6 ms·

What I'm reading then is that it's not about actually about workforce spending or federal debt at all. That's sort of what I expected. Curious if you have thou

What I'm reading then is that it's not about actually about workforce spending or federal debt at all. That's sort of what I expected. Curious if you have thoughts on Elon Musk's conflicts of interest? Both as a large federal contractor, and as someone with business dependence on China. Also the breaking of federal records laws (e.g. using signal and not retaining any other records).

rayiner 2y ago
It is about spending and trust over spending. I was skeptical Elon was going to find meaningful cuts. But the again I thought USAID was spending $50 billion on things like vaccines for kids in Bangladesh. Then I find out that it’s funding anti-Trump groups like Kristol’s (https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637 https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637) and left-wing government destabilization abroad. So now I want Elon’s nerds to trace every payment and find out how much USAID money went to “democracy” NGOs to do stuff like encourage the recent overthrow of the government in Bangladesh. The narrative emerging here is that the same permanent-government gremlins that we always knew bankrolled efforts to destabilize the rest of the world are perfectly okay with turning those same tactics inward if the wrong candidate wins the election. If we can put these people out of business and find even $25 billion a year in the process it will be worth it. I don’t care about Elon’s conflicts. Worst thing from that is we get a giant EV credit next year. I’m much more worried about the conflict from federal employees who overwhelmingly support one party funneling federal money to aligned NGOs.
- apawloski 2y ago
  This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people are willing to accept and support crazy things: conflicted/unqualified leaders, the sacrifice of American influence and stability, the alienation of our allies, the purposeful cost-raising for American consumers. What matters most apparently is the culture war. It's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it here -- so you're welcome to the final word if you want it -- but I think the feeling that resonates with me in these conversations is "I don't care about the law or other consequences as long as I get my way." That feels bad to me. And when people making those points disagree with me on it -- this week it's justification to kill USAID and give treasury control to Musk, next week it will be the destruction of the department of education, soon it will be ignoring the 14th amendment of the constitution -- it's hard to tell if they aren't being honest with me or if they aren't being honest with themselves.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s39.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration. That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences. This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Minorities have no rights in your conception of democracy except what they can defend by force. You really think that’s the big picture take of the Federalist papers?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 2y ago
        The divergence of civil servants from the public on issues like affirmative action or immigration go to policy preferences, not rights. Individual rights are enforced primarily by courts in any event.
        selimthegrim 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

It is about spending and trust over spending. I was skeptical Elon was going to find meaningful cuts. But the again I thought USAID was spending $50 billion on things like vaccines for kids in Bangladesh. Then I find out that it’s funding anti-Trump groups like Kristol’s (https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637 https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1886647920566636637) and left-wing government destabilization abroad. So now I want Elon’s nerds to trace every payment and find out how much USAID money went to “democracy” NGOs to do stuff like encourage the recent overthrow of the government in Bangladesh. The narrative emerging here is that the same permanent-government gremlins that we always knew bankrolled efforts to destabilize the rest of the world are perfectly okay with turning those same tactics inward if the wrong candidate wins the election. If we can put these people out of business and find even $25 billion a year in the process it will be worth it. I don’t care about Elon’s conflicts. Worst thing from that is we get a giant EV credit next year. I’m much more worried about the conflict from federal employees who overwhelmingly support one party funneling federal money to aligned NGOs.

apawloski 2y ago
This is the part that I'm so surprised about. It turns out that people don't actually care about the law when it's inconvenient. And it turns out that people are willing to accept and support crazy things: conflicted/unqualified leaders, the sacrifice of American influence and stability, the alienation of our allies, the purposeful cost-raising for American consumers. What matters most apparently is the culture war. It's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it here -- so you're welcome to the final word if you want it -- but I think the feeling that resonates with me in these conversations is "I don't care about the law or other consequences as long as I get my way." That feels bad to me. And when people making those points disagree with me on it -- this week it's justification to kill USAID and give treasury control to Musk, next week it will be the destruction of the department of education, soon it will be ignoring the 14th amendment of the constitution -- it's hard to tell if they aren't being honest with me or if they aren't being honest with themselves.
- rayiner 2y ago
  This is about upholding the highest law. The Framers intended the executive branch to be responsive to elections. Federalist 39 spends a lot of time analyzing the best way for people with authority in the “administration” to be appointed by the politically accountable President and confirmed by the politically accountable senate. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s39.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s.... The Constitution requires that voters must be able to effectively change government policy through the election of the president. It does not envision presidential elections as being some mere signal provided as an input to a permanent administration. That legal rule does not depend on voters’ motivations. If they want to deport all the illegal immigrants—an executive action within the discretion of the president—that’s their prerogative. How civil servants feel about that is immaterial. Voters’ cultural and policy preferences must win out. And the problem we have now is that, regardless of who wins the elections, the government remains overwhelmingly controlled by a group with particular cultural preferences. This isn’t about “law” versus “culture war.” The culture war is simply the factual context in which a legal dispute of tremendous gravity is playing out.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Minorities have no rights in your conception of democracy except what they can defend by force. You really think that’s the big picture take of the Federalist papers?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The divergence of civil servants from the public on issues like affirmative action or immigration go to policy preferences, not rights. Individual rights are enforced primarily by courts in any event.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago