|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 15 2019 07:29 JimmiC wrote: I understand that they are supposed to be powerful bureaucrats that help the rich and powerful. But then wouldn't they be interested in helping Trump, the Republicans and the Democrats. Like wouldn't it be Sanders and people left of him that would be against the Deep state?
My confusion is why is Trump against the deep state?
I get that Trump just uses this term for anyone against him and for some reason people just believe whatever he tweets. But I mean what do the college educated Trump supporters think the deep state is? And why do they think Trump would want to fight them? A convenient strawman to joust at to represent the Washington elites. Trump has the angry outsider appeal and erecting elitist opponents who snub their noses at the average person and are a cabal seeking to sabotage the democratically elected president works. Establishment politicians, government officials, and news media in opposition to Trump are popular picks for the Deep State, and purging them out would seemingly restore a more transparent government freed from the 1% so it can represent the majority and the president they voted in. But like most puppet master conspiracy theories, it falls into the paradox of being all-powerful, yet incapable of stopping said firebrand from being elected, despite their near-omnipotence.
Though I will admit I don't exactly blame them too much for seeing it. The anonymous NYT op-ed didn't exactly help.
|
On January 15 2019 09:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Pretty dark op-ed in the daily caller from a anonymous 'senior Trump official'. Who sees the shutdown not as a problem but as opportunity.He'd like to remove 85% of government workers because they are too focused on annoying things like 'process' and not enough on the presidents agenda. Remember when Tillerson said he had to often tell the president that the things he wanted are against the law and that the government needs to confine to the rules. Well this guy sounds like he's glad nobody is working now to check that stuff. Everything is 'operating more efficiently from top down' now and the shutdown is a great way to remove 'saboteurs'. It reads almost like fellatio to dictatorships. I thought the shutdown was just a giant mess made by stupid people but what if it's more sinister? + Show Spoiler +The Daily Caller is taking the rare step of publishing this anonymous op-ed at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose career would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.
Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.
The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.
On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.
Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position — some do this in the same position for more than a decade.
They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.
Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.
Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.
Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily.
When the agency is full, employees held liable for poor performance respond with threats, lawsuits, complaints and process in at least a dozen offices, taking years of mounting paperwork with no fear of accountability, extending their careers, while no real work is done. Do we succumb to such extortion? Yes. We pay them settlements, we waive bad reviews, and we promote them.
Many government agencies have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.
The message to federal supervisors is clear. Maintain the status quo, or face allegations. Many federal employees truly believe that doing tasks more efficiently and cutting out waste, by closing troubled programs instead of expanding them, “is morally wrong,” as one cried to me.
I get it. These are their pets. It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist. This phenomenon was best summed up by a colleague who said, “The goal in government is to do nothing. If you try to get things done, that’s when you will run into trouble.”
But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Sure, we empathize with families making tough financial decisions, like mine, and just like private citizens who have to find other work and bring competitive value every day, while paying more than a third of their salary in federal taxes.
President Trump has created more jobs in the private sector than the furloughed federal workforce. Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda.
President Trump does not need Congress to address the border emergency, and yes, it is an emergency. Billions upon billions of hard-earned tax dollars are still being dumped into foreign aid programs every year that do nothing for America’s interest or national security. The president does not need congressional funding to deconstruct abusive agencies who work against his agenda. This is a chance to effect real change, and his leverage grows stronger every day the shutdown lasts.
The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.
A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president.
The first thing we need out of this is better security, particularly at the southern border. Our founders envisioned a free market night watchman state, not the bungled bloated bureaucracy our government has become. But we have to keep the uniformed officers paid, which is an emergency. Ideally, continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security. Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.
Secondly, we need savings for taxpayers. If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president. But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.
The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen. Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.
The author is a senior official in the Trump administration.
Man that is a bizarre piece. Has the same fanatical tone as some of the old communist propaganda. Really hope they're not using this shutdown to consolidate executive power.
|
The most terrifying part are the media organization like Daily Caller willingly going along promoting this sort of authoritarian propaganda. And there is no free market solution to billionaires backed propaganda outlets pushing authoritarian propaganda.
|
The best part of about that Daily Caller op-ed is the comments. What even.
|
On January 15 2019 16:09 argonautdice wrote: The best part of about that Daily Caller op-ed is the comments. What even.
