3 ms·

I'm sure this will be flagged soon enough, but people need to know that there is an unprecedented, hostile, and (seemingly) illegal blitzkrieg happening against

I'm sure this will be flagged soon enough, but people need to know that there is an unprecedented, hostile, and (seemingly) illegal blitzkrieg happening against the federal civil service. Doors are being barricaded. Strange servers are being installed by unknown individuals. People with decades of institutional experience are getting pushed out the door. First-hand accounts can be found here: https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/ https://old.reddit.com/r/fednews/

mrits 2y ago
[flagged]
- archagon 2y ago
  Regardless of your thoughts about the size of the federal government, there is zero oversight to this "transition." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-federal-inspectors-general-fired/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-federal-inspectors-genera...
  - mrits 2y ago
    I'm surprised they have learned to be efficient as the private sector is in mass purges
  - billfor 2y ago
    There's no way to have unbiased oversite. It was tried that way during his first term with limited sucess. Give this method a shot and if it breaks then it breaks and they try something different. This is the same "he's going to break twitter" crowd when 80% of the people were fired. Guess what, it kept running. The government will be fine. And the Chinese already have all our data.
    - sundaeofshock 2y ago
      He’s not fucking around with a social media website; this is the federal government with responsibility for trillions of dollars of spending. A small group of people were annoyed when Twitter was down for a few hours. I think the reaction will be much stronger when millions of US citizens miss a social security check or two.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - wyldberry 2y ago
    Let's be sure to have a meeting to consider staffing a committee to plan appointing a board to oversee a transition. Who would have the authority to have this meeting and appoint it? Congress. Who is in power in Congress? Oh right. If Democrats didn't want {x} to occur, they should have used their majority to get what they wanted done. The reason this is happening, is because those in power want this capability to exist. When the Republicans eventually lose power, a more refined version of this playbook will be executed by the next team.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      You didn't learn any German history in high school?
- EA-3167 2y ago
  I think most "small government" people change their tune when they find out that "big government" was behind their Medicare/Social Security payouts, their industry subsidies, and all of the things that keep them from dying on the job. The gap between the ideology and the reality is deep enough to fall into forever.
  - jghn 2y ago
    There's a reason why there's a whole genre of images on the internet of protestors holding signs with some variation of "keep your government hands out of my Medicare"
  - krapp 2y ago
    >The gap between the ideology and the reality is deep enough to fall into forever. Kind of like people describing DEI as "anti-white racism" despite the most common beneficiaries of DEI being white women.
- hleszek 2y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fdqdbr3bl60ge1.jpeg https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd...
- tootie 2y ago
  This is beyond unconstitutional. Congress can reduce spending. It cannot be stolen in broad daylight by a private citizen. This is not a time to be sanguine. American democracy is dying before our eyes.
  - jghn 2y ago
    It only matters if the legislative and judicial branches care to push the issue. Which they don't.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      The judicial branch has limited ability to intervene without someone else initiating it. Which would most likely be US citizens, civil service, states, or Congress in this case. Present Congressional leadership is already ignoring other violations of law like the IG dismissals so there's a good chance that this Congress will do very little.
    - tootie 2y ago
      Hell no it is not. That's like saying no crime has happened until there is a conviction. Trump and Musk's actions are very explicitly against the law. They won't be stopped or punished until action is taken, but it is still illegal right now.
