rich fantasy life, Dope

But we don’t live in the world that you wish was true.

For your sake, I hope you will come to realize- that neither do you.

Hey, didn't you see? They're gonna form the lib Wolverines and take to the hills!
Colorado is kinda bad this time of year at the higher elevations, though.
*******

KASH PATEL needs to investigate these Domestic Terrorist Groups

Coffee shops on the coasts, look for them gathering there. With Wolverine logo tattoos plotting to overthrow the government.

Militias armed with 401K's, dedicated to keeping their enclaves and way of life segregated, and harder for there inner city plantation slaves to break into .

"People like this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senior-usa...

Two top security officials at the US Agency for International Development were put on administrative leave Saturday night after refusing to allow officials from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to access systems at the agency, even after DOGE personnel threatened to call law enforcement, multiple sources familiar told CNN." - CNN

"Here's a question, actually a couple, that the media won't ask.

What "higher authority do these dimwits think they're answering to? Because it sure isn't the US Constitution.
What are they trying to hide?" - Dope

That is a question only Dumbass Dope doesn't understand the answer to.

He wants to know why a government entity created and funded by congress as an independent body to spend U.S. foreign aid might want to refuse access to their systems (including classified information) to a group that is extra-governmental (i.e. not created by congress, not led by a Senate confirmed leadership).

This is because Dope thinks everyone on government is supposed to work for the president. He doesn't understand they are supposed to work for the people. He doesn't understand that we do not elect dictators.

Not only is Dope a dumbass, people like him are causing long term damage to the U.S. and its interests through their sheer stupidity and ignorance.

He wants to know why a government entity created and funded by congress as an independent body to spend U.S. foreign aid

Congress controls the purse strings and passed the Foreign Assistance Act, but apparently JFK created USAID by executive order. So, it is money designated by Congress, so how can President Musk just shut it down?

In 1961, President Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law and created USAID by executive order. Once USAID got to work, international development assistance opportunities grew tremendously. The time during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations became known as the “decade of development.”

This is because Dope thinks everyone on government is supposed to work for the president. - Umm

Not everyone, but within the Executive Branch, sure.


He doesn't understand they are supposed to work for the people. He doesn't understand that we do not elect dictators. - more Umm

They do work for the people and the people have elected Trump to represent us this time. He ran on a well publicized MAGA platform and he is now doing exactly what he promised during the campaign. I get it how rare and dis-orienting it could be when a politician actually follows through on what he says.

They do work for the people and the people have elected Trump to represent us this time. He ran on a well publicized MAGA platform and he is now doing exactly what he promised during the campaign. I get it how rare and dis-orienting it could be when a politician actually follows through on what he says.


I see the ankle biter is weighing in, showing off a usual lack of understanding about how the government works. Thanks for explaining it to him.

Board libs operate under the illusion that no matter who wins an election, the Deep State is supposed to stay in place and be allowed to just pretend the democrat won.

Er, no. There’s not some hidden clause in the Constitution that says there is a higher loyalty to the democrat party.

He ran on a well publicized MAGA platform

That you all denied he would do. He's following 2025 though both y'all and he denied it. He said he knew nothing about it, and y'all told us we were nuts for thinking that and that those are separate fascists over there, not to be confused with Trump, who isn't a fascist. Not to long ago Dope melted down in a discussion with Albaby and it looked bad. I raised my eyebrows. Perhaps y'all are further along than I thought.

Board libs operate under the illusion that no matter who wins an election, the Deep State is supposed to stay in place and be allowed to just pretend the democrat won.

Oh, I don't think that's true.

I think that we do realize that no matter who wins the Presidential election, most of the nation's policies and priorities have been and continue to be set by Congress. Congress controls the budget and all the nation's laws - and establishing and governing the agencies that implement those laws.

When there's a Presidential election, it changes who is in charge of implementing those laws - but does not change them. Nor the budget.

Now, that ain't nuthin', as they say. The President has enormous influence in how the federal government implements the laws, and in some areas has a lot of flexibility in deciding what to focus on. And a new President can push Congress to change some of the laws, or to revise what the budget provides.

But Trump isn't the only one who won an election this past January. The Democrats won enough seats in the House and the Senate to keep the status quo on anything that the GOP doesn't 100% agree on. The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just do what he wants anyway, simply because he prefers to focus only on the election he won and not the 215 elections his party lost in the House or the 17 they lost in the Senate.

Not everyone, but within the Executive Branch, sure.

Nope. The people within the Executive Branch work for the President and Congress. They work in agencies that were established by Congress, under civil service rules enacted by Congress, following budgetary allocations decided by Congress, under the oversight of Congress, and implementing the laws adopted by Congress.

The President has managerial oversight over all those employees - but they don't work for him. The work for the United States federal government, and the policies and priorities of the U.S. government are established by both the Congress and the President.

Perhaps y'all are further along than I thought.

It is possible that our Trumper friends here are OK with an autocratic leader and a destruction of our democratic Republic, or maybe they refuse to see the threat that Trump represents.

Let's say we had someone like Mitt Romney as POTUS. I think most on the right would have been satisfied with his policies while liberals would not be. But a traditional Republican like that would not be tearing our country apart and shredding the Constitution.

WTF.

The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just do what he wants anyway

"So far", says the cynic in me.

Thank you albaby1:

BHM: Not everyone, but within the Executive Branch, sure.

Albaby1: Nope. The people within the Executive Branch work for the President and Congress. They work in agencies that were established by Congress, under civil service rules enacted by Congress, following budgetary allocations decided by Congress, under the oversight of Congress, and implementing the laws adopted by Congress.

The President has managerial oversight over all those employees - but they don't work for him. The work for the United States federal government, and the policies and priorities of the U.S. government are established by both the Congress and the President.

It seems some of on this board who are on the right either don't understand how our Constitutional Republic works or don't care.

"So far", says the cynic in me.

Ah, but if you embrace your inner cynic, you can find hope for this.

The conservative wing of the SCOTUS hates the idea of administrative power to make policy. That's often cast as trying to curtail the power of the Deep State - which it does. But is also, unavoidably, a statement about the limits of Executive power and the power of the President. Ultimately all administrative rulemaking and policy setting is an executive function, and stems from whatever authority the President has under the Constitution to "take care" that the laws are executed and whatever authority is assigned to him under the statutes.

A restrictive view of what agencies can do is necessarily a restrictive view of what the President can do. If EPA can't regulate power plant CO2 emissions without an express grant of authority from Congress (for example), then DOGE can't change the structure of USAID or repeal the Anti-Deficiency Act without a grant of authority from Congress either.

Trump's only in office for another 3 years and 11 months. The conservative legal project has been decades in the making, and has decades more to go. If you're cynical, perhaps you can see that they have aims and priorities that are independent from (and different from) Trump's - bad and ill-thought priorities to be sure, but ones that conflict with Trump's vision of the Executive as similar to a closely-held family office.