I can't see them in my country. Anything outstanding you want to copy n paste?
It is pretty alarming seeing how Imperial the Republicans are starting to get. I think the GOP is smart enough to appreciate what a dangerous precedent it would be for Trump to use an alleged state of national emergency to override congress just to build a wall, but there's pretty clear evidence the rank and fail are deluded enough not to see it.
All strengthens my belief the US is sliding slowly towards fascism, sadly. I can see it from the outside. Bit by bit the systems you need to prevent it happening are eroding, and a large section of the public is growing warmer to the idea of doing things the fascist way, even if they don't realise it.
Democrats are veering away from that cliff edge, but the Democrat Party... not so sure.
|
On January 15 2019 19:32 iamthedave wrote: I think the GOP is smart enough ...
nope
User was warned for this post.
|
On January 16 2019 00:07 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2019 19:32 iamthedave wrote: I think the GOP is smart enough ... nope User was warned for this post.
No they clearly are. Very few of them are calling for him to take that measure and it's very clear a lot of his advisors - who are GOP - are counselling that he not do so, or else he probably would have by now. The GOP's hate of the federal government is obvious; setting a precedent where the President can just arbitrarily overrule Congress if they want money for something is incredibly dangerous. And I say arbitrarily because the 'State of National Emergency' in this instance is so tenuous as to stretch the dictionary definition of basically all those component words to breaking point and shattering their combined meaning entirely.
|
Pelosi just effectively canceled the state of the union because of the shutdown. i'm cackling.
|
On January 17 2019 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote: Pelosi just effectively canceled the state of the union because of the shutdown. i'm cackling. mind giving any sort of context to that statement?
|
Meh, it will happen no matter what she says. Trump will give the speech on Hannity if he has to. Better to just let the normal process play out and give a compelling response speech (with some speakers with actual charisma).
Either way I'm not worried. If Trump's lies and bluster were enough to convince somebody on this topic then they would have already flipped during one of the other 70+ times he has spewed them in recent weeks.
|
On January 17 2019 00:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 00:34 ticklishmusic wrote: Pelosi just effectively canceled the state of the union because of the shutdown. i'm cackling. mind giving any sort of context to that statement? She sent a letter saying that Trump can either delay it or submit it in writing. This is because the shutdown has effected the Secret Service who would arrange security for the event.
|
Just so everyone knows, the State of the Union is when congress invites the president to speak before the House on the state of the country, per his constitutional obligation. There is no specific requirement it happen in January. Or that it be a speech.
But more importantly, it happens when the Speaker of the House says it happens. The President has no power to force a State of the Union to happen in January the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen.
|
On January 17 2019 01:07 Plansix wrote: Just so everyone knows, the State of the Union is when congress invites the president to speak before the House on the state of the country, per his constitutional obligation. There is no specific requirement it happen in January. Or that it be a speech.
But more importantly, it happens when the Speaker of the House says it happens. The President has no power to force a State of the Union to happen in January the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen.
thanks for clearing that up, I was wondering if he could just demand the floor
|
On January 17 2019 01:07 Plansix wrote: Just so everyone knows, the State of the Union is when congress invites the president to speak before the House on the state of the country, per his constitutional obligation. There is no specific requirement it happen in January. Or that it be a speech.
But more importantly, it happens when the Speaker of the House says it happens. The President has no power to force a State of the Union to happen in January the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen.
This is 2019 and the Preaident is Trump. If necessary he will give a speech from the White House and refer to it as "the State of the Union." Every news company will cover it and refer to it as the SOTU on their broadcast. The average American will treat it as the SOTU. His message will get out all the same. Therefore, Dems should make sure they have a voice and just hold it so they can both give their response speech and show their disapproval in the chamber. Boo and laugh all you want at his lies.
This ofc assumes we dont see something equally unprecedented like McConnel inviting him to speak to the Senate, which I could see.
|
On January 17 2019 01:14 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 01:07 Plansix wrote: Just so everyone knows, the State of the Union is when congress invites the president to speak before the House on the state of the country, per his constitutional obligation. There is no specific requirement it happen in January. Or that it be a speech.
