[flagged]
Also, the government is here to run services, for us, with the money we give it in the form of taxes.
Removing all government services in order to save money (and provide tax cuts to the 0.1% richest people and corps.) seems to be based in the belief that we are here to serve the people at the top. This is not the spirit of democracy.
Another notable fact is that the current leadership consists of people who are not known for healthy governance providing care and benefit for many. They are known for maximizing extraction, and shocking lack of compassion and understanding.
Besides the open racism and sadistic dickishness. Which, to be fair, we’re a part of the hatred and fear-based platform.
Such a minor case of course. But this is a microcosm of the entire problem. No one cares, no one is incentivized, no one represents the taxpayer. How does a US politician on a $175k salary become worth $80 million after 30 years in congress? The system is rigged, and the majority of the American people see themselves as suckers and are tired of it.
Which politician are we talking about here? Or are we being generic? From what I've seen, the majority of people in Congress started off rich because, well, you need to be rich (or at least rich-adjacent) to even consider running.
The only places that have him in the 10s of $M bracket look like spam content farms who've stolen the majority of their content from Wikipedia.
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/charles-schume...
[1] https://www.thisnation.com/politics/people/chuck-schumer-net...
Nowhere did I mention that accountability for government spending is a bad thing or that government spending is not out of control. Especially with military contracts.
Of course we should address overspending. Of course we should have accountability. Of course we should end the brazen insider trading, and end citizens united, and reform campaign financing.
Defunding USAID, defunding Medicare, deregulating profits on medications, defunding NPR etc. are none of these things and we all know it.
The Pentagon has been failing audit after audit. How come we are not starting with that? (Rhetorical question).
Subsidies for industries that don’t need subsidies.
Let’s not pretend that the waste is in the essential historically underfunded services.
EM or DT do not have the authority to reverse that funding decision outside the democratic / congressional process.
So what keeps Trump from unilaterally deciding not to spend money duly appropriated by congress?
I had to think about this.
What's the point/goal of giving the power of the purse to Congress if it's actually just a slush fund?
If Congress can allocate money for the courts, but the executive is the one tasked with execution (DOJ) and decided not spend that, we are saying there is no real need to balance power.
So if there's no authority to direct spending, what prevents the executive from spending money on replacing the courts and Congress?
Congress does have the authority to direct spending, but doesn’t always do so.
Here’s an example appropriation for USAID:
> development assistance
> For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of sections 103, 105, 106, 214, and sections 251 through 255, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $3,000,000,000
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771...
If you look at the foreign assistance act it’s extremely broad. That’s how you end up with USAID giving money to AFL-CIO to fund labor movements in Bangladesh. They get three billion dollars to spend however they can creatively fit under the general categories of things like “education.” So what supervisory role has Congress really left itself over that money?
Let's assume it is all one giant slushfund for the executive. What now enables checks on the slush funds use?
If Congress says "here's 10 billion to spend on X and Y but not on Z. And the executive says "nah, I'm going to actually not spend it on X, but Y and Z sure." So Congress says "ok here's half as much so you can't spend it on Z "
Executive replies "now I spend it all on Z"
Congratulations you've discovered a defunding spiral I guess?
My point is that, having given a large slush fund to USAID with only vague guidance on how to spend it, they’ve put the ball in the President’s court. The President isn’t obligated to spend the money on the priorities career USAID people want to spend it on. He can spend it on whatever smart lawyers can justify as being within the broad terms of the corresponding appropriation bills. Congress never specifically appropriated money for grants to bankroll left wing labor organizations in Bangladesh. The executive did that and the executive can undo that. And they can see where they stand in terms of total program funding after all that’s done.
And it’ll take time to see whether he’s going to end up spending less than appropriated for statutory programs, such that there’s an impoundment. Remember, USAID isn’t going away, it’s keeping 600 or so mission critical employees.
Right, he tried that last term with the wall and didn't win in the courts.
> My point is that, having given a large slush fund to USAID with only vague guidance on how to spend it,
How certain are you that it's as vague as you claim?
>The President isn’t obligated to spend the money on the priorities career USAID people want to spend it on. He can spend it on whatever smart lawyers can justify as being within the broad terms of the corresponding appropriation bills.
I think it's a large assumption to say the POTUS can spend the money for an organization on lawers meant to defend dismantling the organization.
What statues do you believe enable this? >Congress never specifically appropriated money for grants to bankroll left wing labor organizations in Bangladesh. The executive did that and the executive can undo that.
Not familiar with the specifics you are waving at, do you have more information?
> And it’ll take time to see whether he’s going to end up spending less than appropriated for statutory programs, such that there’s an impoundment.
So logically the lawyers mentioned earlier by you, could demand a fee sum large enough to ensure the spending, and try to prevent any impoundment?
> Remember, USAID isn’t going away, it’s keeping 600 or so mission critical employees.
You don't have to take all the water away from a tree to kill it, but take away enough water, for long enough time, and it can only wither and rot.
Sidestepping this, which is happening left and right currently, is democracy failing.
And the Trump administration was smart to start with USAID. It's been an arm of the CIA since it's origination. Look at the role it played in the Vietnam War - arming of a militia under the guise of "development". It also was the org that funded the fake "polio vaccination campaign" in the search for Bin Laden.
And it's funny to see the pearl clutching going on when only 3-4 years ago there were numerous press reports on just how unaccountable USAID was to the federal government.
2. It is of legal question whether Musk should have been confirmed by congress given the the access and power he is wielding.
Yes, Trump was democratically elected and yes, Musk was appointed, but democracy requires the rule of law to be followed or the whole thing starts to fall apart.
Winning the popular vote does not make you dictator. It makes you president within the existing laws.
You want to change the way things are done? That's fine. You have a mandate to do so based on the vote? Also fine. Do it within the existing laws.
There are laws in a number of areas (firing federal employees, impoundment, spoils system, probably others that don't come to my mind immediately) that Trump seems to be violating. He doesn't get to do that. He has to stay within the law, because it's the law that makes him president instead of "most popular guy this year".
And it doesn't seem to be that he just missed a few steps. He doesn't seem to care about the law at all. That's democracy failing - having a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants, and the law doesn't bind him. That's a president who's trying to be a king.
Now, that's kind of a "vibe" thing. It's not one action; it's more a perception of the cumulation of all his actions. Which means that other people can perceive it differently from how I do, because they assign different weights to his actions. But to me, the trend of the whole is troubling.
> root out corruption and waste, fraud, and abuse
That is not what they are doing by most accounts.
The same reason that one of the DOGE youth got fired, not because he is a racist, but because his racism remark got caught.
Personally, I like the bold approach. I really dislike Trump and would never ever consider voting for the guy. This isn’t the outcome that I hoped for, but I appreciate that he’s trying to do something at least, even if it fails. Only 34% of Americans trust the government for a lot of valid reasons. We’ve been at war for pretty much forever. We keep innerworkings of government secret for ‘national security’. And, I have never liked how we influence elections and governments around the world. It always felt so gross.
I’ve done work with USAID and have seen first hand their ineffective humanitarian aid programs. It’s not surprising that they haven’t made much progress in over 50 years when you consider the perverse incentives.