"Congress controls the budget and all the nation's laws - and establishing and governing the agencies that implement those laws."

You sure about that, Al ?

Musk isn't in Congress, and he appears to have a LARGE role in governing the agencies that control the budget. USAID comes to mind. What does it matter if the law or budget policy is still in place, but Musk just decides that it won't be honored ? Will Musk's efforts be struck down in the court of Law ?
I don't recall seeing Musk on the ballot last November, so how can he legally get away with this ?

Oh, I don't think that's true.

It's 100% true; one needs only read what is posted.

I think that we do realize that no matter who wins the Presidential election, most of the nation's policies and priorities have been and continue to be set by Congress. Congress controls the budget and all the nation's laws - and establishing and governing the agencies that implement those laws.

A famous statesman that 99% of this board voted for said the following:

I've got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't act, I will. <-- Say, who was that guy?

The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just do what he wants anyway, simply because he prefers to focus only on the election he won and not the 215 elections his party lost in the House or the 17 they lost in the Senate.

And no one is contesting this.

>>Not everyone, but within the Executive Branch, sure.<<

Nope. The people within the Executive Branch work for the President and Congress. They work in agencies that were established by Congress, under civil service rules enacted by Congress, following budgetary allocations decided by Congress, under the oversight of Congress, and implementing the laws adopted by Congress. - albaby

--------------------

I am going to call that a distinction without a difference. As long as managerial oversight includes the power and discretion to actually manage (within the requirements of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) the personnel in the executive branch, then I am fine with them working for both an elected President and a cloud of elected congressmen.


I am going to go out on limb here and postulate that if you drew an org chart foe the entire executive branch, diligently following the chain of command for each agency, sub dept, department and so on until you get to the top, it would be Trump in that top mpst box. That implies "working for" to me but that doesn't really matter as long as every executive branch employee is accountable to an individual boss who is responsible for exercising managerial oversight.

then DOGE can't change the structure of USAID

Hmmm. This raises something interesting.

What *is* the purpose of USAID? Does anyone know?

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent agency of the United States government that is primarily responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. With a budget of over $50 billion, USAID is one of the largest official aid agencies in the world and accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance – the highest in the world in absolute dollar terms.

That's from wiki, since their website is dark.

So if they're a...foreign aid outfit, right?

I am going to go out on limb here and postulate that if you drew an org chart foe the entire executive branch, diligently following the chain of command for each agency, sub dept, department and so on until you get to the top, it would be Trump in that top mpst box. That implies "working for" to me but that doesn't really matter as long as every executive branch employee is accountable to an individual boss who is responsible for exercising managerial oversight.


This is all breaking news, so I'll sum it up: Trump is shutting down USAID because of where it sends money. Or more accurately, how it launders taxpayer dollars.

It works like this:
*US Taxpayers fund USAID
*USAID sends money to leftwing groups with partial overseas reach
*leftwing groups fund US domestic nonprofits to the benefit of the democrat party

That's what Trump is doing. He's shutting off the money spigot the democrats have enjoyed for decades.

A famous statesman that 99% of this board voted for said the following:

I've got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't act, I will.

Yep. Like I said, the "President has enormous influence in how the federal government implements the laws, and in some areas has a lot of flexibility in deciding what to focus on."

Trump, however, is going well beyond this. Eliminating USAID? Refusing to disburse funds that Congress appropriated? If the President thinks that the choices that Congress has previously made are bad - or supporting "radical left-wing Marxists" or whatever Musk called them - then his remit is to go to Congress and ask them to change them. Not just do it himself.

I am going to go out on limb here and postulate that if you drew an org chart foe the entire executive branch, diligently following the chain of command for each agency, sub dept, department and so on until you get to the top, it would be Trump in that top mpst box. That implies "working for" to me but that doesn't really matter as long as every executive branch employee is accountable to an individual boss who is responsible for exercising managerial oversight.

But such an org chart would be incorrect, because every employee isn't accountable solely to an individual boss (leading up to the President). Congress also exercises oversight, and Congress also tells all those employees what to do.

The federal government is not analogous to a private business. In a private business, management makes all the decisions - and all power to decide matters for the company is vested (ultimately) in the CEO. The federal government doesn't work that way. We have divided government, and many (if not most) decisions for the government are made outside of the Executive altogether through Congress' laws and budgets. You can (and often do) have a situation where the Congress and the President are diametrically opposed to each other and neither can do anything to get rid of the other, which rarely happens in a private company.

It is a fundamental error to think about the federal government as if it were like a private company with an org chart. That's not how it's structured.

This is all breaking news, so I'll sum it up: Trump is shutting down USAID because of where it sends money.

But that's not his call.

Congress created USAID. Congress funded USAID. The President's obligation is to faithfully execute the laws, not violate them when he disagrees with them.

If he thinks USAID should be abolished and its budget zeroed out, then that's something to bring up with Congress. It's a gross violation of his Constitutional duty and a bunch of Congressional statutes to do that unilaterally.

Trump, however, is going well beyond this. Eliminating USAID? Refusing to disburse funds that Congress appropriated?

Has he done that permanently, or has he merely paused things?

That implies "working for" to me but that doesn't really matter as long as every executive branch employee is accountable to an individual boss who is responsible for exercising managerial oversight.

Where does that leave a “Department of Government Efficiency”?

A “department” that nobody elected, Congress didn’t authorize, and whose powers, Trump said, were purely advisory. Hell, even Trump was smart enough to put their title in quotation marks.

Where does that leave a “Department of Government Efficiency”?

As an independent commission.

Are you aware that USAID is funding internet censorship? Yeah...we're not doing that stuff anymore.

Has he done that permanently, or has he merely paused things?

The Administration is openly discussing eliminating the agency and folding it into the state department, and Elon Musk - who holds a formal position within the Administration - stated that Trump had agreed to shut it down and that they spent the weekend putting the agency "through the wood chipper." It's appropriate to criticize the Administration for proposing to do something completely in violation of law, even if they haven't finished doing it yet.

It's worth noting that the Administration doesn't have the power to "pause" an entire agency and shut down the entire thing for a quarter of the fiscal year just because he disagrees with the policy behind it. Congress created that agency and Congress authorized their activities and Congress appropriated the funds - the President's job is to "faithfully execute" that policy choice, not refuse to do it altogether because he thinks Congress got it wrong. The President has a lot of permissible choices to make in implementing policy, which gives him some wiggle room in how he does that - but at some point day becomes night, and "wiggle room" does not reach just deciding to cease all of an agency's functions for some non-trivial length of time just because he doesn't like what Congress chose.

The federal government is not analogous to a private business

<Insert comment about square pegs and round holes>

As an independent commission.

No, they changed that. There are rules and laws that require transparency and openness for independent advisory commissions, and they didn't want to do that (they were already getting sued for failing to comply). So they repurposed an existing actual part of the White House (the United States Digital Service) and renamed that as DOGE. DOGE is no longer an independent commission and is now part of the White House structure:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/20...

