Post New

...or how to dismantle a modern democracy.

Reform the Department of Justice (Chapter 17, p. 565)
Strict enforcement of immigration laws (Chapter 17, p. 570)
Restructure the Department of Homeland Security (Chapter 5, p. 165)
Increase border security measures (Chapter 5, p. 170)
Dismantle the Department of Education (Chapter 11, p. 365)
Increase parental control over education (Chapter 11, p. 370)
Limit student loan forgiveness (Chapter 11, p. 375)
Increase domestic energy production (Chapter 12, p. 400)
Reduce regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (Chapter 13, p. 425)
Decrease regulations in healthcare (Chapter 14, p. 450)
Promote traditional family values (Chapter 14, p. 455)
Reduce federal government intervention in various sectors (Chapter 1, p. 25)
Decrease the size of the federal workforce (Chapter 3, p. 95)
Implement a flat tax system (Chapter 22, p. 700)
Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Chapter 14, p. 460)
Privatize Social Security (Chapter 22, p. 715)
Lower corporate tax rates (Chapter 22, p. 725)
Promote school choice policies (Chapter 11, p. 380)
Restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve (Chapter 24, p. 770)
Strengthen Second Amendment rights (Chapter 1, p. 35)
Eliminate the Department of Commerce (Chapter 21, p. 660)
Reduce business regulations (Chapter 18, p. 520)
Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Chapter 27, p. 815)
Withdraw from international climate agreements (Chapter 13, p. 430)
Repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulations (Chapter 27, p. 800)
Defund public broadcasting (Chapter 8, p. 250)
Promote energy production on federal lands (Chapter 16, p. 600)
Limit the jurisdiction of federal courts (Chapter 1, p. 40)
Repeal net neutrality regulations (Chapter 28, p. 845)
Increase military spending (Chapter 4, p. 135)
Privatize veterans' healthcare (Chapter 20, p. 635)
Reduce federal student aid (Chapter 11, p. 385)
Promote free-market healthcare (Chapter 14, p. 465)
Defund Planned Parenthood (Chapter 14, p. 470)
Reduce federal housing assistance (Chapter 15, p. 485)
Privatize infrastructure projects (Chapter 19, p. 555)
Reduce environmental regulations on businesses (Chapter 13, p. 440)
Limit federal involvement in local policing (Chapter 17, p. 575)
Cut federal welfare programs (Chapter 14, p. 475)
Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts (Chapter 8, p. 260)
Reduce funding for federal research programs (Chapter 12, p. 415)
Privatize the Federal Aviation Administration (Chapter 19, p. 565)
Reduce federal disaster relief programs (Chapter 16, p. 610)
Increase private sector role in public education (Chapter 11, p. 390)
Limit federal food assistance programs (Chapter 10, p. 325)
Cut federal support for renewable energy projects (Chapter 12, p. 405)
Reduce funding for public health programs (Chapter 14, p. 455)
End federal subsidies for low-income housing (Chapter 15, p. 490)
Reduce federal oversight of labor standards (Chapter 18, p. 530)
Limit federal involvement in technology standards (Chapter 28, p. 850)

KEEP IN MIND, THEY'VE ALREADY PUT MUCH OF THESE IN PLACE OR at least LAUNCH-READY with many government departments intentionally populated with their shills.

And whenever you see 'privatize', think 'opportunities for graft and corruption'.

Thanks very much for that list GES. While Dope and others characterize it as getting bureaucracy to work, it sure looks like - privatize the Federal Aviation Administration? Yes, let's let that all be run by number guys. Boeing's problem is they used to be dedicated to engineering, now that's secondary - but Musk seems to attribute Boeing's problems to DEI.

You left out getting rid of Schedule F so they can reclassify civil servants, and then fire them if they fail some sort of loyalty test. Replacing competence with loyalists/flunky bootlickers.

THAT is the most significant danger of Project 2025. I wouldn't want either party to be able to do that.

1) You assume the federal government folks are competent. Why?
2) Normies have had enough of an overreaching bureaucracy. Time for a change.

It's also past time to de-centralize the federal government and start moving things out of Washington, D.C. Why shouldn't the Department of the Interior be closer to the lands it manages?

You assume the federal government folks are competent. Why?

Because in practice, the vast majority of Federal employees are honest, hard working people doing the job they were hired to do no matter who is President or who is in charge of the House or Senate.

