Support NeoGAF

[Madness]

But nah, term limits for congressmen was something everyone became against. Fuck these fat cats. They don't give a shit about the average american but can hold cushy jobs for decades and make millions.

 

[TheOMan]

As I posted in the other thread, this decision is just...really unbelievable. Almost like they're doing to get a rise out of people.

 

[rjinaz]

Now we see why Trump was asking for names of federal employees in certain programs. Where's that poster claiming he was simply trying to learn of his allies and enemies lol

heh I remember that. Relax y'all. It's absolutely normal for Trump to want to know the names of everybody that disagree with him. The dude just wants to know all he can. It has nothing at all to do with him wanting to target people.

It's amazing how people continue to assume the best of Trump. I mean can people name one thing he has done his entire life that shows that he is worthy of such unwavering hopes of good intentions?

 

[VenomousCoffee]

*weeps softly*

 

[Kickz]

Isn't this so Trump will only get $1? It was one of the first things he was asked in that 60 minutes interview.

Yeah probably this. I doubt its anything like cutting random employees pay...

 

[WedgeX]

But nah, term limits for congressmen was something everyone became against. Fuck these fat cats. They don't give a shit about the average american but can hold cushy jobs for decades and make millions.

The reason, it appears, that the rule was shelved previously was because Congresspeople who had been there for a long time figured out that it was making work impossible.

The guy who proposed this, Morgan Griffith, is one of the newer members of Congress who was brought in during the Tea Party wave.

 

[Ominym]

Isn't this so Trump will only get $1? It was one of the first things he was asked in that 60 minutes interview.

There are easier ways than this to make sure Donald Trump only gets paid $1. He can give his salary to charity, for instance.

 

[Polari]

The civil service is fucking hopeless, mildly corrupt, an absolute waste of money etc.

The only problem is no-one's come up with a better alternative.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

The civil service is fucking hopeless, mildly corrupt, an absolute waste of money etc.

The only problem is no-one's come up with a better alternative.

Do you even know what 'the civil service' is?

My wife, for example, is a government employee. She does cancer therapy research. She could be effected by this rule if someone, for some reason, didn't like what she was doing.

 

[Bronx-Man]

5 days in and this is already a disaster.

 

[Polari]

Do you even know what 'the civil service' is?

My wife, for example, is a government employee. She does cancer therapy research. She could be effected by this rule if someone, for some reason, didn't like what she was doing.

Yeah. I work in it. Where was I advocating for this rule? What type of organisation does your wife work at? My work doesn't involve health, but I do find it odd that the federal government would directly employ researchers, as opposed to universities or medical companies, but that might just be my naivety in the area.

 

[Already Torn]

Election night 2020 is going to be a great, great night. Shame it's so far away.

"We're gonna bring coal back folks!"

 

[Strimei]

I continue to be amazed at just how cartoonishly evil the GOP is. Jesus Christ. How can anyone defend these assholes?

 

[Ac30]

There are easier ways than this to make sure Donald Trump only gets paid $1. He can give his salary to charity, for instance.

I hear he even has a foundation he can give it to. Man has thought of everything!

 

[hawk2025]

The title is awful.

It's about being able to slash the budgets of agencies or subdivisions within agencies to enact political agendas without having authority to eliminate the agency entirely via amendment and get around generous civil service protections of employees to achieve the goals.

It's not about indentured servitude or some other heinous evil.

You somehow made it sound worse, lol

 

[Unknown One]

As usual, the GOP shows why they need to be exterminated from the halls of power.

That's too good even for them. Put them all in prison to rot until death.

 

[Ogodei]

So it hasn't been thought of till the late 1800's. Make America 1890 again

When women couldn't vote, there was no federal income tax, no regulatory agencies of any kind, lynchings were commonplace, and predating the first anti-trust law.

Sounds about right.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Yeah. I work in it. Where was I advocating for this rule? What type of organisation does your wife work at? My work doesn't involve health, but I do find it odd that the federal government would directly employ researchers, as opposed to universities or medical companies, but that might just be my naivety in the area.

NIH. Pure research isn't all the profitable, so government has a long history in funding it.

 

[thepotatoman]

The rule is so old, and obscure, that there does not appear to be much modern literature about it.