It's worth noting that the Administration doesn't have the power to "pause" an entire agency and shut down the entire thing for a quarter of the fiscal year just because he disagrees with the policy behind it.

Is USAID money supposed to be going to domestic group? Like...say..."Defending Democracy" headed by Bill Kristol?

Is USAID money supposed to be going to domestic group? Like...say..."Defending Democracy" headed by Bill Kristol?

If some groups that don't qualify under the statute have been receiving funding, then the President can (and probably should) stop that funding. But that doesn't translate into stopping the whole agency, and refusing to implement the activities that clearly are both permitted and required under the enabling statute and the budget.

If some groups that don't qualify under the statute have been receiving funding, then the President can (and probably should) stop that funding. But that doesn't translate into stopping the whole agency, and refusing to implement the activities that clearly are both permitted and required under the enabling statute and the budget.

Sure. Which is why USAID will reopen at some point with a freshly scrubbed mission and a better understanding of where its dollars are and aren't supposed to go.

Sure. Which is why USAID will reopen at some point with a freshly scrubbed mission and a better understanding of where its dollars are and aren't supposed to go.

Which is unlawful. If Trump finds some Medicare fraud, he doesn't get to shut down Medicare for three months. If he finds some misallocated funds in the food stamp program, he doesn't get to put SNAP through a wood chipper and shut it down for a quarter.

That's not Trump's call. He doesn't get to stop doing the stuff that clearly complies with the statute just because he doesn't like it, or because there's some small amount of stuff that doesn't comply.

If Kennedy signed USAID into law, it was not an executive order, but crafted
by congress as a law.

The President has managerial oversight over all those employees - but they don't work for him.

Then how can he fire them if they don't work for him? In a corporation (which the government isn't), a manager from a different department couldn't fire me. Though he/she could have talked to HR and/or my supervisor, and if the infraction was serious enough, I'd be fired. But he/she couldn't have just walked into my cube with security and walked me out.

Which is unlawful.

Oh? So there's a Congressional statute for literally every dime they send out?

If Kennedy signed USAID into law, it was not an executive order, but crafted
by congress as a law.

Is there a statute that says USAID money goes to elect left wing prosecutors in the US? I'd like to read it if there is.

Then how can he fire them if they don't work for him? In a corporation (which the government isn't), a manager from a different department couldn't fire me.

Because the U.S. government isn't like a corporation. In the sort of corporation you're imagining, the managers from a different department couldn't set up the rules and make the policy decisions on what projects you work on either....but in the federal government, that role is given not to the Executive but to Congress. So too with budget and oversight.

That said, you can easily have a corporations where the power to fire is given to departments other than the one the employee works for.

If he thinks USAID should be abolished and its budget zeroed out, then that's something to bring up with Congress. It's a gross violation of his Constitutional duty and a bunch of Congressional statutes to do that unilaterally.

OK...so walk us peons through this.

The Felon wants to abolish them. He issues orders (either formally with an EO, or through his minions) to that effect. Then what? I'm assuming some executive branch person (minion) delivers those orders to the rank and file, ordering them to clear out their desks.

Oh? So there's a Congressional statute for literally every dime they send out?

No. But at some point, day becomes night. If a "dime" in a $60 billion budget is being spent unlawfully, you can stop spending that "dime." But you can't stop the entire $60 billion budget for three months, because your job as President is to follow the laws and budgetary obligations that Congress has set for the country.

Congress passes the laws creating the agencies and appropriates their budgets. The President can stop activities that don't comply with the statutes, but he can't just stop the entire agency because he doesn't like the purpose of the agency, or if he's found a small amount of the expenditures that don't comply with statute.

...because your job as President is to follow the laws...

Why would the Felon start now? He hasn't done that his whole life, it seems. And he has actual power this time.

So when some minion shows up with security, and tells everyone to clean out their desks...then what? Walk us through how you imagine the mechanics of this would work to stop that action.

No. But at some point, day becomes night. If a "dime" in a $60 billion budget is being spent unlawfully, you can stop spending that "dime." But you can't stop the entire $60 billion budget for three months, because your job as President is to follow the laws and budgetary obligations that Congress has set for the country.

But Trump is well within his rights to zero out the extracurricular things that USAID is funding.

Let's put it this way. Samantha Freaking Power has been the one running it for the past few years. What do you think her job over there was?

But Trump is well within his rights to zero out the extracurricular things that USAID is funding.

If USAID was spending money that was in violation of the statutes or rules, absolutely.

But he cannot do what his Administration is talking about, which is zeroing out the entire agency and closing it down, just because he doesn't like what it does.

OK...so walk us peons through this.

The Felon wants to abolish them. He issues orders (either formally with an EO, or through his minions) to that effect. Then what? I'm assuming some executive branch person (minion) delivers those orders to the rank and file, ordering them to clear out their desks.

That's pretty much it. He can't fire them (Congress has passed laws governing when and how the Executive can fire rank and file employees), but he puts them all on administrative leave and directs them not to do their jobs any more.

See...how to stop this...

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-u...

Rubio says he is now the head, and Musk is planning to shut it down.

I'm not asking because I do/don't support USAID. I'm asking about the mechanics of halting this supposedly illegal activity. The cynic in me is saying that this would be dependent on respecting the norms, and the Constitution. But this administration doesn't respect either. Without the "norms", what's gonna stop them?

Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, said Monday that he is the acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal humanitarian aid agency that had been targeted for closure by Elon Musk.

That's pretty much it. He can't fire them (Congress has passed laws governing when and how the Executive can fire rank and file employees), but he puts them all on administrative leave and directs them not to do their jobs any more.

So how is that not shutting down the agency? An empty building with a sign over the door is not an agency.

If USAID was spending money that was in violation of the statutes or rules, absolutely.

And this is the major focus - what was veteran political operative Samantha Power doing? Getting to the bottom of this will take some time.

And let's let Marco Rubio sum up what USAID is supposed to be (and will be again):

REPORTER: A lot of the money USAID spends it gets criticized as being charitable, I think you used that word, or welfare for poor countries, but defenders of USAID and even some members of Congress say it's in America's national interest, that it promotes stability, or buys America goodwill overseas. What's your reaction to that? Do you think USAID does a lot of that work or do you have issue with some of the specific spending?

RUBIO: Well, my issue as I said is: Yeah, there are things that we do through USAID that we should continue to do and will continue do. But everything they do has to be in alignment with the national interest and the foreign policy of the United States, and the attitude that USAID has adopted over the years is that, "No, we are independent of the national interest. We fund programs irrespective of whether it is aligned or not aligned with the foreign policy." That's ridiculous, these are taxpayer dollars. Every penny that we spend in foreign aid needs to be in the furtherance and aligned with the national interest and the foreign policy of the United States. So, this is not about ending the programs that USAID does per se, there are things that it does that are good, and there are things that it does that we have strong questions about. It's about the way it operates as an entity.

