Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (39) |
Author: ptheland 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 84357 
Subject: Re: Project 2025...
Date: 06/26/24 4:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 14
However, we also have the shining example of the Pentagon's procurement process, which is bloated and in dire need of reform in both the military and civilian ranks.

I can't argue with that. But I can argue that replacing the process is what is needed, not replacing the people. No-bid contracts aren't due to the civil service. Forcing the military to buy specific equipment (from ships and planes to computers) isn't due to the civil service. Those are the responsibility of the political leadership of the civil service.

I'd also hope that we would agree that politicized prosecutions and flagrant civil rights violations should result in termination.

Got any examples? Examples that don't involve Donald Trump or Jan 6 rioters?

The goal is to remove people who are democrat party loyalists and replace them with the people you mention in your first paragraph.

There are almost certainly Democratic party loyalists among the civil service ranks. It is just as certain that there are Republican party loyalists among the civil service. Because right now, working for the civil service does not involve screening by party or by loyalty to any particular person. The loyalty is to the Constitution. And the primary hiring criteria is competence for the job.

If Schedule F is removed, the primary hiring criteria will become party loyalty rather than loyalty to the constitution or to, you know, competence for the job.

--Peter

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to ptheland here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (39) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community