Republicans give themselves the power to cut any individual federal employee's salary to $1
52 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51707769]
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]
I assume nesto has faith in the Republican Congress's ability to make non-partisan, purely fact-based assessment of individual employee's work records to ensure the pay cut they receive is justified and that it totally won't be like [URL="https://www.thenation.com/article/the-holman-rule-once-allowed-congress-to-purge-leftists-from-government-agencies-now-its-back/"]the last time[/URL] we tried this in 1946 and it was ruled unconstitutional because congress went after suitably "un-American" political rivals.
[editline]22nd January 2017[/editline]
I will now also take the time to remind people of the articles where Trump transition team members were asking for names and lists from specific government agencies and programs.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51707796]I assume nesto has faith in the Republican Congress's ability to make non-partisan, purely fact-based assessment of individual employee's work records to ensure the pay cut they receive is justified and that it totally won't be like [URL="https://www.thenation.com/article/the-holman-rule-once-allowed-congress-to-purge-leftists-from-government-agencies-now-its-back/"]the last time[/URL] we tried this in 1946 and it was ruled unconstitutional because congress went after suitably "un-American" political rivals.
[editline]22nd January 2017[/editline]
I will now also take the time to remind people of the articles where Trump transition team members were asking for names and lists from specific government agencies and programs.[/QUOTE]
Oh can't wait for Trump's Supreme Court appointments to approve stuff like that.
Nice, a site the romanticizes Antifa. Totally unbiased.
Here, have something else
[QUOTE]The proposed rules would bring back a provision from 1876 to allow members to reduce spending, enhance oversight on the federal government and, in narrow ways, change the law. Its consideration shows that House leadership is serious about reforming the way Capitol Hill works.
This throwback rule, known as the Holman rule, is as relevant today as it was when it was introduced in the nation's centennial year. Its potential revival is a sign that House leadership wants to give members a greater role in reducing the federal behemoth.
Holman's eponymous rule would help to cut wasteful spending and give more power to the nascent Appropriations Committee. There was some opposition to giving one committee the power to undo or revise the work of other committees in the chamber, but the rule passed the House by a 156 to 102 vote.
Typically, appropriations measures cannot change existing laws. That prohibited practice is known as "legislating on appropriations bills." But under the Holman rule, changes could be made to retrench or reduce spending in appropriations measures.
As Louis Fisher noted, what Holman instituted was a method to empower the committee and members to save the taxpayers money through proposing and enacting "the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States, by the reduction of compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill."
Under the rule, "legislative riders" are permitted on spending bills if they lower spending. Fiscal changes could impact policy outcomes. The notion of legislating on spending bills has always been a convenient fiction: spending decisions drive policy. Holman recognized this, and developed an elegant solution.
Subsequent Congresses would modify, revise and, by 1983, greatly diminish the Holman rule. For the last few years, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) has championed the revival of the rule. As Griffith explained:
My proposal would give [B]Members of both parties[/B] the ability to offer amendments on the floor and in the Appropriations Committee to cut the amount of money an agency could receive, the number of employees that the U.S. government or its agencies could have, and the amount of money that could be paid to an employee of the U.S. government.
And if approved, it will face opposition from the status quo as it is implemented. That is because the rule will make it easier to root out waste, confront crony constitutionalism and turn the appropriations process into a means to reform government, not a way to ratify the inertia of the current appropriations apparatus.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/312234-adopting-old-school-rule-would-show-house-is-serious-about"]source[/URL]
Honestly sounds pretty good
:snip:
Yea I'm sure a site that makes Antifa sound like superheroes would factually report on something from the 40's. Brb, lemme grab some brietbart and infowar articles to defend the Homan ruling :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707874]Yea I'm sure a site that makes Antifa sound like superheroes would factually report on something from the 40's. Brb, lemme grab some brietbart and infowar articles to defend the Homan ruling :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Do you have anything to suggest that their narrative of events is wrong, particularly since they [URL="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/303/case.html"]linked[/URL] the case?
The actual meat of the article isn't wrong, I'll give you that. It's the stupid shit saying Trump's gonna use the rule to destroy black museums and cutoff aid to Africa.
So, the SCOTUS said targeting individuals politically was unconstitutional. Government workers that tweet mean things about Trump aren't about to get fucked over. The current SCOTUS isn't full of radicals, atleast not yet, and any abuse would be struck down(as it should be)
What's the issue.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707931]
What's the issue.[/QUOTE]
Trump is going to appoint at least one judge to the Supreme Court with the potential of appointing three more during the rest of his current term. God forbid he wins a second term, we could potentially see two more justices appointed by him.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707840]Honestly sounds pretty good[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. Separation of powers is a thing for a reason. Civil servants are supposed to be nonpartisan, and this ordinance is a tool for partisan micromanagement of government branches. As much as you laud its possible bipartisan use, it's blatantly transparent that at least the next 4 years it will be a tool for GOP only.