Exactly right. He also said
They are supposed to take direction from the State Department, policy direction. They do not. Not only do they not take policy direction, they're completely uncooperative. When you ask questions, when you try to go in and find out, okay, what does this program do, who's getting the money, why was this funded? Why are you doing this? Why aren't you coordinating with the embassy or the State Department?

Their attitude is, we don't have to answer to you, because we're independent. We answer to no one. Well that is not true. We will no longer allow it.

Evidently he's been trying to get answers from them since his time in the Senate.

So. They won't answer to Congress either!

Hence they're being reminded that FA'ing around comes attached to a FO reaction.

So how is that not shutting down the agency? An empty building with a sign over the door is not an agency.

It is shutting down the agency, and it's not legal for him to do that.

Wow. Senator Ernst weighs in:

https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/188628321311249...
NEW: Senator Joni Ernst said that USAID had threatened her and her staff after she started looking into them. She was told she wasn’t allowed to access their databases and that 30-40% of USAIDs money goes towards “overhead” of rent and salaries and entertainment expenses. She later found out that even that number was understated and it was actually upwards of 50-60%

This is an agency in serious need of reform.

She's been looking at them for a while:
https://www.ernst.senate.gov/news/press-releases/e...

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, are demanding answers from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Samantha Power on the agency’s lackluster stewardship of taxpayer dollars appropriated for humanitarian assistance abroad.

USAID issues Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements (NICRAs) for over 300 organizations and companies, many of which are large multinational organizations headquartered outside the United States. Indirect costs, which can include rent for a partner’s corporate headquarters, lobbying costs, and other miscellaneous expenses, can easily exceed 25% of an organization’s total award. In fiscal year 2022 alone, USAID issued $14.94 billion across 5,788 transactions.

Despite several attempts by Senator Ernst to review NICRA information, USAID persistently blocked access, including by falsely claiming that congressional oversight of NICRAs would violate federal laws. As a result of USAID’s obstruction, Senator Ernst has joined forces with Chairman McCaul to send a formal oversight request to USAID to gain access to the rates.

USAID playing games is nothing new it seems.

It is a fundamental error to think about the federal government as if it were like a private company with an org chart. That's not how it's structured.

Although --

If one were to try that approach, you'd have to put Congress above the President in that org chart. Congress makes laws, which they hand to the Present to implement (or execute - hence the Executive branch of government).

Yes, the Constitution itself gives the President certain sole powers, but Congress gets to tell the President what (and sometimes, what not) to do.

--Peter

I don't recall seeing Musk on the ballot last November, so how can he legally get away with this ? = UNJ

-----------------

Think of it as the Office of the President doing the asking because that is where the authority comes from. You guys hate Trump just so damn much you can't grasp that the President has the authority to see everything in the custody of the Executive Branch. He can declassify the top most secrets, but somehow it is none of the Presidents business exactly where the $50B spent by USAID year after year actually goes. Details are starting to leak out, it looks to be juicy...

Denying the President access is what got that first guy fired.

You guys hate Trump just so damn much you can't grasp that the President has the authority to see everything in the custody of the Executive Branch. He can declassify the top most secrets, but somehow it is none of the Presidents business exactly where the $50B spent by USAID year after year actually goes. Details are starting to leak out, it looks to be juicy...

Denying the President access is what got that first guy fired.

This is the rub. Samantha Power. As democrat operative as democrat operative gets, and yet she it's somehow ok for her to ignore Congress and spend taxpayer dollars any way she sees fit.

Nope. We're not doing this any longer. Trump is rather rapidly choking off the left's public money spigots. THAT's what all the Outrageous Outrage is over; not the fact that nobody will be sending birth control to the Taliban for a while.

"Legal" is of no interest to the Felon. Don't talk "legal" with regards to him. There must be some means to stop him, or he won't stop.

I ask again, with full knowledge that you don't have to answer if you don't want to, how can that be stopped? It sounds like what I outlined is going to happen unless some mechanism is engaged to prevent it. Otherwise, we end up with an empty building full of empty desks, even if the agency still exists on paper.

Think of it as the Office of the President doing the asking because that is where the authority comes from. You guys hate Trump just so damn much you can't grasp that the President has the authority to see everything in the custody of the Executive Branch. He can declassify the top most secrets, but somehow it is none of the Presidents business exactly where the $50B spent by USAID year after year actually goes.

Again, that's not the correct way to think about it. If the President walked over to USAID and asked to look at things, they would have to show him the things he asked to see. And probably would have. But Elon Musk's deputies are not the President.

The President can look at everything, but every governmental worker (save one) is not personally the President. The President wants and needs some people to be able to look at many things, but not everyone is intended to be given that authority. That's why the President has established rules about who is allowed to look at what things. The most prominent example is the classification system. If one of Elon Musk's deputies asks to see a document but doesn't have the security clearance to see it, the person who has the document is supposed to say no. It's not true that the "Office of the President" is doing the asking - instead, this specific person is doing the asking, and that specific person doesn't have all the privileges and permissions that the POTUS has.

Again, classification is perhaps the most widely known such system, but those types of rules abound in government. Not every person who is asking for something on behalf of the President gets access to everything under the existing rules. At any point the President himself (or certain designees under the rules) can change that. POTUS can declassify, or order a "No Unauthorized Personnel" sign removed, or whatever. But unless and until that happens, all the other people in the government are supposed to follow the rules about who does and who does not have access to various things.

So this person got fired because Musk's deputies weren't given access to the info - but were they supposed to be given access?

It is a fundamental error to think about the federal government as if it were like a private company with an org chart. That's not how it's structured.

-------------------

I don't think that way but you are not going to convince me that congress exercises the kind of mundane, day to decision making, that is necessary to keep the agency rolling along. Imagine two highly respected engineers debating the merits of alternate designs for their project, the mountain route and the desert route both have their plusses and minuses, and the project is starting to experience delays for lack of a final decision. So they head down to congress for a decision.

I know that is not what you mean but I certainly realize Congress cannot be allowed to constrain the President so as to reduce him more-or-less to an order taker.

I don't think that way but you are not going to convince me that congress exercises the kind of mundane, day to decision making, that is necessary to keep the agency rolling along.

They don't, and that's not what I'm not talking about. The Executive handles mundane, day-to-day decision making; but the Congress handles the creation of policies and priorities for the government, through both the laws and the budget. That type of shared control over the federal workers (by two co-equal branches of government) has no analog in the corporate world.

Imagine two highly respected engineers debating the merits of alternate designs for their project, the mountain route and the desert route both have their plusses and minuses, and the project is starting to experience delays for lack of a final decision. So they head down to congress for a decision.

Perhaps not (though Congress can and sometimes does make those types of decisions themselves). But note that if Congress has already directed that the project be completed, the Executive overseeing those two engineers might have the discretion to choose between the two routes but not cancel the project. Some of the decision-making lies with the engineers (here, the agencies or the President) - but some does not. Again, there is no analog to that in the corporate world, where all of the decision-making is usually vested in the managers of the company (and typically the CEO).