      - kcplate 2y ago
        > Trump and Musk's actions are very explicitly against the law. So sue them. Take action, make your case. All you have here on HN is an opinion which may or may not be accurate.
        Freedom2 2y ago
        Agreed. One of the greatest liberties here in the US is that we are free to sue and counter-sue whomever we like - the free market of the people unfettered and unchained!
        2y ago
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  Because there's no evidence trump was elected by a majority. Of either the electorate or the popular government. People want functional governance. And smaller government is clearly not what this coup concerns.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  This is not “getting smaller”. This is looting, hacking, and abuse of power.
- vFunct 2y ago
  It’s because most Americans want a bigger government, not a smaller government. Americans like the socialized services a larger government can provide. They want government to be useful to them, not useless to them. You don’t really believe people want a small government, do you? They see a small government like Somalia. They don’t want Somalia. Remember a large government services the people. A small libertarian government services the powerful and wealthy.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    They want a big government that costs as much as a small government.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Somalia by most measures was more prosperous without a government than with one. So yes we want, metaphorically, somalia. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596707000741 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01475...
- danso 2y ago
  Well, a good starting place might be the fact that committed small-govt candidates — ones like Ron Paul who will actually vote for cuts — almost never get elected into higher office. And even Rep. Paul himself argued that it was morally incumbent[0] on him to fight for earmarks for his district — which strongly suggests that even the constituency of the most smallgov federal politician has little enthusiasm for his principles. As for professed advocates of smallgovt who actually get into the Senate or even the presidency, I think you can look for yourself how that's worked out. [0] https://www.aei.org/articles/ron-paul-big-government-libertarian/ https://www.aei.org/articles/ron-paul-big-government-liberta...
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > I'm not sure why you think most US citizens aren't happy about the federal government getting smaller. The level of federal employees has been stable for ~30 years, even with a growing population and arguable more complex world: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 It can also be argued that more bureaucracy is actually needed: * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-bureaucracy https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-... Programs still need to be implemented, laws and regulations need to be enforced: if there is no in-house manpower or expertise then outside consultants will be hired. Do you think those will be more or less expensive? And if you thought that the FAA's oversight of (e.g.) Boeing was weak at current staffing levels, wait until the cuts come.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw0101a 2y ago
      > Post civil war boom was roughly as big as the post WW2 boom with a way lower federal burden and no income tax. Also without Medicare, minimal Social Security, without an airforce, without a standing army, and desires for a ≥350-ship navy: * https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/25/trump-called-for-a-350-ship-fleet-but-his-budget-would-fall-short-of-even-obama-era-goals/ https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/25/trump-called-fo... How are you going to pay and run all that without staff? You think it's going to be cheaper to outsource it to consultants? Or is privatization the point/goal perhaps? Further, the early 20th century was also a period of rapid technological change that allowed for all kinds productivity gains, which is unlikely to be repeated: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...
      - ty6853 2y ago
        >Also without Medicare, minimal Social Security, without an airforce, without a standing army, and desires for a ≥350-ship navy That's the point.