But that's not really the issue. The stated goal of the Heritage Foundation in eliminating schedule F is to replace the current government work force with people whose main qualification is loyalty to the President rather than competency for the job. We don't have to know if the current workforce is competent or not to see that this proposal puts competency for the job at a lower priority than loyalty. By definition, that will make the work force less competent than one which can fire people for incompetency.

--Peter

Because in practice, the vast majority of Federal employees are honest, hard working people doing the job they were hired to do no matter who is President or who is in charge of the House or Senate.

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

The stated goal of the Heritage Foundation in eliminating schedule F is to replace the current government work force with people whose main qualification is loyalty to the President rather than competency for the job.

No, that's your interpretation. The goal is to remove people who are democrat party loyalists and replace them with the people you mention in your first paragraph.

I read a good article on Boeing a while back, related to the missing bolts and the auto-pilot "correction" that caused a few 737-800s to crash. The problems stem from their acquisition of McDonnell-Douglas. The MD culture was one of cutting corners and stock buy-backs. Somehow (and the article didn't make it clear how), that culture permeated Boeing. So today, Boeing is the company of executive bonuses, cutting corners, and stock buy-backs. Several Boeing employees have stated that they wouldn't fly one of the planes they build because they aren't allowed to put quality first, or really even report problems.

I recently became aware that Google Flights has an option to choose what aircraft you DON'T want. I'm going to be going with Airbus from now on.

Yes, military procurement can be problematic.

For one thing, officers involved are then allowed to retire and go to work for the civilian contractors from which they used to receive bids/proposals.

Another, don't forget Congress. They're all talk about cutting the military budget, until some cut affects some business in their district. I know of at least two examples of that (i.e. the Osprey: Pentagon didn't want it, but the contractor actually landed on near the Capitol building as part of a marketing campaign to approve it; the other is the recent plan to convert several B52s from "bomb trucks" to nuclear-capable, even though the Pentagon doesn't want it or see a need for it).

And then there is over-spec'ing a project, though even that is a two-edged sword. (I recall people complaining about the $100 wrench, so the military was forced to use a $5 wrench that damaged the nuts, which then needed to be replaced more frequently, which ended up costing more than if you bought the correct $100 wrench designed for those nuts.)

As for Project 2025, I saw part of an interview in front of Congress (specifically, a black congresswomen...forget her name) with one of the architects of Project 2025. He was actually proud of the document, and fully supported the plan (obviously), which included removing Schedule F protection so inconvenient employees could be replaced at-will. He did not argue the point, tacitly admitting that was the goal. It's not "your interpretation", it is the obvious (and tacitly-admitted) goal.

I won't say there aren't democrat "party loyalists" in government, just as there are republican "party loyalists". People are people, and they have whatever views they have. But the hiring process -for the most part- is blind. Applications are screened by computers to spit out lists of qualified candidates for any given position. I've dealt with OPM, I know -more or less- how they work. The hires then go on to do their jobs as best they can.

It's not "your interpretation", it is the obvious (and tacitly-admitted) goal.

It’s his interpretation of the motives. Yes, we want to make it easier to fire bad federal employees.

But the hiring process -for the most part- is blind.

Not really. There are always humans in the loop and once partisan cultural rot sets it any process will be corrupted.

PTHE: Because in practice, the vast majority of Federal employees are honest, hard working people doing the job they were hired to do no matter who is President or who is in charge of the House or Senate.

DOPE:Most are. 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.

Me: Dope jumps from general Federal employees to the Pentagon procurement process. Reform in a process is no reflection on the employees. Every 15 to 20 years a process needs to be streamlined, but who has the authority to do that? Not the rank and file employee. So then, exactly what are you saying that has to do with rank and file employees? Nada, bupkiss. Old story of the private that takes notes on what needs to be changed and when he finally gets promoted to a General position where he can effect change, he takes out his notebooks and everything has changed and is different.

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

Me: Nice glittering generality, but NO, NO, NO. We don't agree on what are politicized prosecutions *OR* flagrant civil right violations because you take your cues from Trumpolina, not the law or honest rational thought.

Pthe: The stated goal of the Heritage Foundation in eliminating schedule F is to replace the current government work force with people whose main qualification is loyalty to the President rather than competency for the job.

Doperooni: No, that's your interpretation. The goal is to remove people who are democrat party loyalists and replace them with the people you mention in your first paragraph.