The President's job is to execute the goals and policies of the government, but many (most) of those goals and policies are set by the Congress. The President gets to manage the day-to-day, but Congress decides what agencies exist, what they are supposed to do, how much they are to spend on each program, and what rules they are to follow. The President's day-to-day authority is constrained by what Congress has decided. Again, something that cannot be captured by analogizing to a corporate org chart.

Again, that's not the correct way to think about it. If the President walked over to USAID and asked to look at things, they would have to show him the things he asked to see. And probably would have. But Elon Musk's deputies are not the President.

They've been empowered by the President to do exactly as they have. What, is Trump supposed to visit every single federal agency and audit them himself?

So this person got fired because Musk's deputies weren't given access to the info - but were they supposed to be given access?

LOL. They dropped "classified" into their complaints to generate exactly this kind of reaction.

What kinds of "classified" check-writing to do they do over there? The answer is they don't do any, and that line of argument won't fly.

It's hilarious that just last year the democrats were all about Biden cancelling - absent legislation - contracts between borrowers and lenders, to the tune of $400 billion.

BHM asserts, "Think of it as the Office of the President doing the asking because that is where the authority comes from. You guys hate Trump just so damn much you can't grasp that the President has the authority to see everything in the custody of the Executive Branch."

How many times do Albaby and others have to correct your basic factual misunderstandings about American government (reinforced, it appears, by the steady diet of misinformation you consume) before you realize that maybe, just maybe, you're not understanding what's happening?

When the (unelected and unconfirmed) richest man in the world sets up shop next door to the White House and flat-out credibly threatens that any elected Republican who fails to toe the line can expect to face a richly funded opponent in the next primary election, we may be in the last days of the U.S. democratic republic.

And look - the Astroturf for USAID has started!

https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/188648760540078948...

ROTFL!

They've been empowered by the President to do exactly as they have.

Have they? I ask that in all seriousness. Remember, this is a group that does not exactly set great store in observing bureaucratic niceties. There's all kinds of rules in a big organization like the federal government about who has access to what information, especially data that contains the personal information of private parties and individuals. Just because you're an undersecretary in Interior doesn't mean you can go over to Treasury and start looking through tax data.

The federal government doesn't operate on rhetorical, "Didn't you see the tweet on X that says that DOGE is 'empowered' to look at anything they want?" protocols. There are rules that say who has access to what.

What kinds of "classified" check-writing to do they do over there? The answer is they don't do any, and that line of argument won't fly.

There are lots of restrictions and protections on government information that aren't national security classifications. Again, almost all of Treasury's information on taxpayers is kept confidential - even Congress generally can't just look at your tax records (with few exceptions) - and so there are processes to make sure that only people that are authorized to look at that information can get to it.

The federal government payments systems will probably have within it the financial information for every person and entity that receives a check from the federal government: bank routing numbers, account numbers, TIN's, SSN's, and all manner of stuff. I would expect that it's as hard to get access to that system as it is to look at all of the Treasury's tax return files.

I don't know the details - but I would not be surprised if deputies from a newly-created department like DOGE had not been added to the list of people who were allowed access to the financial information of literally every single person and entity that's received a check from the federal government. And that the people at payments were correct in telling them they weren't allowed to see the information. An easy fix (just have someone with authority put them on the list) - and it's wrong to fire people who are correctly following the rules.

The federal government doesn't operate on rhetorical, "Didn't you see the tweet on X that says that DOGE is 'empowered' to look at anything they want?" protocols. There are rules that say who has access to what.

Great, then sue on that.

There are lots of restrictions and protections on government information that aren't national security classifications.

Thank you. Because that admission makes the use of the word "classified" the red herring that it is.

They don't do "classified" work. If anything, they do the exact opposite. Everything that agency does should be visible to anyone in the public that wants to see it via FOIA.

And yet - the democrats are so desperate they're holding astroturfed protests and threatening holds on all cabinet positions.

Quite a curious hill to die on, dontcha think?

Now with a few days of access, he is some of what Rep Mast Spars (R-FL) says they have found,

$50K for a trangender opera in Colombia,

$47K for an LGTBQ comic book in Peru,

$20K for drag shows in Ecuador.

Another comment not by Mast Spars (love that name) the expenditures are filled with high living at expensive resorts and restaurants. This is all too often seen when nobody looks at the books for extended periods.

Thank you. Because that admission makes the use of the word "classified" the red herring that it is.

No, it doesn't - because I'm sure there's a non-trivial amount of payments that get processed that classified. Perhaps not at the highest levels, but I'm sure that there's some level of protection for the payment information for military contractors and what not.

I was pointing out that lots of information in the federal government is restricted to only those people who need to have it - especially personal financial information - through means other than the national security classification system. That does not mean that the payments system doesn't also have information in it that's got some level of national security classification. Given the size of the military and national security agencies in our budget, I would be shocked if there wasn't some classified restriction on accessing the payments data.

They don't do "classified" work. If anything, they do the exact opposite. Everything that agency does should be visible to anyone in the public that wants to see it via FOIA.

You wouldn't be able to file a FOIA request to see your neighbor's tax returns. Or to get a copy of their social security checks. Or their medical records from the VA. Or anything that has a bank account number, like the direct deposit statements for however many federal employees have direct deposit. Etc.

Tons of information in the federal government is restricted to the people who work in the agencies that handle that information. That wouldn't limit the President, but it means that the people doing the grunt work at DOGE have to get the proper formal permissions before other federal workers should let them access it. If they failed to do that, it's them not following the rules - not the workers who tried to do the right thing.

Rep Mast Spars (R-FL) says they have found... (love that name)

Glad you love the name, but you copy/pasted the info wrong. He is Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), not "Mast Spars" (which you appear to have gotten from the title of a YouTube video).

In any event, I'm much relieved that in wading through perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in State Dept. and/or AID expenditures someone found maybe .00001 percent that were questionable. What I'd now like to see are Rep. Mast's expenditures.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-mast-house-fore...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OITGEnbbY1s

No, it doesn't - because I'm sure there's a non-trivial amount of payments that get processed that classified. Perhaps not at the highest levels, but I'm sure that there's some level of protection for the payment information for military contractors and what not.

LOL. Classified for what? And by whom?

I would be shocked if there wasn't some classified restriction on accessing the payments data.

Sure, because there's all sorts of state secrets tied up in the 5* restaurants and hotels they're staying in.

Classified for what? And by whom?

For containing information about our national security, and by the agencies that contract with these people.

Seriously - you can't see how having access to the entire payments history of all DoD spending might be something we might want to restrict?

Sure, because there's all sorts of state secrets tied up in the 5* restaurants and hotels they're staying in.

Are we talking about the USAID files, or the Treasury payments system? I was under the impression we were talking about the latter, which wouldn't have that.

