PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on April 12, 2019, 06:20:43 PM
-
It's a start:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/12/office-personnel-management-trump/
The White House is moving to dissolve the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and reorganize the agency’s responsibilities into three existing departments in order to “drive what is needed to support the mission in all of government.”
“When we really look at the need for government overall, and we looked at the [OPM’s] design to support those needs, there was a fundamental structural misalignment between the challenges of today around our workforce and what OPM was conditioned to do,” Margaret Weichert, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget and acting OPM director, told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday.
The agency was formed in 1979 and tasked with managing the government’s civilian workforce, which includes healthcare, insurance and retirement benefits, as well as oversight and human resources policies for federal employees.
-
The Department of Education should be next.
-
The Department of Education should be next.
Along with EPA and about 200 lesser agencies.
-
This is not my opinion, but it is conversations like this one that causes many on the left to see the "right" as a bunch of extremists.
I don't know much about OPM, except that it is aptly named for a government agency.
And I think the EPA and Dept of Education need to be greatly scaled down and re-organized so that they are merely a supporting agency for the various state and local departments of the same function.
And I think that there are hundreds of functions that the Federal Government has no business being involved in.
But stating that we need to abolish all of this is exactly why those on the left see us as extremists.
(now, where's my flame suit?)
-
Well that is the problem. Bureaucratic overlap. EVERY state has their own version of the EPA that enforces the rules which mirror the EPA regs. Then you have the actual EPA coming in and looking for things to enforce to generate fines, penalties and revenue. It is out of control.
This happens with Law Enforcement Agencies, and many other agencies as well. All vying to justify their budgets and generate additional revenue. In many ways government has become a for profit business. It profits those that manage, and operate these agencies. Fed, State, and Local.
Where is the accountability. Where is the ability to reduce personnel, and reduce budgets?
-
TSA needs to be abolished. Let the airports and the airlines provide their own security. TSA has been an epic failure from the beginning.
Dept of Education needs to go, as does the Dept of Energy. Let each state have their own EPA and do away with the federal one.
-
Well that is the problem. Bureaucratic overlap. EVERY state has their own version of the EPA that enforces the rules which mirror the EPA regs. Then you have the actual EPA coming in and looking for things to enforce to generate fines, penalties and revenue. It is out of control.
This happens with Law Enforcement Agencies, and many other agencies as well. All vying to justify their budgets and generate additional revenue. In many ways government has become a for profit business. It profits those that manage, and operate these agencies. Fed, State, and Local.
Where is the accountability. Where is the ability to reduce personnel, and reduce budgets?
You nailed it. Little pieces of government become individual fiefdoms with their various lords and kings. Not just the agency on a whole, but each department and sub department within. ALL of these are competing for money and power, from the smallest (the guy in charge of HVAC in your local school system) to the largest, on each and every level of government. Even the most virtuous individual will, at the very least, have a stake in keeping their own job, and so will attempt to puff themselves up with apparent importance.
The difference between them and private for-profit business is the goal is not to maximize profit but rather run as many dollars as possible through their own budget in order to demonstrate their own indispensability.
-
This is not my opinion, but it is conversations like this one that causes many on the left to see the "right" as a bunch of extremists.
I don't know much about OPM, except that it is aptly named for a government agency.
And I think the EPA and Dept of Education need to be greatly scaled down and re-organized so that they are merely a supporting agency for the various state and local departments of the same function.
And I think that there are hundreds of functions that the Federal Government has no business being involved in.
But stating that we need to abolish all of this is exactly why those on the left see us as extremists.
(now, where's my flame suit?)
Egad, do you need an intervention? The diehard left is going to see common sense as extreme in every. Single. Issue.
Many fed agencies, in fact MOST of them, are ENTIRELY surplus to requirements! The fact that liberals see that as an extreme position cannot be changed by YOU backing off from it!
-
This is not my opinion, but it is conversations like this one that causes many on the left to see the "right" as a bunch of extremists.