Best I can find is an article from Catholic University "The Authorization-Appropriation Process in Congress: Formal Rules and Informal Practices":



Which states that anyone paid by the Treasury can be subject to this. Although after it was first enacted parts of the federal government were slowly made exempt. But whether those exemptions are still in effect with the rule's resurrection is a damned good question.

I've found some more literature.

General history:
http://democrats.appropriations.hou...ted/uploads/House_Approps_Concise_History.pdf

Legislation history:
https://books.google.com/books?id=n9qOEilqPNcC&pg=PA835

Op-ed of the era (final page):
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25100761.pdf

What's confusing is that the Holman rule still seems to be largely in place (Rule XXI 2b), only being limited by the newer limitations on the appropriation committee itself, which was put in place as a result of the rule.

The reduction in salary stuff is just a part of the defining of the general "retrenchment" word that has been in there since the Holman rule was introduced. For whatever reason, that clarification has been added and removed 4 different times, with the most recent removal in 1983.

There's a reason for every change. I don't know what that reason is and I definitely don't give republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motivations, but I really think it's misleading to make it sound like they're planning on using it to target individuals.

 

[The Albatross]

A majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment but opponents and supporters agree it puts agencies and the public on notice that their work is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.

This was already the case when the government shut down twice. Non-essential government employees weren't paid.

 

[AntoneM]

"See, pay freezes for an indefinite period don't look so bad now, do they?"

 

[Josh7289]

Election night 2020 is going to be a great, great night. Shame it's so far away.

Remember the 2004 election.

Take nothing for granted.

 

[Aylinato]

I've found some more literature.

General history:
http://democrats.appropriations.hou...ted/uploads/House_Approps_Concise_History.pdf

Legislation history:
https://books.google.com/books?id=n9qOEilqPNcC&pg=PA835

Op-ed of the era (final page):
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25100761.pdf

What's confusing is that the Holman rule still seems to be largely in place (Rule XXI 2b), only being limited by the newer limitations on the appropriation committee itself, which was put in place as a result of the rule.

The reduction in salary stuff is just a part of the defining of the general "retrenchment" word that has been in there since the Holman rule was introduced. For whatever reason, that clarification has been added and removed 4 different times, with the most recent removal in 1983.

There's a reason for every change. I don't know what that reason is and I definitely don't give republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motivations, but I really think it's misleading to make it sound like they're planning on using it to target individuals.

No they are going to target individuals, you are naive to think otherwise.

 

[SolarPowered]

Ahh, so THIS is why they wanted the names of everyone who worked on climate change

Exactly

I read the thread title and it only took me five seconds to think of the applications. We won't even need McCarthy type hearings since they'll quietly have their paychecks slashed to nothing basically forcing them to leave their jobs.

 

[AYF 001]

Exactly

I read the thread title and it only took me five seconds to think of the applications. We won't even need McCarthy type hearings since they'll quietly have their paychecks slashed to nothing basically forcing them to leave their jobs.

I'd like to think if they did make that move, that the people targeted wouldn't stay quiet about it. Perhaps it might even be possible for people to crowdfund their salaries (a good use for the dirty money from those income tax cuts).

Then again, maybe that would play into the whole narrative of "See, we don't need to raise taxes to run departments (we don't like)".

 

[Gattsu25]

I watched a fair bit of CNN tonight (ugh) and not a single mention of this.

Mission accomplished.

 

[grumble]

Do you think the person that Trump and the GOP will appoint to the Supreme Court will agree?

Yeah as soon as Ginsburg dies they don't have to worry about laws that aren't totally clear cut.

 

[Electric Eye]

Ahh, so THIS is why they wanted the names of everyone who worked on climate change

Oh it gets worse. I don't think gaf has posted this little gestapo nugget yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-04/house-gop-gives-staff-broader-new-powers-to-grill-witnesses

House GOP Gives Staff Broader New Powers to Grill Witnesses

A little-noticed provision approved Tuesday by the U.S. House dramatically expands the powers of committee staff to haul private citizens and government officials to Capitol Hill to be questioned under oath -- without any lawmakers present, in some cases.

The Republican-authored change included in a House rules package marks what Democrats says is a disturbing trend of giving staff powers that have traditionally been reserved for members of Congress.