But more importantly, it happens when the Speaker of the House says it happens. The President has no power to force a State of the Union to happen in January the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen. thanks for clearing that up, I was wondering if he could just demand the floor The general rule for the US government is that the branch of government has complete control over their “building” and how it operates. For instance, the House of Representatives can cut the feed to CSPAN at any time they want. Or eject reporters from the building. They don’t, because they feel it is best for the public to have access(though there is renewed debate that CSPAN has done bad things to public hearings and audio only might be better for congress). The Supreme Court allows reporters into the building, but no recording devices. That is why you see all the interviews on the steps.
On January 17 2019 01:15 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 01:07 Plansix wrote: Just so everyone knows, the State of the Union is when congress invites the president to speak before the House on the state of the country, per his constitutional obligation. There is no specific requirement it happen in January. Or that it be a speech.
But more importantly, it happens when the Speaker of the House says it happens. The President has no power to force a State of the Union to happen in January the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen. This is 2019 and the Preaident is Trump. If necessary he will give a speech from the White House and refer to it as "the State of the Union." Every news company will cover it and refer to it as the SOTU on their broadcast. The average American will treat it as the SOTU. His message will get out all the same. Therefore, Dems should make sure they have a voice and just hold it so they can both give their response speech and show their disapproval in the chamber. Boo and laugh all you want at his lies. This ofc assumes we dont see something equally unprecedented like McConnel inviting him to speak to the Senate, which I could see. That could be fine. He only has to “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” He could send it to congress on a series of Wendy’s wrappers and that would likely be sufficient.
I don’t know if McConnell has the power to do that. The senate gives a bunch of power to the minority and my bet is any attempt to hold the state of the union there would get bogged down in debate over Senate rules.
|
On January 17 2019 01:15 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2019 01:07 Plansix wrote: Just so everyone knows, the State of the Union is when congress invites the president to speak before the House on the state of the country, per his constitutional obligation. There is no specific requirement it happen in January. Or that it be a speech.
But more importantly, it happens when the Speaker of the House says it happens. The President has no power to force a State of the Union to happen in January the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen. This is 2019 and the Preaident is Trump. If necessary he will give a speech from the White House and refer to it as "the State of the Union." Every news company will cover it and refer to it as the SOTU on their broadcast. The average American will treat it as the SOTU. His message will get out all the same. Therefore, Dems should make sure they have a voice and just hold it so they can both give their response speech and show their disapproval in the chamber. Boo and laugh all you want at his lies. This ofc assumes we dont see something equally unprecedented like McConnel inviting him to speak to the Senate, which I could see.
I agree with this logic. Strange situation. Not having the secret service present feels crazy, is that's really what would happen. But I feel like whatever happens is clearly on Trump in that case. Pelosi recommending it not happen due to poor security at least clears her of responsibility though.
|
It would be wildly irresponsible to have all of our leaders in one place while our national security agencies are defunded. I doubt congress is going to go for it, TBH.
|
Is anyone in the SS actually furloughed? I always just assumed they are all deemed 'critical' and working without pay.
|
Here's a running tally of the money that the average worker in various departments of government is missing out on.
I know that I have enough savings to get by for a while, even with a shutdown, but some of these numbers are getting pretty big. If I didn't have savings, and I was going paycheck to paycheck at my payrate, my credit cards would be starting to cause some worry, forget rent which is usually cash/cheque/etransfer.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/16/us/politics/federal-shutdown-salaries.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It's actually a lot of money for the average person.
The next paycheque is likely to be a tipping point, since for most people, rent is due at the beginning of a month, and missing out on 2+ paychecks of cash is going to seriously people's ability to pay for it.
|
On January 17 2019 02:35 Gorsameth wrote: Is anyone in the SS actually furloughed? I always just assumed they are all deemed 'critical' and working without pay. Working without pay. I think they fall under the same funding as border agents and the FBI.
FYI: This shit is so stupid that the goverment failed to pay is monthly 5 million dollar water bill to DC.(That is like all of the goverment)
|
|
|
|