3 ms·

Large organizations suffer from rot. They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the

by mc32 2y ago

Large organizations suffer from rot. They need periodic retrenchment -in the private sector there are economic pressures to re-organize; in the government the tendency is for greater taxation. Throwing out the baby along with the bath water is not the answer but neither is the status quo.

tootie 2y ago
[flagged]
- sam345 2y ago
  Agencies are not a separate branch they are part of the executive branch. There is no separation of power issue.
  - empyrrhicist 2y ago
    You don't get to just pretend these things aren't created and funded by congress, and that their operation hasn't been solidified and formed over decades and decades through interaction with the judicial branch as well. The executive branch has an obligation to execute the laws - they don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose how to do that without constraint. Period. If these were somehow created by executive action, it would be a completely different conversation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
    - mc32 2y ago
      Apparently Mayorkas didn't have to execute the laws if he didn't want to and moreover got to decide if he wanted to subvert them as well by granting asylum to whomever asked as well as providing transport, guidance, etc., etc. Democrats make people upset by not applying laws --all the thievery etc that AGs went light on, etc., and the Republicans make people upset by applying laws to a greater extent (being tougher on crime and deportations --though Obama wasn't a laggard in the latter either)
      - empyrrhicist 2y ago
        No - bullshit. It is not defensible to conflate the dismantling of entire agencies and departments with discretionary enforcement. "But but but Democrats" isn't a response when we are dealing with COMPLETELY unprecedented actions.
        mc32 2y ago
        They're not being dismantled. Funding is being paused while they are audited --and the audits are showing very concerning waste, potential fraud and are being reorganized under a different department. This is a good thing. They should not get to waste our tax dollars without oversight and fraud detection.
        empyrrhicist 2y ago
        > They're not being dismantled. O RLY? You might try reading literally anything the people involved are putting out there. They're open about trying to shut down USAID and the department of Education, and interfering so deeply in places like NIH is beyond the plausible legal limit (which is part of the point during an authoritarian takeover). https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/usaid-elon-musk-donald-trump/78175895007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/usai... USAID was codified by 22 U.S.C. 6501 > and the audits are showing very concerning waste Giant flashing neon sign saying "Citation Needed". Visible from fucking space. I know that HN is supposed to be a place of reasoned discourse, but your takes are so removed from reality I can't take you seriously. I hold your authoritarian apologism in utter contempt and disgust. Be better.
        mc32 2y ago
        I think everyone should be concerned how the government is spending our money and every government administration should have its spending audited and any graft, fraud and waste eliminated with a waste-0 initiative. This should be transparent to the voters. We should know how they are spending our money and where. The purpose of the government agencies isn't to be a jobs program.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > Trump and Musk are actively destroying the separation of powers of the branches of government. I'm afraid that's just factually wrong. What Trump and Musk are doing is called impoundment of appropriated funds[1] and it is Constitutional and consistent with the separation of powers, and was in fact considered one of the powers of the President until 1974. In 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act, making it illegal (but not unconstitutional), and that will no doubt be fought in the Courts, but it seems likely the the current Supreme Court will overturn the act, making what Trump and Musk are doing legal. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
  - tootie 2y ago
    Click through to the Train decision. It has been firmly held that per the Article 1 separation of powers, Congress determines how money is spent. Impoundment is used (and it certainly is used routinely) only when the executive determines that a disbursement will not serve it's intended purpose. Quote from Train, "the president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment". I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process. This goes right back to his first impeachment where we got a clear lesson on this. Congress authorized money for the defense of Ukraine. It went through multiple mandatory controls with DoD and other agencies to ensure the specific disbursement was likely to reach it's intended target. Those controls could have triggered impoundment if they found any flaws, but they did not. Then it was stopped by the president expressly to extort a political favor from Ukraine. In this case, the House voted to impeach and the Senate refused to convict likely due to political loyalty. Now that he knows Congress likely won't stop him, he can abuse his authority as he pleases.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      > I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process. The Train decision came nearly 200 years after Article 1 was written, and during that time impoundment was practiced by Presidents beginning with Thomas Jefferson. Overturning Train would in fact restore the original meaning of Article 1.