Heritage F: But this is not about Trump. Those of us who have worked in past Republican administrations know the reluctance of federal bureaucrats to go along with conservative policy didn’t start with Trump – nor will it end with him. It’s no surprise that the surrounding suburbs in Virginia and Maryland are all deeply blue, while the District of Columbia itself voted 95% Democrat in the last presidential election.

Trump’s first impeachment, for example, came from the swamp, and there were many anecdotes about how often and how brazenly members of the bureaucracy simply told political appointees trying to implement his agenda, “No, we’re not doing that.”

Me: But that isn't what happens, there are things called laws, enacted by Congress, and the bureaucracy has to interpret and implement them. So, when someone comes in and says do it this way, and it violates the law, or interferes with how the law is being administered, the bureaucrat will say, "That will violate the law, or that runs a high risk of violating the law, and I know that, and the department knows that, so if you can give me a way to accomplish what you want accomplished without violating the law, I'd be happy to do that."

To do this rogue Conservatives make up interpretations of the law such as - that Mike Pence can stop the electoral count, question/reject the slate of electors certified from a state, accept a different uncertified slate of electors and continue the count. The is the law according to Roger Stone, a noted Constitutional scholar.

Or the Unified Executive Theory - give an outright lie a good sounding name so that the President has authoritarian powers.

Sch F gives the person coming in the ability to say. "Do this or your fired".

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

Me: Dope jumps from general Federal employees to the Pentagon procurement process

I cited an example. Anything extra you read into that is, well, extra.

We don't agree on what are politicized prosecutions *OR* flagrant civil right violations

Awesomesauce.
I was referring the FBI's confirmed lying to the FISA court and also fabrication of evidence. You seem to be just fine with that, which tells me all I need to know about you and where you get your orders from.

Thanks for the admission. I can now act accordingly.

Me: But that isn't what happens, there are things called laws, enacted by Congress, and the bureaucracy has to interpret and implement them.

Sure. Not violating people's civil rights seems to be in some laws. But that's just fine and dandy for if it was happening to Republicans, amirite?

Some of you guys are hilarious. You get so wrapped up in your attempts to sound clever, or knowledgeable, or are just so wound up in your partisan fantasies that you step on every rhetorical rake placed on the ground. Sideshow Bob has nothing on some of you.

Toodles! Oh, and I really do hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of what the Englebrechts or Carter Page or other folks have gotten. If that ever happens to you, you'll be on here screaming about injustice.

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

So it's okay to violate *their* rights in your mind?

Carter Page is one. The FBI gave a bogus justification to the FISA court, then fabricated evidence.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-ad...

Is that okay?

Clinesmith pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement within both the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the U.S. government, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of up to $250,000. Judge Boasberg scheduled sentencing for December 10, 2020.

Wow, they threw the book at him. Not.

A former F.B.I. lawyer who has admitted doctoring an email during preparations to seek renewed court permission to wiretap a former Trump campaign aide during the Russia investigation was sentenced on Friday to one year of probation and 400 hours of community service — but no prison time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/us/politics/kev...

Yup, they hung him from the yardarm, didn't they? Oh, right - they didn't. Before you try to say he was tried and convicted and Therefore That's The End Of It you should recall the context of who he was lying to and what those wiretaps were supposed to be in support of.

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.


This is the answer the textbook gives. The practical answer is that since 2009 we've had mainly democrats in the executive branch who have felt it their duty to use the power of their positions to go after the democrats' political opponents. These are the ones that need to be cleaned out.

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.

That's stating an assumption as fact, counselor.

Yes, Boeing's headquarters used to be across from the airplane plant (if you can call it that). Now the headquarters is in the Midwest and completely separated from the airplane assembly areas. When they were next to each other, engineering dominated the company and engineers moved back and forth from the plant to HQ easily.

Now the HQ is far away in the Midwest and controlled by business types, so engineering doesn't dominate and we are seeing what the cost cutting can do to a once brilliant engineering firm.

Yes, we want to make it easier to fire bad federal employees.

But that's the problem. It doesn't make it easier to file bad federal employees. It make it easier to fire federal employees based on their political views rather than their job performance.

--Peter

But that's the problem. It doesn't make it easier to file bad federal employees. It make it easier to fire federal employees based on their political views rather than their job performance.

A partisan operative is by definition a bad employee.

I really do hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of what the Englebrechts or Carter Page or other folks have gotten.

I can't speak to the "other people", but I can talk about Carter Page and Catherine Engelbrecht).