I don't know much about OPM, except that it is aptly named for a government agency.
And I think the EPA and Dept of Education need to be greatly scaled down and re-organized so that they are merely a supporting agency for the various state and local departments of the same function.
And I think that there are hundreds of functions that the Federal Government has no business being involved in.
But stating that we need to abolish all of this is exactly why those on the left see us as extremists.
(now, where's my flame suit?)
Other than as an agency that handles grants to local school boards, there is no need, or value - whatsoever - for the DE
-
And here’s a kicker ... I’ve seen numbers up to nearly a third of jobs held in America are tied to the federal government. That’s a lot of voters when you add in friends and family who don’t want to see Joe Fedgov lose his overpaid job.
If the needed jettisoning of unneeded Federal agencies were to actually happen, unemployment would go through the roof. That’s why presidents keep kicking the purge down the road to the next guy.
-
A popular narrative by the Left today is to complain about spending, and the deficit under Trump. They didn't care when Obama ran up more debt than every previous President COMBINED. So in order to reduce the deficit, drastic measures are required, and there are many agencies that have overlap at the State level which can be totally eliminated. If they are allowed to exist they will just grow back to what we have now, and worse. Government always grows. That is not what some are calling "extremism", that is REALITY.
If there are a few functions that are necessary, roll them into an existing agency that has validity.
-
A popular narrative by the Left today is to complain about spending, and the deficit under Trump. They didn't care when Obama ran up more debt than every previous President COMBINED. So in order to reduce the deficit, drastic measures are required, and there are many agencies that have overlap at the State level which can be totally eliminated. If they are allowed to exist they will just grow back to what we have now, and worse. Government always grows. That is not what some are calling "extremism", that is REALITY.
If there are a few functions that are necessary, roll them into an existing agency that has validity.
Would that Trump could pull this off. Reagan did to a small extent, but the beast roared back stronger than ever.
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy needs to get LOTS of exposure for change to happen.
“Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”
-
Would that Trump could pull this off. Reagan did to a small extent, but the beast roared back stronger than ever.
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy needs to get LOTS of exposure for change to happen.
“Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”
I like that. I never heard of that, but I like it, and it is alive and well here in Wisconsin.
Scott Walker’s Act 10 eviscerated the the teachers union, but didn’t eliminate it.
A teacher in Wisconsin was found to have been watching pornography on his school computer in his classroom with students present. He was initially fired, but the union sued the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). The regulatory agency (DPI) responsible for revoking his teachers license said it couldn’t do that, and they reinstated the teacher, to the shear pleasure of the teachers union.
The DPI head is called the State Superintendent, an elected position. The DPI Superintendent from 2001-2019 (the timeline that included this ruling) was Tony Evers.
He is now called Governor Evers, after defeating Scott Walker in November.
https://townhall.com/watchdog/wisconsin/2014/04/21/teacher-pornography-dpi-n4693
-
Egad, do you need an intervention? The diehard left is going to see common sense as extreme in every. Single. Issue.
Many fed agencies, in fact MOST of them, are ENTIRELY surplus to requirements! The fact that liberals see that as an extreme position cannot be changed by YOU backing off from it!
Becky,
Perhaps you should slow down and re-read what I actually wrote. Starting with the words:
This is not my opinion, but . . .
Tell me what I said I believe, or that you inferred that I believe, that you so vehemently disagree with and I will either retract it or defend it.
I will start by admitting that I don't advocate immediately disassembling the Federal government. Not because I don't think much of it should be, but I don't think the nations economy could withstand it. We don't want to cure the disease by killing the patient.
-
I think many Americans think that all those stone buildings in Washington DC should be monuments FULL of people “working for us.”
In reality, those buildings are monuments to bureaucracy run amok. They are self-perpetuating beings, and sometimes the host just needs to be killed to save the rest of the herd.
As I re-read what I wrote, I realized I probably broke some rule about too many analogies, so let’s put it this way: I support the president eliminating many agencies. Tear down some of those buildings so they can’t be easily re-purposed for another agency.
