Republicans give themselves the power to cut any individual federal employee's salary to $1
52 replies, posted
[quote]House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.
The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program.
The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1 million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.[/quote]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-republicans-revive-obscure-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-slash-the-pay-of-individual-federal-workers-to-1/2017/01/04/4e80c990-d2b2-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html[/url]
But I'm sure they'll only use this for noble purposes, right?
'Murica?
I wonder if my federal employee father still feels great about his decision to vote for these people.
[QUOTE]or cut a specific program[/QUOTE]
Feel like that's gonna be completely overlooked. The big bad Republican boogeyman isn't gonna force government workers into slavery. They want the rule for cutting programs they don't agree with.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707449]Feel like that's gonna be completely overlooked. The big bad Republican boogeyman isn't gonna force government workers into slavery. They want the rule for cutting programs they don't agree with.[/QUOTE]
aka forcing people out of jobs when they can't get the votes to legislate legitimately.
there's no way that rule is legal, even if congress passed it, its got to violate worker's rights somewhere
Some of the commenters on the website (who I presume are Trump supporters) seem to rejoice over people's losing jobs.
[QUOTE=Tigster;51707451]aka forcing people out of jobs when they can't get the votes to legislate legitimately.[/QUOTE]
You do realize they now control everything and will get the votes to legislate anything they want
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707479]You do realize they now control everything and will get the votes to legislate anything they want[/QUOTE]
Yeah except not all republicans or democrats are hardwired into voting identically. The republicans who wanted to revive this had to convince their fellow republicans to come on board by offering to make this an auto-expiring situation unless it was renewed annually. Meaning they would get an automatic year of this policy.
Neither party is a hive mind.
So yeah about those lists of climate scientists the transition team was demanding.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707479]You do realize they now control everything and will get the votes to legislate anything they want[/QUOTE]
Provided they're all in agreement of course. I wouldn't count on an easy passage for every bill under this rule. The Republican Party is fairly intellectually diverse and disagrees internally on a great many things.
so basically, instead of directly getting rid of federal employees and programs, they're gonna slash their funding and chokehold them to death instead to get their way
[editline]22nd January 2017[/editline]
hey it just struck me that part of this rule means trump and friends can fire and/or cut the salary of any climate scientists that don't follow their narrative
[QUOTE=Judas;51707492]hey it just struck me that part of this rule means trump and friends can fire and/or cut the salary of any climate scientists that don't follow their narrative[/QUOTE]
It's much better to get dissenters to resign themselves and intimidating their replacements to give favorable reports instead of axing the whole program. Because how else are you going to get every department calling Trump's measures "tremendous"?
[url]https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V8/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V8-1-2-4.htm[/url]
If you actually read it there's nothing sinister about it
~sensationalist headlines~
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707541][url]https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V8/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V8-1-2-4.htm[/url]
If you actually read it there's nothing sinister about it
~sensationalist headlines~[/QUOTE]
Again with the argument "if it isn't literally killing you right now, ignore it". Thanks for making me waste my time, the bill does exactly what the article suggests. The only justification for this micromanaging is "lazy overpaid big gubmint civil service". When government gives itself new powers, there should always be a good reason for it, even when it's "small government" republicans. And if there's a strong possibility for abuse, the propositions should bee looked extra hard. And here just isn't a case for such power.
"This civil servant apparently talked about voting for Obama back in 08, let's dock his pay"
So in what reality did small government, or "smaller" government repbulcians start justifying expansive powers? Nesto you try and sell this as "non sinister" because it's origins aren't sinister. That's not a justification, you realize this yes? Just because something can be "non sinister" doesn't mean it can't be abused. What kind of reaction would [U]you[/U] have to this action from a democratic president/senate/house?
The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51707633]So in what reality did small government, or "smaller" government Republicans start justifying expansive powers? Nesto you try and sell this as "non sinister" because it's origins aren't sinister. That's not a justification, you realize this yes? Just because something can be "non sinister" doesn't mean it can't be abused. What kind of reaction would [U]you[/U] have to this action from a democratic president/senate/house?[/QUOTE]
It should know by now Republicans support what amounts to 'Schrödinger's small government'.
