I mean, their proposal was essentially the norm for the first 100 years or so of the Republic under the same constitution we have now.
The Republicans made civil service reform a campaign issue, and they came out of the civil war with a great deal of political power to make it a reality
That’s more of a how. Why did they campaign on ending it? I recall it was because of the graft ingrained in it. If given the opportunity trump would make real cake with this system. How much $$ for assistant regional director of EPA? (which of the regulated companies would bid the most?)
Well, since it was a legacy of the Jacksonian Democrats, I think part of the why was that it was good politics to run against the corruption implemented by your rivals. Plus James Garfield was literally assassinated by a crazed, disgruntled office seeker.
Surprise Donald Trump changes tune on Project 2025—"Very conservative and very good" During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump distanced himself from the initiative. He called parts of the 900-page guideline spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation "ridiculous and abysmal." "I know nothing about Project 2025," he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, in July. "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
Top twenty what, positions? There are agencies where that’s… almost everyone. Bluntly, you know nothing of the civil service, outside of whatever nonsense you read in right wing media. The vast bulk do their jobs according to the laws, regulations, and policies determined during multiple Administrations. Penalties for blatantly partisan behavior, unless we’re talking the prior Trump Administration, is rewarded by, minimum, reprimands in your record. Civil servants take an oath to the American people and Constitution. Pledges to any political leader are intentionally left off to ensure that we understand who we serve. A POTUS is a representative, yes, but they’re also subservient to the Constitution and People. Asking civil servants to engage in illegal and/or corrupt activities, because POTUS wills it, should never be done. What Trump’s asking for is precisely this: “do what I say, no matter what it is, or be fired.” This isn’t how the civil service exists, and intentionally so. Prior to the Merit-Based system, it was a spoils system. Servants engaged in routine corrupt behavior because, well, unemployment sucks. What’s funny is that the two 15’s and SES in my chain of command are all Republicans. I’m unaffiliated. My subordinates appear to be a mix of political positions. We all ensure we don’t violate the Hatch Act or stand in the way of orders/policies/whatever that are based on sound ethics and law. The idea that I should be fired because I choose to refuse to endorse a propriety piece of equipment in the Gulf of Mexico with the weight of my office, because the company owner bribed leadership, should make you feel better. That’s precisely what you seem to be asking for and the end goal of a unitary executive. I don’t give a damn what party is in charge. Edit: I’m off duty, in case that’s not clear. I wouldn’t post this when I’m working.
@ETGator1, instead of just relying on pieces of flare, maybe provide a coherent argument? I’ve been in civil service for fifteen years. I was in private industry for ten years. I’ve been in leadership roles in civil service for five years. I’ve worked across Agencies, Bureaus, and entire Departments. The alleged “meanies to Republicans” is pure propaganda to vilify people just trying to do their jobs because oversight costs rich people money. You want to have a serious conversation about increasing accountability for conduct and performance? This is logical. I’ve been frustrated by how hard it is to remove poor performers. Conduct issues? It’s barely different from industry. I’ve canned one guy for dishonesty and another for a history of unprofessional behavior. Services slow? Perhaps it’s that key roles are left unfilled and too few people have too much to do. The civil service is roughly the same size as it was in the 1960’s with a host of new missions, complications, and an actively hostile political party. Republicans like to bitch and moan about efficiency while making it impossible to objectly fix those issues aside from “reductions in force.” Under the prior Trump Administration, I was tasked with determining the current minimum time required to review and approve oil and gas operations from their Deep Water Operations Plan (DWOP) to first oil. Our inefficiency was due to: State-level reviews, that with ass-dragging, could take up to a year. Mind you, these are red states engaging in NIMBY Ensuring proper personnel are trained and in-place. This involves both training and hiring. This costs resources. Streamlined communications between BSEE/BOEM/DOT/EPA/others. This was done via government-level SOPs and training. I’m damn proud of being a major player in this. Everyone involved were dedicated workers doing their jobs. Everyone involved wanted to see industry get realistic permitting times because we understand our duties to stakeholders. I’m so tired of us being an easy mark for the greedy and uneducated. Stop creating strawmen and child-level solutions (looking at you, Vivek) and work toward nuanced change.