-
I think many Americans think that all those stone buildings in Washington DC should be monuments FULL of people “working for us.”
In reality, those buildings are monuments to bureaucracy run amok. They are self-perpetuating beings, and sometimes the host just needs to be killed to save the rest of the herd.
As I re-read what I wrote, I realized I probably broke some rule about too many analogies, so let’s put it this way: I support the president eliminating many agencies. Tear down some of those buildings so they can’t be easily re-purposed for another agency.
Or sell them to a private tax-paying business, even if the sales price is below market.
Tell me that you are advocating closing all those departments a few at a time and evaluating the effects, and I will applaud.
Tell me that you are advocating closing them all immediately and to hell with the consequences, and I will call you an overzealous extremist.
-
Or sell them to a private tax-paying business, even if the sales price is below market.
Tell me that you are advocating closing all those departments a few at a time and evaluating the effects, and I will applaud.
Tell me that you are advocating closing them all immediately and to hell with the consequences, and I will call you an overzealous extremist.
Trump is a businessman. Aside from his frequent seemingly off the cuff Twitter comments, he’s not stupid. I’m positive he’s evaluating where duplication or waste exists, and is making a good BUSINESS decision in deciding what should be closed.
That won’t stop the left from trying to convince people (like you?) that Trump has dynamite and gasoline and is going to go Department by Department blowing them up consequences be damned. Seems like the strategy has already worked.
-
Trump is a businessman. Aside from his frequent seemingly off the cuff Twitter comments, he’s not stupid. I’m positive he’s evaluating where duplication or waste exists, and is making a good BUSINESS decision in deciding what should be closed.
That won’t stop the left from trying to convince people (like you?) that Trump has dynamite and gasoline and is going to go Department by Department blowing them up consequences be damned. Seems like the strategy has already worked.
People like me?
I agree with you about Trump. In fact, I agreed with your opinion of Trump even before you formed your current opinion of Trump.
My statement above was a byproduct of Becky's explosion and offer of "intervention" merely because I stated how I though leftists would react to the idea of closing down the Federal government.
I never insinuated that I thought Trump would attempt that. He might threaten it, as a bargaining tool, but I don't believe he would do it.
And I wasn't saying that you were advocating dismantling FedGov willy nilly either. I posed two separate scenarios, both preceded with an "IF" and stated how I would react to either.
Why does it seem to be such a breach of etiquette on this board to even mention potential scenarios that the core here doesn't like, or to speculate on how leftists would react, without being branded a leftist? THAT is exactly how I expect leftists to react.
-
People like me?
I agree with you about Trump. In fact, I agreed with your opinion of Trump even before you formed your current opinion of Trump.
My statement above was a byproduct of Becky's explosion and offer of "intervention" merely because I stated how I though leftists would react to the idea of closing down the Federal government.
I never insinuated that I thought Trump would attempt that. He might threaten it, as a bargaining tool, but I don't believe he would do it.
And I wasn't saying that you were advocating dismantling FedGov willy nilly either. I posed two separate scenarios, both preceded with an "IF" and stated how I would react to either.
Why does it seem to be such a breach of etiquette on this board to even mention potential scenarios that the core here doesn't like, or to speculate on how leftists would react, without being branded a leftist? THAT is exactly how I expect leftists to react.
I’m not branding you a leftist. But by raising the scenario of Trump potentially just unilaterally closing departments without care or concern is a concept that only lives in the mind’s of media trying to convince people that Trump is crazy and reckless. No thinking person would ever think that, or consider that as being something that would ever happen.
It’s the difference between fact and fiction, and the media is selling exclusively fiction. Sadly, they still have customers for that.
-
Becky,
Perhaps you should slow down and re-read what I actually wrote. Starting with the words:
Tell me what I said I believe, or that you inferred that I believe, that you so vehemently disagree with and I will either retract it or defend it.
I will start by admitting that I don't advocate immediately disassembling the Federal government. Not because I don't think much of it should be, but I don't think the nations economy could withstand it. We don't want to cure the disease by killing the patient.
