7 ms·

Another transparent appointee of Trump's designed to destroy the department to which he/she was appointed. See: Ajit Pai, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos,

Another transparent appointee of Trump's designed to destroy the department to which he/she was appointed. See: Ajit Pai, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, and more. Is there any precedent for committing "mutiny" in a governmental organization?

wil421 9y ago
Not if you want to keep your pension.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Be careful about advocating mutiny in government agencies. Their job is to implement the rules the political system creates. It's a slippery slope if you allow them to inject personal opinions.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > It's a slippery slope if you allow them to inject personal opinions. The Nuremberg Trials - where we decided "just following orders" wasn't an excuse for illegal acts - demonstrate the other side of that slippery slope. For a concrete example of refusing illegal/immoral orders from American politics, see the Saturday Night Massacre.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    First, nobody is saying government workers need to follow all orders. They can always quit. If certain workers believe they cannot in good conscience work for the Trump administration, then they have my respect, but they should resign. Second, genocide is a far cry from the government not sufficiently regulating a business to your tastes. If government workers are allowed to make their own policy, we are not long a democracy, but a dictatorship-by-beaucracy. You may think that is a-okay when someone you dislike is in power, but how did you feel when that Kentucky Clerk refused to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals? What if the workers in HHS decide they need to regulate abortion?
- geofft 9y ago
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding 'AdmiralAsshat, but I think the assertion is that Mulvaney, Pai, Perry, Pruitt, and DeVos are committing mutiny, by refusing to do the jobs they're supposed to do and instead injecting their personal opinions, and the question is whether this has ever happened before. Most mutinies are from a crew against their captains, yes, but I think that a captain of a ship can commit mutiny by saying "I don't care what my countries' objectives are, this is my objective and I'm taking the ship."
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I don't agree with what they are doing but I don't think there is anything unusual or illegal going on. The elected president or Congress could fire them at any time if they thought that the agency heads were doing anything wrong.
    - neuland 9y ago
      It's also not a surprise that they're doing this. The GOP and Trump campaigned on dismantling government. So, that's what they're doing. It's wildly undemocratic to push for government employees to usurp the will of the people's representatives. Like other's have said, the best a government employee can do to protest the direction that the President and Congress set is to resign vocally (as lots of people have done). Consider the opposite side! People rightly criticize government employees who resist implementing gay rights. But, somehow EPA employees resisting loosening regulations is righteous. Everyone thinks their political beliefs are righteous.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        You're trying to equivocate basic human rights with being able to dump pollution in the water supply.
        neuland 9y ago
        You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the subject is. If it helps, think of a different area where right-leaning government employees could resist government. (I can't think of one off the top of my head) The point is: rogue government employees should not be exerting their concept of what it morally right in direct conflict with leaders elected by the people. It is inherently undemocratic. If you want an unelected oligarchy of technocrats, that's something to debate the merits of. But, anyone who values democracy should be appalled by an unelected bureaucrat setting policy against the will of the people.
omginternets 9y ago
Arguably, that's exactly what Ajit Pai, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos are doing...
- tanderson92 9y ago
  What has Rick Perry done?
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    During the 2012 Presidential primaries, he campaigned on getting rid of three agencies, including the Department of Energy, which he now runs. (This may jog your memory if you watch stuff like The Daily Show: in the debates, he fairly embarrassingly forgot which three agencies he wanted to get rid of...) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/19/rick-perry-hopes-head-agency-he-once-forgot/96732676/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/19/rick...
    - tanderson92 9y ago
      I remember that moment quite well, and very fondly; I believe I watched TDS live back then every night. However, I asked what Rick Perry did, not what he said.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        Ah! Fair point. Will you accept subsidizing unneeded coal plants? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/4/16407278/rick-perry-doe-plan-coal-nuclear-energy-markets https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/4/1640727...
        fjsolwmv 9y ago
        No because that clearly is an action in favor of better energy. (Not the best energy, not great environmentally and perhaps bad economically and healthly, but good for energy)
pjc50 9y ago
It's called a "strike", and it's risky without public support.
mattkrause 9y ago
A more-legal solution might involve invoking the “take-care” clause that requires the executive branch to “faithfully execute” laws. They usually get very wide latitude to (de)prioritize things, but requesting zero money and putting all work on hold might be on the other side of the line.
- mattkrause 9y ago
  It turns out that people much smarter than me have thought about this for the ACA (e.g., [this article by a Yale law prof](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/17/16489526/take-care-clause-obamacare-trump-sabotage-aca-illegal https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/17/16489526/take-ca...) but the treatment of the CFPB actually seems like a much more obvious fit to this non-lawyer....
- IncRnd 9y ago
  There is no constitutional duty to request funds. The duty is upon Congress to appropriate funds. They have the power of the purse, not the Executive.
  - tonyztan 9y ago
    In the case of the CFPB, I believe Congress delegated to them the authority/responsibility to request funds directly from the Federal Reserve. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/budget-strategy/funds-transfer-requests/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/budget-strategy/fun...
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      Yes. Congress constantly pulls this rigamarole, even back in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. That's actually why I wrote, "There is no constitutional duty to request funds". I didn't mean to imply anything else. These requirements on the President are just a shell game from Congress to blame the President, avoid passing a budget, and pretend to be the "white-knights" each time there is a continuing resolution battle. It is interesting to note that the CFPB passed in July 2010. Yet, 2015 was the first budget passed since 2009. I think it's safe to say that Congress has purposely engineered this situation to get the self-serving results they want.
outsidetheparty 9y ago
Best we've got is "resign in protest." There's been a bit of it lately: 8 of the 28-person National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), all 17 members of the Presidential Committee on the Arts and Humanities, co-chairs of the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subcommittee of the EPA, 5 members of Trump's business advisory council, 6 members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, the State Department science envoy... (I haven't been keeping track, this was just a quick google search; probably there are more I missed. Not to mention the wave of early retirements, lateral moves to private sector, sudden new desires to spend more time with family, etc)
- ksk 9y ago
  >Best we've got is "resign in protest." How does that help anything? They'll get replaced with cheerleaders.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    It took out Nixon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Unfortunately, most of those committees don't have any actual power to enact anything. By resigning in protest, they at least prevent themselves from being used as justification to enact the things that the Trump admin is doing.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I don't think people are resigning to send a message, they are resigning, and also sending a message. If you're working for poor pay for something you believe in, and all of a sudden management is making it impossible for you to do your job, burn out is inevitable, along with leaving for a higher-paying job in the private sector.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
Ajit Pai was a Senate/GOP/McConnell appointee before Trump was elected, not a Trump appointee. He became Chair when a Republican president was elected, triggering an automatic handover from the previous Democratic chair
ataturk 9y ago
I'm fine with that if it results in smaller government and lower cost government. I never had any faith in much of it to begin with--millions of federal employees doing jack and shit every day isn't how America became a great country. Just another kind of welfare and a manufactured statist voting bloc. Equifax can fuck right off and just go out of business whenever they feel like it.
smsm42 9y ago
Sure, because federal goverment agencies not controlled by voters and in open mutiny against elected government is exactly what US needs more of. I don't think you thought it through.
Floegipoky 9y ago
> John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
siruncledrew 9y ago
More like seeing the effects of cronyism in action. None of these people are very prepared to handle their duties, yet they got the jobs anyways through schmoozing and money.
- dmix 9y ago
  Hardly unique to Trump in the grand scheme and longer term view. The only reason we know this was because of a change in plans but we never hear about the thousands of other times where it never gets even close to that for other serious abuses by politically connected organizations and individuals. The article also mentions the FTC and 50 states are still investigating Equifax so its not like they have been given a pass yet. Nor has the consumer protection agency given them a pass yet either, this article only said they chose not to pursue one particular investigation option planned by a previous admin, not that they have abandoned the whole investigation.