Is there a statute that says USAID money goes to elect left wing prosecutors in the US? I'd like to read it if there is.

--------------

A lot of our taxpayer dollars are being directed on our behalf by USAID to NGO charities, some of whom provide funding for transportation and way points to assist immigrants in their trip north. Have you noticed how well fed, clean and well dressed some of the immigrants were while waiting to be picked up by CBP, certainly not the appearance of someone who had just finished walking hundreds of miles trough jungles and deserts,and yet their white shoes were still bright white.

How many times do Albaby and others have to correct your basic factual misunderstandings about American government (reinforced, it appears, by the steady diet of misinformation you consume) before you realize that maybe, just maybe, you're not understanding what's happening?

He is willfully ignorant, he will never understand, because he refuses to understand.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." ~Plato

For containing information about our national security, and by the agencies that contract with these people.

USAID wouldn't be sending anything in that case. The money would come from DOD or another agency that's tasked with national security. Not USAID.

Seriously - you can't see how having access to the entire payments history of all DoD spending might be something we might want to restrict?

USAID does not send one dime of Pentagon money anywhere.

Are we talking about the USAID files,

I'm talking about USAID.

the expenditures are filled with high living at expensive resorts and restaurants.

I'm sure Trump will be doing his part by cutting back on travel and staying at Motel 6 when he does travel.

Wait. He should have something a bit better. Best Western should do the trick. Musk gets Motel 6.

"the expenditures are filled with high living at expensive resorts and restaurants.

I'm sure Trump will be doing his part by cutting back on travel and staying at Motel 6 when he does travel."

I want transparency on how much it is costing the US Taxpayer every time Trump goes on
1 of his golf vacations. Huge Secret Service detail because there is so much terrain
to cover. Huge bill for staying at MaragLago, I'm sure. If Musk is so gung-ho about
cutting waste, let's start there. Show the American taxpayer just how bad Trump is boning
them. But uh-uh, nobody in MAGA Ville wants to make that public knowledge.

How many times do Albaby and others have to correct your basic factual misunderstandings about American government (reinforced, it appears, by the steady diet of misinformation you consume) before you realize that maybe, just maybe, you're not understanding what's happening?

--------------

I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority because, and this is obvious, he can't do everything himself face to face with the respective agencies. And if there exists some rule that limits how many agents he can utilize then that would be an unconstitutional restraint on how many simultaneous initiatives he can have underway at any point in time.

Seriously - you can't see how having access to the entire payments history of all DoD spending might be something we might want to restrict? 0 albaby

-----------------

Sure, restrict it but not from the freaking President.

I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority because, and this is obvious, he can't do everything himself face to face with the respective agencies. And if there exists some rule that limits how many agents he can utilize then that would be an unconstitutional restraint on how many simultaneous initiatives he can have underway at any point in time.

This. The President can designate agents.
One such agent is the duly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is now the acting director of USAID.

And here's how the government *doesn't* work: When democrats lose elections, they somehow get to keep their people in place and run the country from their administrative perches.

That's not our system. The d's got away with it in Trump's first term...but not any longer.

I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority because, and this is obvious, he can't do everything himself face to face with the respective agencies.

Of course. The question isn't whether he can do that - it's whether he did do that with these specific people. The President can give permission to anyone to access anything (subject to law and statute, of course), but that doesn't mean that every single person in the Executive Office of the President has permission to look at every single thing in the federal government.

Sure, restrict it but not from the freaking President.

The President wasn't asking for access. It was some underlings. Did those people have the appropriate security clearance? I suspect not, otherwise they wouldn't have been denied access.

Access is based on the individual, not on who sent them to look at information.

When democrats lose elections, they somehow get to keep their people in place and run the country from their administrative perches.

That's not our system.

Yes, it is. The federal government operates under a Civil Service Act, where most federal employees are supposed to be hired and retained based on merit and not based on whoever won the last election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Serv...

There are about 4,000 upper level management positions that are Presidential appointments (about a third of which require Senate approval). The rest are almost entirely protected by the Civil Service Act from being fired or replaced simply based on their political views or whether they support Democrats or Republicans (or MAGA or woke).

Again, we live in a country where Congress writes the laws and generally gets to decide what the government will do and how it will do it. And the law is that most federal positions are to be filled and retained by basis of merit, not affiliation with who one the last election in either party or policy.

I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority

He does, but he needs to do it properly, he's acting like he's King so far.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. Everyone in the Executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President.

Yes, it is. The federal government operates under a Civil Service Act, where most federal employees are supposed to be hired and retained based on merit and not based on whoever won the last election:

Willfully disobeying instructions from the President is ground for termination. As many are finding out.

The rest are almost entirely protected by the Civil Service Act from being fired or replaced simply based on their political views or whether they support Democrats or Republicans (or MAGA or woke).

Loads of ways to send Deep Staters packing.

Again, we live in a country where Congress writes the laws and generally gets to decide what the government will do and how it will do it. And the law is that most federal positions are to be filled and retained by basis of merit, not affiliation with who one the last election in either party or policy.

One more time. This is not the system we have:
*When democrats win, they get to staff the government and run it as how they see fit.
*When democrats lose, they get to keep the people they have in place and run the government as they see fit.

We're not doing that anymore.

BHM persists: "I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority..."

No one disputes that. The issue is about what those agents are legally permitted to do. It isn't up to the President to grant them security clearance or grant them the power to freeze disbursements authorized by Congress. This is not (yet) the Roman Empire.

No it isn't. Everyone in the Executive branch serves at the pleasure of the President.

No, they don't. All the political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Nearly all of the rest of the employees are protected by the Civil Service Act, and many of them are also subject to union agreements. All of which limit the President's ability to terminate them except for cause.

One more time. This is not the system we have:
*When democrats win, they get to staff the government and run it as how they see fit.
*When democrats lose, they get to keep the people they have in place and run the government as they see fit.

We're not doing that anymore.

We never did. The system we have is:

*No matter who wins, no one gets to re-staff the government. The overwhelming majority of government workers remain, because the Civil Service Act prevents the spoils system of allocating government jobs just to people who support you.

That's it. When Democrats win, they get to staff only the positions that come vacant. When Republicans win, they get to staff only the positions that come vacant.

The reason you (mistakenly) believe that this isn't true is because federal jobs tend to fill up with people who believe in the mission of their agency, for the most part. So when you look at EPA, you're going to see people who (mostly) support protecting the environment - because if you don't want to protect the environment, why would you pick a job at the EPA? The same is true of more conservative-aligning agencies (the Border Patrol is going to have more "law and order" supporters), but that's not where conservatives direct their ire - so they're getting very upset that the agencies they're mad at a largely filled with people who don't share their views.

Again, this is a function of Congress getting to set the nation's policies - not the President. The agencies are supposed to fulfill Congress' goals in setting them up. So agencies that are created to advance goals like protecting the environment are going to end up being staffed by people who want to protect the environment. Not because Democrats are the only ones who get to staff the government, but because the sort of people who are willing to spend their careers as a government marine biologist protecting the environment (for example) tend to be the sort who believe that government should hire marine biologists to protect the environment.