Avoiding Carter Page's problem is easy. Stop talking to Russian spies and helping them. As to the FISA warrants, keep in mind that of the 4 issued, 2 were actually found to be valid. Yes, some people lied to get those other two - and they've paid a price for their lying. Were there problems? Yes. But there wouldn't have been any problems in the first place if Page wasn't feeding information to the Kremlin.

As to Englebrecht - not making unfounded accusations would go a long way toward avoiding unwanted interactions with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Complying with court orders would help, too.

Since I'm not involved with either of these activities, I have little fear of being on the receiving end of justice in the USA.

--Peter

Avoiding Carter Page's problem is easy. Stop talking to Russian spies and helping them. As to the FISA warrants, keep in mind that of the 4 issued, 2 were actually found to be valid. Yes, some people lied to get those other two - and they've paid a price for their lying. Were there problems? Yes. But there wouldn't have been any problems in the first place if Page wasn't feeding information to the Kremlin.


Misinformation. Page was never "feeding information to the Kremlin".
The order says the department told the court it now believes it did not have probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, which was required to obtain the surveillance.

No probably cause = no warrant = no eavesdropping.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security...

So in other words, they violated the shit out of his civil rights. Him and anyone else they Hoovered up along the way (which was the real point of the exercise, to get to spy on the Trump campaign).

And there are folks in this thread who think this sort of thing is a-okay.

So it's okay to violate *their* rights in your mind?

No, it's not. But their rights haven't been violated, in spite of what your handlers at Fox and NewsMax are telling you.

Carter Page is one. The FBI gave a bogus justification to the FISA court, then fabricated evidence.

No, that's not OK. But let's not forget that there were two other FISA requests for surveillance of Page that were obtained without lies and fabrications. That doesn't make the lies OK, nor does it mean Page is innocent. The guy appears to be a Russian spy.

Wow, they threw the book at him. Not.

Clinesmith was tried and found guilty for lying to get the FISA warrant. I'm sorry you don't like the punishment, but that doesn't mean the justice system is broken. Judges have a lot of discretion in sentencing, and they use it. That's the way justice works in the US. If you want to argue that this represents a two-tiered justice system, I wouldn't argue against that. The well-off and white generally get better treatment than the poor and colored. Heaven help you if you are both poor and a person of color. That's the real problem.

--Peter

Me: Dope jumps from general Federal employees to the Pentagon procurement process

Dope: I cited an example.

ME: No you did;t cite an example about employees, you jumped into an entirely different subject and you do this regularly. Stay on point.
-------------------
Me: We don't agree on what are politicized prosecutions *OR* flagrant civil right violations

DOPEAwesomesauce.
I was referring the FBI's confirmed

No, you made no reference at all, you made a generalization. You are *NOW* making a reference, after the initial generalization.

The rest of your post I'll ignore because it was answered by Pthe.

ME: No you d

Nope, it was an example.

No, you made no reference at a

Actually I did. Perhaps I assumed you were more up on things than you are.

That’s a you thing, not a me thing. Toodles!

No, it's not.

Good. You just vaulted over the other goobs in this thread. However, note that’s a very low bar.

But their rights haven't been violated

Hmm, one could certainly look into that.

But let's not forget that there were two other FISA requests for surveillance of Page that were obtained without lies and fabrications.

Except for that lack of Probable Cause thing, which is the very basis of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Except for that lack of Probable Cause thing, which is the very basis of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Let’s review. Page was the subject of 4 FISA warrants. To get a warrant, the federal agents have to adequately demonstrate probable cause to a court. Two of the four warrants were properly issued, with the agents giving truthful information to the court showing probable cause. Two others contained lies by the agent, for which the agent was eventually charged, tried, and convicted.

In all cases, Page’s rights were protected. Twice by properly using the law to surveil Page, and twice by tainting any evidence obtained via the improper surveillance.

—Peter

P: But let's not forget that there were two other FISA requests for surveillance of Page that were obtained without lies and fabrications.

D: Except for that lack of Probable Cause thing, which is the very basis of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

You mean you don't understand that if the information provided is adequate then the threshold for probable cause was met?

That’s a you thing, not a me thing.

No, it's a you thing.

You know whose civil rights were violated egregiously? George Floyd. Would you agree on that one,Dope?

Right to a trial, no cruel and unusual punishments, life, liberty, etc., that's an example of violating the hell out of someone's civil rights - and also it happened because he was black -real civil rights.

