Legal challenges to Trump funding freezes--will the elimination of Chevron deference limit Trump's goal?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Iām guessing his impoundment move isnāt going to last long - although it could be an interesting court caseā¦just in terms of the civics aspect of separation of powers.
That said, given the fiscal situation, I canāt say Iād be opposed in principle to anything which would help get expenditures down.
Along those lines, count me in on the voluntary severance packages theyāre offering on the return-to-work policy.
Nobody will take those other than people already planning to retire anyway.
How do you think any govt funding bill ever gets passed in an era of Presidential impoundment? He's set himself up for some big time problems right out of the gate
And are they actually trying to cut jobs, or are these people just going to be replaced by Trump loyalists, so for the next eight months we will be paying two people for the same job?
Seems to me you could achieve greater net savings simply through normal attrition. Of course, that doesn't create any media buzz, so probably wasn't considered.
Well what, like nearly half of Fed jobs are in DoD, right? I doubt they even qualify for this. Saw that DOD was exempt from the hiring freeze. So yeah anyone who would quit on that half would probably just get backfilled. So you're paying for two jobs at once.
DHS I assume will be on a hiring binge to fill out the deportation force.
So then you're talking about the other maybe 40% of govt?
I donāt think media buzz is the objective. Itās to thin the herd. Like Twitter. Whether someone takes the severance obviously depends on their situation. Unless you were a recent hire itās really not that attractive. That said fed ees have protections beyond at will so mass dumps could become a mess if thereās a bunch of people who say no
Speaking of hiring Trump loyalists/sycophants, prospective appointees are reportedly being asking about the moment of their MAGA revelation.
Or those who donāt want to physically return to work. Weāll see how it plays out, but Iād guess there will be a fairly good number of those.
Itās not as if theyāve been passing easily in an era without presidential impoundment.
And, besides, we went close to 200 years with it in place, fought several wars, etc.
That said, if Congress was going to restore it to any degree, I doubt heās the one thatās going to talk them into it. So thereās that.
But I just think that, generally, it could help with nibbling some edges. No more than that, though.
Maybe some lowly like GS5 making $50k will say screw it, I'll go to work elsewhere. But hard to see career people leaving just over having to go back to office full time. Maybe some of the full remote jobs where it's not tenable for them
I think the intent here is to shrink headcount.
Time will tell. Should be interesting to watch unfold. From what I read, itās been offered to 2 million federal employees.
Sure. Republicans can't pass govt funding bills on their own. That's known.
I just don't see how now you can get Dems to buy into anything funding related, if what they pass is just going to not be executed. Things are setting up for a big hot mess and it's coming in like a month.
Keep in mind that they can use reconciliation once a year on tax/spending bills. And I believe that law allows for a second time under some circumstances.
Theyāll certainly need to use it to extend TCJA. So I think the aim has been to try to get both into one bill.
A reconciliation bill is not a govt appropriation bill. Cannot do the annual govt funding via reconciliation
Oh you were referring back to the impoundment.
As I said, my read on this is that Trump is hoping to get the courts to invalidate the ICA. Because it doesnāt give him the authority to do what he just did - and the law has never been tested in the courts.
I expect that he will not be successful in getting them to do that. If he wants impoundment back, Congress is going to have to give it to him. And that, also, isnāt going to happen.
Possibly but I wouldn't be shocked if the hidden goal is bringing in as many loyalists as possible.
With relocation expenses and likely expenses for extra offices needed in order to bring people back into an office, this isn't likely to be a budget friendly decision.
Two million. Those are apolitical jobs for the most part
I donāt think it matters. As long as itās not a dei hire a clerk at VA isnāt a political job
I learned that lesson the hard way which was "Never click on a link that your online gaming friends from Europe post in Teamspeak".
At first it was grand. Two of my favorite things, hot chick and chocolate cake. It went south in a hurry by combining two words that should never be spoken together...Cake and Fart. I have seen that which cannot be unseen.
If I need to I will perform this service for my country.
"Also, Tommy, see that board up there. Do you see youR name on it? No? Because that's the top 10 Tommy and you're not in it. In fact, wait for it, wait, still scrolling....Oh, there you are! Third from the bottom. You know what happens to third from the bottom Tommy? DO YOU WATCH PREMIER LEAGUE FOOTBALL TOMMY? THEN YOU DAMN WELL KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. You'll be busted back down to taking Medicare calls from geriatrics and listening to their stories about their grandkids. Is that what you want Tommy? IS IT?"
If he ever did, he probably doesn't any longer. But I don't think it really matters whether he does or not.
The lady in kentucky that refused to give marriage licenses to gay people was in an apolitical job as well.
I think you're underestimating the desire and potential benefit of getting politically aligned people in positions regardless of the position being apolitical.
Nope...Goatse scarred me for sure. Had some guy who was mad at the Everquest Tholluxe Paells Server Forums for being banned and got ahold of the admin info and plasters those pics all over the main page and changed the password. Shocking for sure but I was able to quickly click away.
This one involved a hot chick who gets naked from the waist down using a chocolate cake as a prop. So your imagination kicks in with the obvious question "I wonder what she is going to do with that cake". Well, my 20 years ago imagination never landed on "sit on the cake and let loose a fart that would make a cow blush". I had to wash out my eyes with turpentine.
Well, that isn't true. Kim Davis was an elected County Clerk.
That said, a bureaucrat refusing to do their apolitical job correctly for political reasons - like Lois Lerner or whoever - is going to run into problems. That there are such people doesn't mean that the positions themselves aren't apolitical.
Since we're on the subject, and respective of your comment here, would you say the desire to have politically-aligned people in apolitical positions only a Trump thing, or does this apply to politicians in general?
The lionās share of the jobs are apolitical because the work itself is apolitical
2G1C is the worst I've seen. I'm sure there's worse but I'm not seeking it out any longer. I remember the Best Gore days too. The narco wars finally put me off that. Savages.
I'd say the desire is nearly universal. Trying to make it happen is probably unique to Trump.
We had an entire thread about Project 2025 and most/all of our most prominent MAGA posters claimed it had nothing to do with President Trump because at the time candidate Trump was distancing himself from it.
Project 2025
If you're pro-democracy and not familiar with the "Project 2025" manifesto and what it means for the country if Trump is elected, you need to be. Holy shit.
indiana.forums.rivals.com