No, they don't. All the political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Nearly all of the rest of the employees are protected by the Civil Service Act, and many of them are also subject to union agreements. All of which limit the President's ability to terminate them except for cause.

As I said. There are a number of ways to show Deep Staters like this guy to the door:

https://thepostmillennial.com/dhs-official-confirm...

Brandon Wright, Platform Services Manager for DHS, was recorded saying that the agency’s career bureaucrats do not allow political appointees to interfere with their operations. He told the undercover reporter, "Kristi Noem? I f*cking hate her."




“The secretaries can set the priorities for the department, but they can't actually tell us what to do,” Wright told an undercover OMG journalist, later adding, "The truth is, we don't let them [secretaries] get in our way.” He said, "If we don’t agree with those priorities, there is a lot of room for interpretation, in terms of how we interpret what those priorities are."

He compared the government's bureaucratic structure to a septic tank, saying that there are layers that allow employees to filter directives in a way that minimizes their impact. “There’s a lot of layers like that in the government. And by the time the actual marching orders get to, like, me and below, we can filter it in a way that steadies the ship,” he said.

“She doesn’t know her a**,” he remarked, adding, “The Department of Homeland Security could fall on her f*cking head, and she wouldn’t recognize what it is. Kristi Noem doesn't know sh*t” He also expressed frustration over her leadership style, saying, “To say that I am not excited about this would be the most epic understatement.”

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said, "Secretary Noem has not seen the video in its entirety. This type of behavior will not be tolerated. This person has been placed on leave and is under investigation…The senior official says the termination of the official is imminent."

That's right, Mr. Shoots His Mouth Off is now going to familiarize himself with the expression Learn to code.

*No matter who wins, no one gets to re-staff the government. The overwhelming majority of government workers remain, because the Civil Service Act prevents the spoils system of allocating government jobs just to people who support you.


I don't think recent democrat Presidents share your view here. They loaded all these outfits with their own people like the guy I quoted.

You're reading me the textbook answer again. The problem is the democrats never follow the "rules". They just insist that the Republicans do all the while

*Circular-filing the rulebook
*Dousing it in lighter fluid
*Setting it alight
*Have 3 or 4 of them do the Motley Crűe fire dance around the flames while the 5th guy pees into the trash can.

That's how Trump's first term worked. That's not how this term is going to go.

BTW USAID was initiated...by executive order.

I> And the law is that most federal positions are to be filled and retained by basis of merit, not affiliation with who one the last election in either party or policy. - albaby

-----------------

Retained even if the agencies work is no longer required in the volume of prior year or through automation or combining job responsibilities, can be performed with fewer humans required. If retained is the only disposition option for excess employees, then it is no wonder the size of government only changes in the direction of bloat.

>>I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority<<

He does, but he needs to do it properly, he's acting like he's King so far. - Lapsody.

-------------------

Agree, and it seems to a be a well defined and easy process for doing so. Trump should just do and shut down all the wailing over DOGE, not only for this kerfuffle but for all the other wasteful expenditures and the bureaucrats who approved them yet to be pulled into the sunshine.

I don't think recent democrat Presidents share your view here.

Seems unlikely that they didn't. After all, none of them initiated any mass firings of the non-appointed agency staff. They pretty much filled positions as they came vacant, and had to live with whatever staff they inherited from their predecessors.

The problem is the democrats never follow the "rules".

They do follow the "rules." But the "rules" are intended to preserve continuity in Federal policy, not abrupt changes in the aftermath of an election. The "rules" are:

1) Congress creates, funds, and oversees all the agencies - so most of the agencies are locked into doing what Congress wanted them to do when they were created, even if the President doesn't currently share those priorities.
2) Congress adopted the Civil Service acts, which make the overwhelming majority of federal employees long-term professionals that tend to align with the missions of their agencies.
3) Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies (and therefore the Executive) to show their work and provide notice and comment periods prior to any major changes in federal policy.

All of those combine to make the federal government very much not operate like the type of closely-held family private corporation that Trump is from, when the entire organization has to be very much responsive to whatever the CEO directs at that time.

BTW USAID was initiated...by executive order.

And later codified into a formal agency...by Act of Congress:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@t...

Which is why DJT can't just "shut it down," despite his Administration's claim they would do that. It doesn't matter how it started, it matters what the legal status of it is today.

Seems unlikely that they didn't.

What did you think Obama meant with his "Fundamentally transform" stuff?

They do follow the "rules."

Sure. Their rules involve the Motley Crue fire dance, as I said.

But the "rules" are intended to preserve continuity in Federal policy...yeah, I mean, why let pesky things like who's actually in charge slow down your agenda, amirite?

Retained even if the agencies work is no longer required in the volume of prior year or through automation or combining job responsibilities, can be performed with fewer humans required.

Generally that's not true under the Civil Service rules, though it can be true under union contracts. Government workers are protected from being fired for non-merit reasons, such as the new Administration not having "trust" in their loyalty. But if their job is no longer necessary, they don't need to be retained.

This is what, I think, Musk gets wrong when he thinks of the federal government. Employees are not really the cause of the government bloat he seems to despise. More than 70% of government employees work in defense or national security jobs, or in very labor intensive areas like medical facilities or border patrol or in penitentiaries. And overall, the federal government doesn't really have many more employees now than it did in the 1970's, even though the population has increased by around 60% and the economy has has grown 30x:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work...

The government is big because it spends big on programs, not on employees. Most of what the government spends is just sending money to people and state/local government. Again, to pick Department of Education (next on DOGE's chopping block), very little of its budget is spent on employees - almost all of its budget is student loans and funding poorer elementary and secondary public schools.

What did you think Obama meant with his "Fundamentally transform" stuff?

The same thing that Trump meant when he said that Mexico would pay for the wall. Something he wanted to do, and wanted his supporters to believe he was going to do, but that would inevitably crash into the limitations of the real world.

yeah, I mean, why let pesky things like who's actually in charge slow down your agenda, amirite?

You're not "rite," because you misunderstand who's actually in charge. Congress is actually in charge, as the Founders intended. Congress controls the budget, creates the federal government, and writes the laws that govern what it's supposed to do and how it's supposed to operate. The President is limited to implementing all that.

Congress doesn't act very much these days, which is why federal policy has a lot of inertia. Democratic Presidents can't make major changes to implement their agenda (which is why there's no carbon tax or cap and trade or binding climate treaty), and Republican Presidents can't make major changes to implement their agenda (which is why Trump has to mostly live with what the EPA is generally doing today. Oh, sure - everyone pretends like the changes that Presidents make within the contours of a statute that was passed five decades ago are significant - but nothing compared to the sea change of Congress actually passing a new piece of landmark legislation.