I reacted strongly to what I perceived as equivocation on your part to accommodate liberal overreaction to positions of common sense as “extreme.” It is precisely this type of accommodation, or attempt to “understand” their position, or couch dialog (if you can actually find a lib who will do that) in soothing, sympathetic terms, that IS TOTALLY USELESS AND JUST STRENGTHENS THEIR BELIEF IN THEIR OWN PERCEPTIONS AND NOT REALITY.
To my mind, blunt talk and a big dose of reality are the only things that may have a chance of penetrating liberals’ brain fog.
-
I reacted strongly to what I perceived as equivocation on your part to accommodate liberal overreaction to positions of common sense as “extreme.” It is precisely this type of accommodation, or attempt to “understand” their position, or couch dialog (if you can actually find a lib who will do that) in soothing, sympathetic terms, that IS TOTALLY USELESS AND JUST STRENGTHENS THEIR BELIEF IN THEIR OWN PERCEPTIONS AND NOT REALITY.
To my mind, blunt talk and a big dose of reality are the only things that may have a chance of penetrating liberals’ brain fog.
I am NOT talking about Little Joe here. OK? I think some people confuse, honest, clear, and sometimes stark responses to Liberal/Progressive positions as "Mean". For me personally, I have been so bombarded with it from all aspects of society that I admit sometimes I do over react. Again, I am NOT saying that is happening here.
-
Well, it has to be hard being a liberal. But really, you can cut them NO SLACK! Evolutionarily, they should have disappeared eons ago!
I mean, POTUS is evil for sending illegals back to Mexico. Then he’s evil for holding Dems to their “open arms” claim in sanctuary cities. Then the self same judges who declared sending illegals back to Mexico cruel are rushing to allow POTUS to do it so as not to reveal that sanctuary cities don’t welcome them after all, thus crushing the unlimited access to all narrative.
How liberals stay sane is beyond me.
-
Well, it has to be hard being a liberal. But really, you can cut them NO SLACK! Evolutionarily, they should have disappeared eons ago!
I mean, POTUS is evil for sending illegals back to Mexico. Then he’s evil for holding Dems to their “open arms” claim in sanctuary cities. Then the self same judges who declared sending illegals back to Mexico cruel are rushing to allow POTUS to do it so as not to reveal that sanctuary cities don’t welcome them after all, thus crushing the unlimited access to all narrative.
How liberals stay sane is beyond me.
They are not sane. I thought you were smarter than that last part(kidding).
-
Evolutionarily, they should have disappeared eons ago!
Now THAT, I agree with.
Well, actually, evolutionarily, they should never have existed in the same place. It is only due to the technological advances (brought about primarily by white men) that have allowed them to exist.
-
Now THAT, I agree with.
Well, actually, evolutionarily, they should never have existed in the same place. It is only due to the technological advances (brought about primarily by white men) that have allowed them to exist.
So the liberals are right! White men are the cause of all our problems! They brought us liberals, and liberals are destroying civilization!
-
I’m not branding you a leftist. But by raising the scenario of Trump potentially just unilaterally closing departments without care or concern is a concept that only lives in the mind’s of media trying to convince people that Trump is crazy and reckless. No thinking person would ever think that, or consider that as being something that would ever happen.
It’s the difference between fact and fiction, and the media is selling exclusively fiction. Sadly, they still have customers for that.
It’s also probably not within the authority of any president to just shut down a department. Congress authorizes money to make the department function, but they also charge the head of that department with certain legally binding tasks. The president can no more direct a Secretary to ignore the law than he could direct that a Secretary commit murder.
I agree that the government is out of control and they have no Constitutionally based authority for much or even most of what they do. But ignoring law is not the way to save the Republic, ignoring law is the route to destroy the Republic.
I personally believe that an Article V convention of the States is the best hope for the nation. I hold no hope that the swamp will drain itself, even under the uptmost urging from president.