wil421 9y ago

Not if you want to keep your pension.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Be careful about advocating mutiny in government agencies. Their job is to implement the rules the political system creates. It's a slippery slope if you allow them to inject personal opinions.

ceejayoz 9y ago
> It's a slippery slope if you allow them to inject personal opinions. The Nuremberg Trials - where we decided "just following orders" wasn't an excuse for illegal acts - demonstrate the other side of that slippery slope. For a concrete example of refusing illegal/immoral orders from American politics, see the Saturday Night Massacre.
- rhino369 9y ago
  First, nobody is saying government workers need to follow all orders. They can always quit. If certain workers believe they cannot in good conscience work for the Trump administration, then they have my respect, but they should resign. Second, genocide is a far cry from the government not sufficiently regulating a business to your tastes. If government workers are allowed to make their own policy, we are not long a democracy, but a dictatorship-by-beaucracy. You may think that is a-okay when someone you dislike is in power, but how did you feel when that Kentucky Clerk refused to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals? What if the workers in HHS decide they need to regulate abortion?
geofft 9y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding 'AdmiralAsshat, but I think the assertion is that Mulvaney, Pai, Perry, Pruitt, and DeVos are committing mutiny, by refusing to do the jobs they're supposed to do and instead injecting their personal opinions, and the question is whether this has ever happened before. Most mutinies are from a crew against their captains, yes, but I think that a captain of a ship can commit mutiny by saying "I don't care what my countries' objectives are, this is my objective and I'm taking the ship."
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I don't agree with what they are doing but I don't think there is anything unusual or illegal going on. The elected president or Congress could fire them at any time if they thought that the agency heads were doing anything wrong.
  - neuland 9y ago
    It's also not a surprise that they're doing this. The GOP and Trump campaigned on dismantling government. So, that's what they're doing. It's wildly undemocratic to push for government employees to usurp the will of the people's representatives. Like other's have said, the best a government employee can do to protest the direction that the President and Congress set is to resign vocally (as lots of people have done). Consider the opposite side! People rightly criticize government employees who resist implementing gay rights. But, somehow EPA employees resisting loosening regulations is righteous. Everyone thinks their political beliefs are righteous.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      You're trying to equivocate basic human rights with being able to dump pollution in the water supply.
      - neuland 9y ago
        You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the subject is. If it helps, think of a different area where right-leaning government employees could resist government. (I can't think of one off the top of my head) The point is: rogue government employees should not be exerting their concept of what it morally right in direct conflict with leaders elected by the people. It is inherently undemocratic. If you want an unelected oligarchy of technocrats, that's something to debate the merits of. But, anyone who values democracy should be appalled by an unelected bureaucrat setting policy against the will of the people.