I'd be more positive if there was a stronger case that civil service salaries are too high and that there is actual waste happening. I'm not among the people who think small government is an end of itself, means be damned. Cutting public workers' pay makes them more susceptible to influence and corruption and makes the position less desirable, pulling more competent workforce to private sector. To this end it would serve the end of making public sector less competent, strengthening influence of its competitors on private sector (Betsy DeVos says hello) and making a further case in gutting government power.
In short, it's a tool of sabotage instead of reform.
I refer back to my first post in the thread.
It's not just about salaries but programs aswell.
And there is actual waste happening, here go ahead and educate yourself.
[url]http://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/[/url]
[url]http://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504590398/washington-post-finds-the-pentagon-buried-evidence-of-wasteful-spending[/url]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707931]What's the issue.[/QUOTE]
Any power that can be exploited by government, will be.
As I've said before:
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51707701]It should know by now Republicans support what amounts to 'Schrödinger's small government'.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707988]I refer back to my first post in the thread.
It's not just about salaries but programs aswell.
And there is actual waste happening, here go ahead and educate yourself.
[url]http://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/[/url]
[url]http://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504590398/washington-post-finds-the-pentagon-buried-evidence-of-wasteful-spending[/url][/QUOTE]
It's not just about programs but salaries aswell.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707988]
It's not just about salaries but programs aswell.[/QUOTE]
Just cause a bill has reasonable parts does not mean it doesn't have ones tractable to abuse.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707988]I refer back to my first post in the thread.
It's not just about salaries but programs aswell.
And there is actual waste happening, here go ahead and educate yourself.
[url]http://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/[/url]
[url]http://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504590398/washington-post-finds-the-pentagon-buried-evidence-of-wasteful-spending[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks, but I'll pass if you can't even be bothered to give a short summary. I spent my daily quota for research going through the actual proposal to learn nothing new. Besides, if you can't figure out how what I've said before covers the programs and concerns about them (specifically, parts about separation of powers, micromanagement and budget planning), our discussion here is over. Have a good day.
Here's the short summary since its [I]so[/I] difficult to click on two links
[QUOTE]The government wastes tons of fuckin money[/QUOTE]
Hopefully that summary wasn't to long for you. :downs:
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51708105]Here's the short summary since its [I]so[/I] difficult to click on two links
Hopefully that summary wasn't to long for you. :downs:[/QUOTE]
So I checked. It's the Pentagon back office issue on which there was a thread earlier and which isn't nearly as clear-cut as headline suggests and then there's a congressman's list of projects he'd like to axe. Which seem to fall under jurisdiction of respective department heads, who are entering their positions as we speak. Still doesn't convince the ordinance is necessary.
Cutting salaries dirctly to curb government spending is like trying to free up space on a 1tb hard drive by deleting .txt files.
There are far more effective vectors to rid of wasteful spending instead of granting government powers that can be easily abused by one party to remain in control.
Also its clear you didn't read your own damn sources. A quick skim through and they dont explain why this bill is a good idea. These sources are about wasteful spending in other areas
Hey he needs to start saving money somewhere before they start building the wall.
[QUOTE=da space core;51708144]
Also its clear you didn't read your own damn sources. A quick skim through and they dont explain why this bill is a good idea. [B]These sources are about wasteful spending[/B] in other areas[/QUOTE]
It's almost like those sources were purely about wasteful spending
It's clear you didn't read the thread past the headline
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51708105]Here's the short summary since its [I]so[/I] difficult to click on two links
Hopefully that summary wasn't to long for you. :downs:[/QUOTE]
Funny how the biggest waste of spending is in the Pentagon though.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;51707988]I refer back to my first post in the thread.
It's not just about salaries but programs aswell.
And there is actual waste happening, here go ahead and educate yourself.
[url]http://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/[/url]
[url]http://www.npr.org/2016/12/06/504590398/washington-post-finds-the-pentagon-buried-evidence-of-wasteful-spending[/url][/QUOTE]
I never said there wasn't wasteful spending occurring (would go so far as to say I know more about it than you!), I was asking you where cuts would be necessary. Particularly cuts that require this fine a rule. Thanks for the links though!
You know the only reason they'll use this is to cut programs that run even the slightest bit against their broken ideology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.