And the latest political persecution is Hunter Biden. Were he not the President's son there would have been no trial.

Most of us have no problem with the conviction of Hunter Biden, but we know what happened. We also have no problem with Trump being convicted. I will have a serious problem if Canon dismisses that document case against him with prejudice. And then there's Trump's pardons of Stone, Cannon, etc.

Pthe has stipulated up front that the two warrants were bad, and I don't think anyone has a problem with the tainted evidence being withheld and the conviction of the person for manufacturing probable cause with a lie. I don't think anyone thinks it's a-okay, but you are free to think anything you like - and free to be dead wrong.

Because in practice, the vast majority of Federal employees are honest, hard working people doing the job they were hired to do no matter who is President or who is in charge of the House or Senate. - peter

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

Agree, the rank and file are just doing their jobs. The problem is the leadership they are receiving to implement flawed policies.

To get a warrant, the federal agents have to adequately demonstrate probable cause to a court.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security...

The DOJ now believes it didn't have probable cause to think Carter Page might be acting as an agent of a foreign power, which was required to surveil him.

Thanks.

The disclosure by James Boasberg, the top judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, underscores the extent to which the FBI bungled its handling of a highly sensitive case, a failure that is continuing to have serious policy and political repercussions.

The order says the department told the court it now believes it did not have probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, which was required to obtain the surveillance.

No probable cause. So that means none of them were valid.

You keep coming back to the "2 out of 4" thing, but that's not a fact either:

All told, the FBI obtained four orders to conduct surveillance of Page — the original order and then three renewals. When Judge Boasberg disclosed in his opinion, dated Jan. 7, that the Justice Department had found two of the four orders to be invalid, he also said the Justice Department did not take a position on whether the remaining two were valid.

It was not clear from Boasberg's own court order which two FISA orders were deemed invalid, but it's likely they were the final two renewals.

And one more time: if there was no probable cause, there was no reason for ANY of the warrants.

Page's 4th Amendment Rights were bent over a table, and the left is a-okay with that.

No, it's a you thing.

Wow, you really told me!

-dope, totally feeling shame right now

Agree, the rank and file are just doing their jobs. The problem is the leadership they are receiving to implement flawed policies.

I don't fully agree. A lot of rank and file are going along with some of the politically driven stuff being ordered. That's not cool.

Agree, the rank and file are just doing their jobs. The problem is the leadership they are receiving to implement flawed policies.

The policies you deem to be flawed are the result of the political process, not the civil service hiring process. If you don't like the policies, elect different people. Don't disassemble the civil service.

--Peter

A lot of rank and file are going along with some of the politically driven stuff being ordered. That's not cool.

But that's exactly their job. They are supposed to follow the directions of the political leadership - no matter which way the leadership is leading. They aren't supposed to refuse to do something because they disagree with the politics behind the direction.

The only time they are supposed to speak up is when the specific orders are against the law. And that's because their main loyalty is to the constitution, not to the political leadership of the moment.

--Peter

Don't disassemble the civil service.

No one is talking about disassembling the civil service.

At any rate, the federal bureaucracy is about to take a massive hit to its ability to craft policy on its own when the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce cases drop likely this week.

But that's exactly their job.

No it isn't. When an organization produces a culture that encourages or allows a Kevin Clinesmith to blatantly do the one thing that law enforcement is never supposed to do that organization needs serious reform.

Me: But that [following the political leadership] is exactly their job.

Dope: No it isn't.

This isn't something that is debatable. It is fact. Their job is to follow the political leadership within the parameters of the law. Perhaps some definitions would help.

Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-service
civil service, the body of government officials who are employed in civil occupations that are neither political nor judicial. In most countries the term refers to employees selected and promoted on the basis of a merit and seniority system, which may include examinations.

Institute for Government:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...
Civil servants undertake a wide variety of activities, including analysing policy options, managing government contracts, and providing frontline support to people using public services. For these activities to be done well, they need to be done by people with the appropriate training and expertise,

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-civil-service-de...
Civil servants are people employed in the public sector by a government department or agency for public sector undertakings. Civil servants work for central, state, and local governments, and answer to the government, not a political party. Career civil servants are hired based on professional merit rather than being appointed or elected. Their job tenure typically survives changes in political leadership.

It might also be helpful to recap what schedule F did (very briefly) to the civil service.