The fact remains - Congress made all the rules that shape the contours of the Federal government, and neither party has amassed enough of a majority to make major changes to those rules. Which is why the Federal government isn't especially responsive to the preferences of whoever just got elected.

BHM persists: "I simply believe The President has a right to designate agents to act on his authority..."

No one disputes that. The issue is about what those agents are legally permitted to do. - Mr F

Agree.

=====

It isn't up to the President to grant them security clearance - Mr F

Actually I think granting and revoking security clearances is within his authority.

=====

or grant them the power to freeze disbursements authorized by Congress. - Mr F

I would put it this way, "The President cannot delegate authorities that he himself does not possess."

===

This is not (yet) the Roman Empire.

Give the man a break, today is just the end of his second week in office. It's been real busy but he will get around to it. I hope he brings back the Colosseum but with bigger and more spectacular battles than the Romans. It will be the best Colosseum ever.

with bigger and more spectacular battles than the Romans. It will be the best Colosseum ever.

You're having entirely too much fun with this.

The fact remains - Congress made all the rules that shape the contours of the Federal government,

You're overstating your case here. Congress may have set up the agencies, but it's only in rare cases where the level of detail runs very deep in the creating legislation.

Does the legislation say what brand of office chair the new agency uses? How about who gets the contract for watering the plants? Etc. Etc.

You're having entirely too much fun with this.

Winning on a new thing all day, every day will tend to do that to you!

Which is why the Federal government isn't especially responsive to the preferences of whoever just got elected. - albaby

=============

Another and better way to put it,

Which is why the Federal government isn't especially responsive to the will of the citizens who just elected the president to represent them.

Congress may have set up the agencies, but it's only in rare cases where the level of detail runs very deep in the creating legislation.

Does the legislation say what brand of office chair the new agency uses? How about who gets the contract for watering the plants? Etc. Etc.

It doesn't. And no one has doubted that the political appointees have the ability to decide what brand of office chair they will have in their office.

The frustration that you've expressed isn't about those kind of minor trivialities. It's about the inability of a Presidential election result to radically change the direction of government when the country switches from a Democratic President to a Republican one (or vice versa). The reasons why, though, aren't because the Democrats have some magic asymmetry in how they staff the government. It's because changing the identity of the President, as the one who executes the policies of Congress, doesn't change most of the things that shape the policies and priorities of the federal government. Those things are set by Congress, both in its role as the originator of all the agencies and their governing statutes and in their ongoing institutional role as the body that sets their budget and has oversight authority over them.

If one imagines the government is like a private company (again mistakenly), this seems not to make sense. A new CEO gets to make all the choices - all the choices - and no one else has any decision-making power that binds them, for the most part. But that is assuredly not how the federal government works.

The question to ask Donald Trump on the record.

“Do you take responsibility for the actions of Elon Musk and DOGE on your behalf?

The freeze runs up against reality and the tussle begins.

SNIP A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a temporary restraining order against a Trump administration effort to freeze funding for federal grants and other programs.

Monday's order by U.S. Judge Loren AliKhan comes in response to a memo released by the Office of Management and Budget last week directing the funding pause. The memo spurred a legal challenge from a group of nonprofits, prompting the judge to initially order a temporary stay. The White House later said the memo was rescinded but vowed to continue its efforts to review federal funding.

President Trump has promised to greatly curtail the federal government, and a memo released Monday by the Office of Management and Budget aims to follow through on that promise by halting a large swath of federal grant programs.

The temporary restraining order expands the scope of the initial pause the court put in place last week, just as the funding freeze was set to take effect.

In her latest order, AliKhan blocked the administration "from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives" in the original OMB memo.

It also directs the OMB — which is part of the executive branch — to provide the court with a status report on its compliance by Friday. The judge also noted that any open awards that were previously frozen must be released.

In her decision, AliKhan faulted the administration for an effort to "run roughshod over a 'bulwark of the Constitution' by interfering with Congress's appropriation of federal funds." The administration's plan, she added, "attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it."

The gladiator raises his sword, "We who are about to die salute you!" Trump waives his hand and the battle begins.

Isn't it funny how A;baby is consistently right Dope? Why is that?

Another and better way to put it,

Which is why the Federal government isn't especially responsive to the will of the citizens who just elected the president to represent them.

Sure - because the Federal government is also responsive to the will of the citizens who just elected their House members to represent them, and their Senators to represent them. And the will of the citizens who elected prior Congresses, who passed laws (like the Civil Service act and the Administrative Procedure Act) to limit the ability of the President to make huge changes in the federal workforce and which laws still apply.

The Founders did not set up a "winner-take-all" system like a parliamentary government. We have divided government, and the system is intended for the will of the citizens expressed in the election of Congress to serve as a check on the will of the citizens expressed in the election of a President - and vice versa.

I am going to go out on limb here and postulate that if you drew an org chart foe the entire executive branch, diligently following the chain of command for each agency, sub dept, department and so on until you get to the top, it would be Trump in that top mpst box. That implies "working for" to me but that doesn't really matter as long as every executive branch employee is accountable to an individual boss who is responsible for exercising managerial oversight.

It sounds like maybe you want a King, not a President.

When democrats lose elections, they somehow get to keep their people in place and run the country from their administrative perches.

That's not our system.

“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”
— Edith Sitwell

There's a lot of stupid pride among the Trumpers these days.

That's it. When Democrats win, they get to staff only the positions that come vacant. When Republicans win, they get to staff only the positions that come vacant.


That's been it in the past. This gang of thieves and crooks seems intent on undoing what Congress has done, by hook or crook. I'm not sure our system is resilient enough to withstand the onslaught.

The Republicans in Congress are disgustingly compliant...so far. Will they grow a spine? I doubt it.

It seems the erstwhile Republican Party, now the party of Trump, wants to establish a glorious Thousand Year Reich.

\The problem is the democrats never follow the "rules".

OMG.

albaby1 has the patience to explain to you over and over again how wrong you are.

Many of us do not.

That is such a stupid and blatant inversion of reality.

The problem is the democrats never follow the "rules".

LOL, Yeah they don't follow "the rules" like the convicted felon/rapist/adulterer/serial-liar who currently resides in the Whitehouse.

I’m 100% certain that if AOC roused an angry mob of Democrats to storm the Capitol and smear their excrement on the walls,
the MAGA minions would call it the worst terrorist attack in American history without a shred of irony.

dopey:And now they're rooting out all the losers who have been stealing money for years inside the government, and those people are now Finding Out

It's gonna be like the election fraud thing.... gonna find the biggest thieves are republicans, same as most proven election fraud was GOP perps...
Then it's 'never mind, it's okay cause the dems made the reps be frauds and thieves.'

dopey:And now they're rooting out all the losers who have been stealing money for years inside the government, and those people are now Finding Out

OMG, do you not have any clue? Can't see the irony?

You support a lifelong grifter who has stolen from so many, cheated on his taxes, stiffed his contractors, etc, etc.

You are ridiculous.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.