“After spending six years demonstrating their eagerness to spend taxpayer money on wasteful, politically motivated witch hunts, Republicans are giving themselves additional tools to do more of the same," said Representative Louise Slaughter of New York, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.

"Freely handing out the power to compel any American to appear, sit in a room, and answer staff’s invasive questions on the record -- without members even being required to be present -- is truly unprecedented, unwarranted, and offensive,"

 

[SolarPowered]

I'd like to think if they did make that move, that the people targeted wouldn't stay quiet about it. Perhaps it might even be possible for people to crowdfund their salaries (a good use for the dirty money from those income tax cuts).

Then again, maybe that would play into the whole narrative of "See, we don't need to raise taxes to run departments (we don't like)".

Cutting some paychecks is far quieter than drawn out McCarthy-like hearings that would inevitably draw tons of media attention for weeks, months or years on end.

Oh it gets worse. I don't think gaf has posted this little gestapo nugget yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-04/house-gop-gives-staff-broader-new-powers-to-grill-witnesses

Can't wait for Trump and congress to legitimize "enhcanced" interrogation techniques even for citizens who haven't been charged with anything come his second term. We'll be living in a real life version of Orwell's 1984.

 

[benjipwns]

So it hasn't been thought of till the late 1800's. Make America 1890 again

The rule was last amended in 1983, it's been in place since 1876. It's just not been used.

Ah, ok.

So the next time we have a government "shutdown", it won't actually shut down. They'll just lower all government workers down to $0.00048 a hour until they pass their budgets, or they just quit due to lousy pay.

The government didn't shut down during past "shutdowns."

Yeah as soon as Ginsburg dies they don't have to worry about laws that aren't totally clear cut.

You trust Anthony Kennedy a lot more than I do.

 

[Dan]

Oh it gets worse. I don't think gaf has posted this little gestapo nugget yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-04/house-gop-gives-staff-broader-new-powers-to-grill-witnesses

What the shit?

We're going full-blown dystopia in no time at all.

 

[Electric Eye]

Yep say something offensive and they can drag you in for questioning and you can't do shit about it.

 

[benjipwns]

Can't wait for Trump and congress to legitimize "enhcanced" interrogation techniques even for citizens who haven't been charged with anything come his second term. We'll be living in a real life version of Orwell's 1984.

Just imagine if he claims he has the authority to kill American citizens without due process!

After killing two of them.

 

[Zaventem]

Sometimes i wonder how much they can spin shit like this to blame democrats but they'll find a way.

 

[Gattsu25]

Oh it gets worse. I don't think gaf has posted this little gestapo nugget yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-04/house-gop-gives-staff-broader-new-powers-to-grill-witnesses

That's concerning

I feel guilty for reading so many bleak dystopian sci-fi novels. I feel like I have been partially funding their legal strategy.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Oh it gets worse. I don't think gaf has posted this little gestapo nugget yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-04/house-gop-gives-staff-broader-new-powers-to-grill-witnesses

Fuck habeus corpus apparently?

 

[Electric Eye]

Sometimes i wonder how much they can spin shit like this to blame democrats but they'll find a way.

"and as we watch the country continue to burn just remember my fellow Americans that it was democrats who just stood by as we went mad with power."
- This message approved by Trump for president 2020

 

[KingBroly]

You all should start hoping Trump to tweet about this. His tweets are literally ultimate power right now. He could probably put another man on the moon in 3 years if he acted today.

 

[K.Jack]

Fuck the Republicans, fuck those who support them.

 

[FStubbs]

I continue to be amazed at just how cartoonishly evil the GOP is. Jesus Christ. How can anyone defend these assholes?

People want the GOP to screw people over in the government. Trump voters would cheer if Trump just came in day 1 and fired half the federal government.

You reach the point where you realize that the "general goodness of mankind" is a crock and a lot of people are simply evil.

 

[Yagharek]

When are they going to just straight up try and bring back slavery and not even the faux slavery we see in prisons but like, people being whipped in the streets and brought to market slavery?

Its not slavery. It's coercing people to quit so they can gut as many branches and agencies as they like when they become inconvenient. EPA, NASA, NOAA, basically any science org that goes against coal and oil lobby interests, finance regulators, and whomever else is a GOP donation source.

 

[benjipwns]

Trump voters would cheer if Trump just came in day 1 and fired half the federal government.

Half? I knew he'd be a huge mistake.