It is at this point that I need to confess to a bit of misunderstanding on terminology - an error I learned by finally doing some reading and researching. My position is consistent, but I have been mis-using terms in some prior posts. I was under the mistaken impression that Schedule F was a protection for higher level civil servants that would keep them in their jobs through changes in Presidential administrations. It is the opposite. Schedule F was created by Trump which effectively converted the highest levels of management in the civil service along with some career professional positions into political appointees.


Let's look at the Executive Order creating it.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-...

After some introductory bits, we start with this:
Section 1. Policy. To effectively carry out the broad array of activities assigned to the executive branch under law, the President and his appointees must rely on men and women in the Federal service employed in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character. Faithful execution of the law requires that the President have appropriate management oversight regarding this select cadre of professionals.

As usual for Trump, there are half-truths and outright lies here. He starts off just fine.
the President and his appointees must rely on men and women in the Federal service ...

Exactly right. The President and his political appointees rely on the Federal service to accomplish their policy goals. But then he slips into the problems.

... employed in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.

Confidential? Yes. There are quite a number of confidential positions in the Federal civil service.
Policy determining? No. The President and appointees determine policy.
Policy making? Absolutely NOT. Again, the President and appointees make policy.
Policy advocating? Perhaps. The upper management levels of the civil service likely have quite a bit of institutional knowledge. They know what things have been tried, what has worked, and what has failed. It is not inconceivable that they might quietly advocate some bits of policy with their appointed superiors. But they should not do so publicly. Most importantly, the highest level of management along with some career professionals are the civil servants with sufficient knowledge to know when they are being asked to break the law.

Faithful execution of the law requires that the President have appropriate management oversight regarding this select cadre of professionals.

Yes. And he already has that - his appointees are the management oversight to all of the civil service, not just a few select people.

Everything that follow is based on the mistaken assumption that civil service employees are in policy-determining, policy-making, and policy advocating positions. But they are not. Policy is determined, made, and publicly advocated for by the President and his appointees. Civil servants execute those policies as long as they are within the law.


Getting away from facts and back into opinions, if I were to hazard a guess, the whole concept here of Schedule F is to make it trivially easy to fire anyone who is in a position to raise the question that a request from the President or one of his appointees might be against the law. The overlap between those described in Schedule F and those who might refuse an order is fairly significant. Because a dictator does not want people who might tell him "no".

--Peter

The problem is the leadership they are receiving to implement flawed policies.

Policies are usually developed with laws in mind and tailored to feasibly comply with the law. Generally, they aren't developed independently outside of the system and are developed by people who understand the system and how it works. So someone comes in and says increase enforcement,, then you need dollars for training to bring those people up to snuff and avoid chaos. Congress allocates dollars, but we can do a partial training immediately by taking these already hired people for something else, shortening training, but there will be problems associated with doing that.

If you want to shut something down, that's easier, but then Congress has allocated money and personnel to that, so arbitrarily shutting something down can cause pain and lawsuits. Too much of this and moral goes down and you fight with unions, etc.

Do you have any specific policies in mind? If you work within the system, it's slower, but you are much better off.

I should address the other error here, too.

When an organization produces a culture that encourages or allows a Kevin Clinesmith to blatantly do ...

If there were a culture encouraging Clinesmith, there would be a whole lot more cases of people being charged with lying to the court. As in any organization with tens of thousands of employees, not all are going to follow the rules. And a few of those will break them in extraordinary ways. Clinesmith was one of those people. One person going rouge is not an condemnation of the entire system or culture.

And, as has been pointed out more than once, he got caught, charged, tried, and convicted. All of the leg work to find the facts and develop the case against Clinesmith was done by civil services in roughly the same job that Clinesmith had. That sounds like the system working pretty well to me.

--Peter

Their job is to follow the political leadership within the parameters of the law.

And that's my point. Several of them went along with the nonsense that was Crossfire Hurricane or Lois Lerner's antics over at the IRS. The folks that did - and participated in the civil rights violations we've been mentioning - need to be shown the door.

That's not "gutting the federal bureaucracy". That called "getting rid of bad apples".

If there were a culture encouraging Clinesmith, there would be a whole lot more cases of people being charged with lying to the court.

That doesn't logically follow. There's only 1 Trump campaign.'
No error.

And, as has been pointed out more than once, he got caught, charged, tried, and convicted.

And he was the sole actor? Sure.
BTW, what was his sentence and what is he doing now? He still has his law license; they merely suspended it IIRC.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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