omginternets 9y ago

Arguably, that's exactly what Ajit Pai, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos are doing...

tanderson92 9y ago
What has Rick Perry done?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  During the 2012 Presidential primaries, he campaigned on getting rid of three agencies, including the Department of Energy, which he now runs. (This may jog your memory if you watch stuff like The Daily Show: in the debates, he fairly embarrassingly forgot which three agencies he wanted to get rid of...) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/19/rick-perry-hopes-head-agency-he-once-forgot/96732676/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/19/rick...
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    I remember that moment quite well, and very fondly; I believe I watched TDS live back then every night. However, I asked what Rick Perry did, not what he said.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      Ah! Fair point. Will you accept subsidizing unneeded coal plants? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/4/16407278/rick-perry-doe-plan-coal-nuclear-energy-markets https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/4/1640727...
      - fjsolwmv 9y ago
        No because that clearly is an action in favor of better energy. (Not the best energy, not great environmentally and perhaps bad economically and healthly, but good for energy)

pjc50 9y ago

It's called a "strike", and it's risky without public support.

mattkrause 9y ago

A more-legal solution might involve invoking the “take-care” clause that requires the executive branch to “faithfully execute” laws. They usually get very wide latitude to (de)prioritize things, but requesting zero money and putting all work on hold might be on the other side of the line.

mattkrause 9y ago
It turns out that people much smarter than me have thought about this for the ACA (e.g., [this article by a Yale law prof](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/17/16489526/take-care-clause-obamacare-trump-sabotage-aca-illegal https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/17/16489526/take-ca...) but the treatment of the CFPB actually seems like a much more obvious fit to this non-lawyer....
IncRnd 9y ago
There is no constitutional duty to request funds. The duty is upon Congress to appropriate funds. They have the power of the purse, not the Executive.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  In the case of the CFPB, I believe Congress delegated to them the authority/responsibility to request funds directly from the Federal Reserve. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/budget-strategy/funds-transfer-requests/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/budget-strategy/fun...
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Yes. Congress constantly pulls this rigamarole, even back in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. That's actually why I wrote, "There is no constitutional duty to request funds". I didn't mean to imply anything else. These requirements on the President are just a shell game from Congress to blame the President, avoid passing a budget, and pretend to be the "white-knights" each time there is a continuing resolution battle. It is interesting to note that the CFPB passed in July 2010. Yet, 2015 was the first budget passed since 2009. I think it's safe to say that Congress has purposely engineered this situation to get the self-serving results they want.

outsidetheparty 9y ago

Best we've got is "resign in protest." There's been a bit of it lately: 8 of the 28-person National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), all 17 members of the Presidential Committee on the Arts and Humanities, co-chairs of the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subcommittee of the EPA, 5 members of Trump's business advisory council, 6 members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, the State Department science envoy... (I haven't been keeping track, this was just a quick google search; probably there are more I missed. Not to mention the wave of early retirements, lateral moves to private sector, sudden new desires to spend more time with family, etc)

ksk 9y ago
>Best we've got is "resign in protest." How does that help anything? They'll get replaced with cheerleaders.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  It took out Nixon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Unfortunately, most of those committees don't have any actual power to enact anything. By resigning in protest, they at least prevent themselves from being used as justification to enact the things that the Trump admin is doing.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I don't think people are resigning to send a message, they are resigning, and also sending a message. If you're working for poor pay for something you believe in, and all of a sudden management is making it impossible for you to do your job, burn out is inevitable, along with leaving for a higher-paying job in the private sector.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

Ajit Pai was a Senate/GOP/McConnell appointee before Trump was elected, not a Trump appointee. He became Chair when a Republican president was elected, triggering an automatic handover from the previous Democratic chair

ataturk 9y ago

I'm fine with that if it results in smaller government and lower cost government. I never had any faith in much of it to begin with--millions of federal employees doing jack and shit every day isn't how America became a great country. Just another kind of welfare and a manufactured statist voting bloc. Equifax can fuck right off and just go out of business whenever they feel like it.

smsm42 9y ago

Sure, because federal goverment agencies not controlled by voters and in open mutiny against elected government is exactly what US needs more of. I don't think you thought it through.

Floegipoky 9y ago

> John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

siruncledrew 9y ago

More like seeing the effects of cronyism in action. None of these people are very prepared to handle their duties, yet they got the jobs anyways through schmoozing and money.

dmix 9y ago
Hardly unique to Trump in the grand scheme and longer term view. The only reason we know this was because of a change in plans but we never hear about the thousands of other times where it never gets even close to that for other serious abuses by politically connected organizations and individuals. The article also mentions the FTC and 50 states are still investigating Equifax so its not like they have been given a pass yet. Nor has the consumer protection agency given them a pass yet either, this article only said they chose not to pursue one particular investigation option planned by a previous admin, not that they have abandoned the whole investigation.