You’re laughing about the loss of income for THOUSANDS of people. What the heck is wrong with you? Seriously? Throw in the loss of healthcare, damage to local economics and…? You’re literally laughing about a cataclysmic event for many of your fellow Americans for no other purpose than directed cruelty. If you think this is funny, seek help.
another 2025 architect hired two for here, enact 2025, help his buddy Thomas advance one of his protege's. always good to have a supreme court jsutice in your debt even if he is already a lackey 'Satanic freemason': Trump fans lash out as he hires another Project 2025 contributor "I am pleased to announce that Steven Gill Bradbury will be the next United States Deputy Secretary of Transportation," Trump wrote. "For the entirety of my First Term, Steven served as the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, where he helped rebuild our crumbling Infrastructure, and cut regulations that were killing jobs and our incredible Small Businesses. He previously clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
"Deep State" is real? Is that the Con conspiracy du jour? Odd that since in the last 50 years, Pubs have had the WH about 30% more time than the Dems, and Trump had his shot but must have failed in fixing the evil deep state. His new plan ? Is it a secret like his health plan? Hilarious. Get someone with skills in math to assist you : RICHARD M. NIXON | 1969-1974 GERALD R. FORD | 1974-1977 JIMMY CARTER | 1977-1981 RONALD REAGAN | 1981-1989 GEORGE BUSH | 1989-1993 WILLIAM J. CLINTON | 1993-2001 GEORGE W. BUSH | 2001-2009 BARACK OBAMA | 2009-2017 DONALD J. TRUMP | 2017-2021 JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. | 2021-
Any issue moving the different Federal Agencies out of DC? Such as moving the Department of Agriculture to Iowa and the Department of Interior to Oklahoma or Kansas? All government employees in those agencies will be offered relocation assistance.
I am not against this. In fact I may have been in favor of it at one time but with telecommuting I wonder how efficient it would be now.
check out the last time Trump made the U.S. Department of Agriculture move. It resulted in losing smarter, more experienced people replaced by less informed and had a negative impact on our country. Look past the maga admin rhetoric.
Wow! Ignorance and an insult in the same post. You probably should GYST before you question someone’s math skills. 1969-2024 is 55 years, not 50. Now, just for shits and grins, and to further prove your ignorance to libs and cons alike, let’s take a Quick Look and add those extra 5 years that confused you on the difference between 50 and 55 years. At the 50 year mark from 2024, Republicans held the WH 2 years longer than Democrats, or 4% more. Now we can add the 5 years that confused you so much on the difference between 50 years and 55 years to give the republicans holding the WH 7 years longer. Now here’s where it gets real tricky so please follow closely; 7/55 equals .1273 which means the republicans held the WH 12.73% longer than democrats. A far cry from the 30% that you calculated. I really hate to go full on engineer with you, but someone who miscalculates on the magnitude that you did should not even be questioning a 3rd graders math skills. Also, in closing, I don’t think that anyone here, on either side of the political debate, needs your assistance on anything.
If it will decrease traffic I’m all for it. And would’ve money since they would most likely be paid less since they would be moving to areas with lower locality pay. Win win
I don't have a problem with it conceptually. Certainly hundreds of thousands are elsewhere now. But there are certainly questions. - What's the impact on DC of moving out thousands (10s, 100s of thousands?) of white collar workers out of the DC area? It is our nation's capital, and we shouldn't go out of our way to damage it. What happens to all the empty buildings? - There's a ton of cost and disruption of lives. If you want to keep your job, you've got to leave where you've lived for 25 years and move to Des Moines ... What's the reason? What do we gain? - Finally, so many people are working from home now. If they're working from home in suburban Virginia, are we going to make them move to Iowa, ease or build a big complex so that they can work from home in suburban Des Moines?
Link? The FBI is currently looking to relocate a lot of their DC and Quantico functions to Huntsville, AL. Not sure if there are any issues with that.