[editline]21st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707700]The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Or they'll use it as a political tool to remove undesirables.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707700]The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.[/QUOTE]
The congress has the power to do this through budget, so this new power is superfluous for that purpose. The problem is when "trimming the fat" or "fighting the corruption" become pretexts to flush out opposition and dissents from civil service, and this proposal gives power to do just that. Why is high-level control through budget not sufficient?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707700]The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.[/QUOTE]
how is giving the government more powers "smaller government"?
[QUOTE=Judas;51707712]how is giving the government more powers "smaller government"?[/QUOTE]
how is giving the government more power over the government counterproductive to smaller government
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707700]The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.[/QUOTE]
and i guess all the workers and their families can just go fuck themselves too, right
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707718]how is giving the government more power over the government counterproductive to smaller government[/QUOTE]
Turns out giving the government more power makes it [I]bigger[/I]. The Government already has tools to control funding, this is obviously a tool for political expedience, believing anything else is performing some [URL="https://s.gvid.me/s/2017/01/19/0En088.webm"]mental gymnastics[/URL].
So, the night of long knives is going to involve cutting the wages of everyone who opposes Trump, rather than cutting their throats...
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707700]The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.[/QUOTE]
What parts of the government could use downsizing, where is money being wasted, and why would this rule be required to suddenly cut spending when previous presidents and legislatures had no problem doing so?
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51707728]Turns out giving the government more power makes it [I]bigger[/I]. The Government already has tools to control funding, this is obviously a tool for political expedience, believing anything else is performing some [URL="https://s.gvid.me/s/2017/01/19/0En088.webm"]mental gymnastics[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Again, no it doesn't. The government giving the NSA the ability to spy on everyone makes it bigger. The government giving itself more measures of accountability for it's staff does not.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707449]Feel like that's gonna be completely overlooked. The big bad Republican boogeyman isn't gonna force government workers into slavery. They want the rule for cutting programs they don't agree with.[/QUOTE]
The brainchild who suggested reinstating the bill says he can't guarantee it won't happen and seems to portray it as an inevitability.
[QUOTE]“I can’t tell you it won’t happen,” he said in an interview Wednesday in his office. “The power is there. But isn’t that appropriate? Who runs this country, the people of the United States or the people on the people’s payroll?”[/QUOTE]
Giving the government more power then saying "eh they probably won't abuse it" isn't very smart.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707700]The same reaction I'm having now? He campaigned for smaller government and the end to wasteful spending. They're probably going to use this to trim the fat, not turn 2.1m workers in 1$ slaves.[/QUOTE]
Their choices are not so black-and-white as "keep the current wage, or make it $1".
They can seriously dock off a civil servant's wage by 20% where they can still afford to eat but still hurt in their wallet.
Do you know what happens when government officials are not making enough money? They look for alternative means to ease their financial problems. This means either leaving the post for a private job (meaning an exodus of effective civil servants), or they start taking bribes (meaning an onset of widespread corruption).
[editline]22nd January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707753]Again, no it doesn't. The government giving the NSA the ability to spy on everyone makes it bigger. The government giving itself more measures of accountability for it's staff does not.[/QUOTE]
How exactly is this accountability? This is a means of putting pressure on civil servants to follow the line of the now entirely Republican federal government, not ensuring they'll "be even more ethical than before" in their jobs.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707753]Again, no it doesn't. The government giving the NSA the ability to spy on everyone makes it bigger. The government giving itself more measures of accountability for it's staff does not.[/QUOTE]
Federal employees (Non-military) are a very small slice of the budget pie, if the government wants to get a hold on its budgets specific targeted practices aren't the way to go.
This is a hilariously blatant political weapon, it was already well put in this thread:
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;51707738]So, the night of long knives is going to involve cutting the wages of everyone who opposes Trump, rather than cutting their throats...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.