mrits 2y ago

[flagged]

archagon 2y ago
Regardless of your thoughts about the size of the federal government, there is zero oversight to this "transition." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-federal-inspectors-general-fired/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-federal-inspectors-genera...
- mrits 2y ago
  I'm surprised they have learned to be efficient as the private sector is in mass purges
- billfor 2y ago
  There's no way to have unbiased oversite. It was tried that way during his first term with limited sucess. Give this method a shot and if it breaks then it breaks and they try something different. This is the same "he's going to break twitter" crowd when 80% of the people were fired. Guess what, it kept running. The government will be fine. And the Chinese already have all our data.
  - sundaeofshock 2y ago
    He’s not fucking around with a social media website; this is the federal government with responsibility for trillions of dollars of spending. A small group of people were annoyed when Twitter was down for a few hours. I think the reaction will be much stronger when millions of US citizens miss a social security check or two.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- wyldberry 2y ago
  Let's be sure to have a meeting to consider staffing a committee to plan appointing a board to oversee a transition. Who would have the authority to have this meeting and appoint it? Congress. Who is in power in Congress? Oh right. If Democrats didn't want {x} to occur, they should have used their majority to get what they wanted done. The reason this is happening, is because those in power want this capability to exist. When the Republicans eventually lose power, a more refined version of this playbook will be executed by the next team.
- scarab92 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    You didn't learn any German history in high school?
EA-3167 2y ago
I think most "small government" people change their tune when they find out that "big government" was behind their Medicare/Social Security payouts, their industry subsidies, and all of the things that keep them from dying on the job. The gap between the ideology and the reality is deep enough to fall into forever.
- jghn 2y ago
  There's a reason why there's a whole genre of images on the internet of protestors holding signs with some variation of "keep your government hands out of my Medicare"
- krapp 2y ago
  >The gap between the ideology and the reality is deep enough to fall into forever. Kind of like people describing DEI as "anti-white racism" despite the most common beneficiaries of DEI being white women.
hleszek 2y ago
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fdqdbr3bl60ge1.jpeg https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd...
tootie 2y ago
This is beyond unconstitutional. Congress can reduce spending. It cannot be stolen in broad daylight by a private citizen. This is not a time to be sanguine. American democracy is dying before our eyes.
- jghn 2y ago
  It only matters if the legislative and judicial branches care to push the issue. Which they don't.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    The judicial branch has limited ability to intervene without someone else initiating it. Which would most likely be US citizens, civil service, states, or Congress in this case. Present Congressional leadership is already ignoring other violations of law like the IG dismissals so there's a good chance that this Congress will do very little.
  - tootie 2y ago
    Hell no it is not. That's like saying no crime has happened until there is a conviction. Trump and Musk's actions are very explicitly against the law. They won't be stopped or punished until action is taken, but it is still illegal right now.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      > Trump and Musk's actions are very explicitly against the law. So sue them. Take action, make your case. All you have here on HN is an opinion which may or may not be accurate.
      - Freedom2 2y ago
        Agreed. One of the greatest liberties here in the US is that we are free to sue and counter-sue whomever we like - the free market of the people unfettered and unchained!
      - 2y ago
cyanydeez 2y ago
Because there's no evidence trump was elected by a majority. Of either the electorate or the popular government. People want functional governance. And smaller government is clearly not what this coup concerns.
skywhopper 2y ago
This is not “getting smaller”. This is looting, hacking, and abuse of power.
vFunct 2y ago
It’s because most Americans want a bigger government, not a smaller government. Americans like the socialized services a larger government can provide. They want government to be useful to them, not useless to them. You don’t really believe people want a small government, do you? They see a small government like Somalia. They don’t want Somalia. Remember a large government services the people. A small libertarian government services the powerful and wealthy.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  They want a big government that costs as much as a small government.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Somalia by most measures was more prosperous without a government than with one. So yes we want, metaphorically, somalia. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596707000741 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01475...
danso 2y ago
Well, a good starting place might be the fact that committed small-govt candidates — ones like Ron Paul who will actually vote for cuts — almost never get elected into higher office. And even Rep. Paul himself argued that it was morally incumbent[0] on him to fight for earmarks for his district — which strongly suggests that even the constituency of the most smallgov federal politician has little enthusiasm for his principles. As for professed advocates of smallgovt who actually get into the Senate or even the presidency, I think you can look for yourself how that's worked out. [0] https://www.aei.org/articles/ron-paul-big-government-libertarian/ https://www.aei.org/articles/ron-paul-big-government-liberta...
throw0101a 2y ago
> I'm not sure why you think most US citizens aren't happy about the federal government getting smaller. The level of federal employees has been stable for ~30 years, even with a growing population and arguable more complex world: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 It can also be argued that more bureaucracy is actually needed: * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-bureaucracy https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-... Programs still need to be implemented, laws and regulations need to be enforced: if there is no in-house manpower or expertise then outside consultants will be hired. Do you think those will be more or less expensive? And if you thought that the FAA's oversight of (e.g.) Boeing was weak at current staffing levels, wait until the cuts come.
- ty6853 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw0101a 2y ago
    > Post civil war boom was roughly as big as the post WW2 boom with a way lower federal burden and no income tax. Also without Medicare, minimal Social Security, without an airforce, without a standing army, and desires for a ≥350-ship navy: * https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/25/trump-called-for-a-350-ship-fleet-but-his-budget-would-fall-short-of-even-obama-era-goals/ https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/25/trump-called-fo... How are you going to pay and run all that without staff? You think it's going to be cheaper to outsource it to consultants? Or is privatization the point/goal perhaps? Further, the early 20th century was also a period of rapid technological change that allowed for all kinds productivity gains, which is unlikely to be repeated: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...
    - ty6853 2y ago
      >Also without Medicare, minimal Social Security, without an airforce, without a standing army, and desires for a ≥350-ship navy That's the point.