by mc32 2y ago

tootie 2y ago

[flagged]

sam345 2y ago
Agencies are not a separate branch they are part of the executive branch. There is no separation of power issue.
- empyrrhicist 2y ago
  You don't get to just pretend these things aren't created and funded by congress, and that their operation hasn't been solidified and formed over decades and decades through interaction with the judicial branch as well. The executive branch has an obligation to execute the laws - they don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose how to do that without constraint. Period. If these were somehow created by executive action, it would be a completely different conversation. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.
  - mc32 2y ago
    Apparently Mayorkas didn't have to execute the laws if he didn't want to and moreover got to decide if he wanted to subvert them as well by granting asylum to whomever asked as well as providing transport, guidance, etc., etc. Democrats make people upset by not applying laws --all the thievery etc that AGs went light on, etc., and the Republicans make people upset by applying laws to a greater extent (being tougher on crime and deportations --though Obama wasn't a laggard in the latter either)
    - empyrrhicist 2y ago
      No - bullshit. It is not defensible to conflate the dismantling of entire agencies and departments with discretionary enforcement. "But but but Democrats" isn't a response when we are dealing with COMPLETELY unprecedented actions.
      - mc32 2y ago
        They're not being dismantled. Funding is being paused while they are audited --and the audits are showing very concerning waste, potential fraud and are being reorganized under a different department. This is a good thing. They should not get to waste our tax dollars without oversight and fraud detection.
        empyrrhicist 2y ago
        > They're not being dismantled. O RLY? You might try reading literally anything the people involved are putting out there. They're open about trying to shut down USAID and the department of Education, and interfering so deeply in places like NIH is beyond the plausible legal limit (which is part of the point during an authoritarian takeover). https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/usaid-elon-musk-donald-trump/78175895007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/usai... USAID was codified by 22 U.S.C. 6501 > and the audits are showing very concerning waste Giant flashing neon sign saying "Citation Needed". Visible from fucking space. I know that HN is supposed to be a place of reasoned discourse, but your takes are so removed from reality I can't take you seriously. I hold your authoritarian apologism in utter contempt and disgust. Be better.
        mc32 2y ago
        I think everyone should be concerned how the government is spending our money and every government administration should have its spending audited and any graft, fraud and waste eliminated with a waste-0 initiative. This should be transparent to the voters. We should know how they are spending our money and where. The purpose of the government agencies isn't to be a jobs program.
leereeves 2y ago
> Trump and Musk are actively destroying the separation of powers of the branches of government. I'm afraid that's just factually wrong. What Trump and Musk are doing is called impoundment of appropriated funds[1] and it is Constitutional and consistent with the separation of powers, and was in fact considered one of the powers of the President until 1974. In 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act, making it illegal (but not unconstitutional), and that will no doubt be fought in the Courts, but it seems likely the the current Supreme Court will overturn the act, making what Trump and Musk are doing legal. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
- tootie 2y ago
  Click through to the Train decision. It has been firmly held that per the Article 1 separation of powers, Congress determines how money is spent. Impoundment is used (and it certainly is used routinely) only when the executive determines that a disbursement will not serve it's intended purpose. Quote from Train, "the president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment". I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process. This goes right back to his first impeachment where we got a clear lesson on this. Congress authorized money for the defense of Ukraine. It went through multiple mandatory controls with DoD and other agencies to ensure the specific disbursement was likely to reach it's intended target. Those controls could have triggered impoundment if they found any flaws, but they did not. Then it was stopped by the president expressly to extort a political favor from Ukraine. In this case, the House voted to impeach and the Senate refused to convict likely due to political loyalty. Now that he knows Congress likely won't stop him, he can abuse his authority as he pleases.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    > I have no doubt Trump is attempting to trigger a new case in an effort to overturn Train and he may well succeed, but he'll likely end up overturning Article 1 in the process. The Train decision came nearly 200 years after Article 1 was written, and during that time impoundment was practiced by Presidents beginning with Thomas Jefferson. Overturning Train would in fact restore the original meaning of Article 1.