While we were all paying attention to the potential Office on Congressional Ethics debacle, the GOP was busy using the cover. Courtesy the Washington Post.
Washington Post said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
House GOP revives obscure rule allowing paycuts to $1 for individual federal workers
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
balladofwindfishes
Member
I doubt this would be Constitutional if they ever actually tried to target specific people.
obijkenobi
Member
Do you think the person that Trump and the GOP will appoint to the Supreme Court will agree?
acheron_xl
Member
I wonder if that's why Trump wanted lists of specific people in agencies that run counter to his ideologies. If firing them would look bad, just make them want to leave by paying them nothing.
I could see Trump and his Republican minions try to target agencies that refuse to provide names for people working on climate change and terrorism by invoking this rule.
"You won't give us what we want, we won't give you what you want. $1 for everyone in your agency."
It doesn't make any sense, but I put nothing past them at this point.
"You won't give us what we want, we won't give you what you want. $1 for everyone in your agency."
It doesn't make any sense, but I put nothing past them at this point.
BronsonLee
Member
Yeah this screams 'we're not firing you, we're just using this loophole to make you work for 1 dollar'
UnemployedVillain
Member
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
Lord Frieza
Member
Exactly my thoughts. Heh, and all those people thinking it was an over-reaching to expect that list they wanted for the domestic terrorist people was malice in nature. Pretty obvious what this is all about now. Odds are they won't be able to actually get this going, but you can see the long game they were trying to play.
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
This is so overtly evil that I have a hard time even comprehending how someone could do this.
Like, holy shit.
Like, holy shit.
Shake Appeal
Member
"Starve the beast!"
"Uh, no, the beast is actually all of us because of our 21st-century interdependent economy you fu--"
*dead*
"Uh, no, the beast is actually all of us because of our 21st-century interdependent economy you fu--"
*dead*
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
There really is no low that the GOP won't sink to.
Seems like every day they're cooking up another doomsday scenario.
Seems like every day they're cooking up another doomsday scenario.
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.
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.
Lord Frieza
Member
I mean...is that...better?
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Still seems extremely heinous to me.
The GOP essentially wants to ruin agencies that they don't agree with.
BronsonLee
Member
He's making the point that it's more to crush an entire department vs keep them working for no pay
However this is probably 1$ more than Trump usually pays people tbh
Circumventing civil service protections to gut agencies because they adhere to realities that conflict with your political ideologies seems pretty heinous to me.
GoldenEye 007
Member
No, it's pretty evil. Hanging these pay cuts over people's heads because they are researching reality and the incoming administration rejects reality and science.
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
As usual, the GOP shows why they need to be exterminated from the halls of power.
I believe that is the intention, yes.
There's an annual survey of federal employees' that will be fielded in the first half of 2017 and reported a few months later. The results have generally been trending upward the past few years. I expect big drops in satisfaction and motivation in 2017.
Why? Trump will probably be re-elected. I've lost all faith in the average American to do the right thing when it comes to politics.
ShinRPGamer
Member
You assume the average American has the brains to do the sane thing after they fucked up the first time. You are giving your own people way too much credit there.
Netherscourge
Banned
Wouldn't "Federal employees" include FBI/CIA agents, active duty soldiers, congress, the President and everything in between?
While I agree that historically it's more likely for him to win reelection. Trump is not a traditional candidate. Democrats will be much much more motivated in 2020. I don't normally get involved with working for candidates, just donating, but I've already started.
Trump will lose in 2020 and hopefully prison or bankruptcy will soon follow.
Bornstellar
Member
While the possible implications are disturbing, is this also not applicable to Trump saying he'll be president for a 1$ salary?
Don't jinx it, man. Come on
Active duty soldiers, congress, and the President are not considered federal employees.
You're assuming elections won't be outlawed by then!
Man, what a bleak future.
Netherscourge
Banned
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.
Host Samurai
Member
But aren't both parties the same? Oh and EMAILS
Somebody needs to make a thread compiling all of Trumps planned changes.
Somebody needs to make a thread compiling all of Trumps planned changes.
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.
Host Samurai
Member
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.
So it hasn't been thought of till the late 1800's. Make America 1890 again
They've been working on it for years. Now they have their inside man. Who just so happens to be a Putin addict.
What could go wrong?
Edit: obligatory: Fuck these people.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked