Catholic Relief Services imploding.
But at least we'll be able to afford the coming massive tax cuts for the billionaire class, eh?
Link: https://www.ncronline.org/news/exclusive-catholic-relief-services-lays-staff-cuts-programs-after-usaid-shakeup?fbclid=IwY2xjawIR_DVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWJdP21GJvbt4Ce2qbOrM3cF_v96cvpRhnXOc2jctEt6oS_zYSXL6ahy0g_aem_bUaf7C_nbt07wvfbNbpsMw
Replies to: Catholic Relief Services imploding.
It’s sad that the Democrats were so unscrupulous with spending and now CRS is collateral damage
(no message)
Read the audience.
Nothing prevents you from upping your contribution to CRS.
(no message)
He could double it, & it would still be the same. I'm sure he's really concerned about CRS.
(no message)
Indeed. But also, Rubio has promised that worthwhile functions will be preserved either in USAID or
in a different department if USAID is entirely eliminated..
This is a classic example of pointing to an actual function within a vastly corrupt operation in order to justify protecting the corruption.
Notice that Chris has not brought any criticism for the many abuses within USAID.
He merely tells us how amazing it is and that we can't live without it, yet we now have proof that it has been corrupted in so many, many ways.
If Chris were to be taken seriously, he would acknowledge problems and suggest solutions for purging the corruption but preserving the entity. Instead, he denies each example of corruption, and will continue to do so no matter how much evidence is brought forth (Rule #14).
Are you aware that Congress decides how taxpayers’ money is allocated?
It’s a pretty basic tenet in American Government.
So Congress decided each USAID project? Approved every one of them???
That is hard to believe, especially when USAID refuses audit requests from Congress.
Congress provides appropriations to federal agencies and projects as part of the fiscal budget.
The budget becomes a law, once passed and signed by the President.
Can Trump ask Congress to not fund USAID in forthcoming fiscal year? Of course. But that conversation is passed to Congress as part of the budget. Trump can veto the proposed budget.
But he cannot unilaterally terminate appropriations that were previously enacted.
Otherwise, it would be fiscal chaos. Government projects (to include contractors and employees) would never have any reliance in moving forward.
The POTUS isn't doing this,the Dept head chosen by POTUS & approved by congress to oversee does
That is exactly why Marco Rubio very sagaciously appointed himself as the director of USAID which falls under his jurisdiction.
See you in Court.
Oh absolutely. Expected it. I refer you back to my earlier post & "provide" pertinent quote but you
are under no obligation to read it as we have now covered about the term "provide".
"Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio - head of the State Dept (under which USAID resides)- approved by congress has placed himself as director of USAID. He will re allocate the money into the tax payer account by not spending it until congress can vote to defund them completely in a month. In the meantime, Rubio has promised to continue legitimately useful funding in the meantime (such as legit medical aid). Should you somehow flip a few R's, it won't matter - congress can vote to fund the money, but the head of USAID can allocate at his discretion as has always been the case - including back to the taxpayers.
By the time you work your way through the courts, congress will have already decided the issue and the case will be dropped by the courts. If you make that far since you will be arguing to a court that the POTUS does not have the right via his State Dept head approved by congress who has overall responsibility of USAID to prevent the American people from having their money wasted.
Boom."
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=233462
You’re doing well so far.
Judge shopping on a different topic?! Either party can find an intially friendly judge - that's why
judicial appointments are so hotly contested. So this is also unsurprising - it is the only card the Dems have to play, and I expect them to play it. Things go up from the initial judge. Usually the party has chosen a jurisdiction that gets them up as high as possible (9th Circuit is always Dems fav, right?).
Ultimately, key issues will go to SCOTUS if worthy of debate. Again, I expect it.
I haven't made up my mind on this particular issue yet, but I am worried about it's vulnerability to abuse.
We will see on that one.
Unlike Justices Alito and Thomas, 95% of the judiciary aren’t bought, and call balls ‘n strikes.
(no message)
Ummm ya., sure. Then you're truly screwed, right? May as well save yourself the trouble.
(no message)
Ned, the smell from the light bulb coming on over conors head isn't ozone. It is fear.
(no message)
Too often Congress has ceded the specifics of its legislation to the executive branch.
That is why we have a humongous administrative state AND why sooooo much of what is "allocated" is wasted.
Link: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/dec/05/michael-rulli/biden-law-gave-states-75-billion-for-ev-charging-3/
Not that simple and you know it.
Did Congress vote to cancel college loan debt?
Congress should have to approve all spending, but that's not how it works.
Link: https://www.cato.org/blog/reining-trillions-executive-spending
Did congress decide to fund LGBTQ operas or Trump's Impeachment? Show me the vote.
(no message)
The USAID funding was part of 2024 budget, which is funded through mid March.
Congress has not yet reached an agreement for Fiscal Year 2025.
Until Congress defunds USAID, Trump cannot do so.
Think of the havoc if Presidents (or their shadow designee) unilaterally cut off funding for building bridges? Or research grants? Or anything funded by Congress?
Doesn’t that strike you as unconstitutional?
Please provide a link to the 2024 budget passed by Congress.
Pretty sure there is no such thing.
Here.
(no message)
Link: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/budget-us-government-fiscal-year-2024
No specific allocation requirements mentioned for USAID - burden of proof is squarely on you now.
(no message)
Here.
Not specific allocations &wording says congress "delivers, "provides',& "invests" money. It doesn't
say that that this money must be spent, nor does it mention any obligation of the department to do anything specifically, nor does it mention any obligation to spend it.
Congress "delivers" money to the department - thanks. The head of the dept will decide how best to use it.
Congress "provides" money to the department- ok, we don't need it all. Congress may choose to provide less next time.
Congress "invests" money in the causes of the dept - if they think it is not a good investment, they can choose to allocate less if they deem it proper. The very definition of the word investment implies an uncertain outcome.
I'm surprised that a lawyer is having such a hard time with this.
Seems like they did a bad job of writing this up if they wanted specific obligations honored.
You specifically claimed congress decides "allocation". Now you say they just generally fund it. So
this is something quite different. Congress determines funding, but it has never gotten into specific allocation within the USAID budget - that has been done by an unelected bureaucrat.
Allocation of the funds generally approved by congress has been decided an unelected bureaucrat within USAID (who has shown a pattern of corruption and strong preference to the Democrat Party). Certainly the POTUS is far more worthy as the highest elected official in the land to choose allocation rather than an unelected bureaucrat!.
Trump has every right (and in fact a legal obligation explicitly described in his oath of office) to prevent harm to the American people - this includes misuse of tax payer money. Yet, even so, it isn't Trump himself who will be re-allocating the funds for now,,,,,,,,,
Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio - head of the State Dept (under which USAID resides)- approved by congress has placed himself as director of USAID. He will re allocate the money into the tax payer account by not spending it until congress can vote to defund them completely in a month. In the meantime, Rubio has promised to continue legitimately useful funding in the meantime (such as legit medical aid). Should you somehow flip a few R's, it won't matter - congress can vote to fund the money, but the head of USAID can allocate at his discretion as has always been the case - including back to the taxpayers.
By the time you work your way through the courts, congress will have already decided the issue and the case will be dropped by the courts. If you make that far since you will be arguing to a court that the POTUS does not have the right via his State Dept head approved by congress who has overall responsibility of USAID to prevent the American people from having their money wasted.
Boom.
Many edits d/t poor typing - done now.
Can Trump defund congressional approved Infrastructure projects in blue states?
Remember the 2022 Infrastructure Act, whereby Congress authorized projects in both red and blue states.
Can Trump cut off funding for those projects in blue states that are currently under development or construction?
Whole different topic. Are we done here? You seem to have conceded. Btw....
....Rubio could also choose to use the money for equal and opposite conservative projects, but he won't because he and Trump are not corrupt.
Congress will strip USAID down to a slim version of its' former self doing only the good that it was meant....or it will be shuttered completely.
I am still waiting for you to answer simple questions about presidential powers.
Why would Congress ever negotiate a fiscal budget if it is meaningless?
Under your America, the dictator spends the taxpayers kitty as he pleases.
1)Congress funds2) Dept det's allocations3)POTUS & congress choose Dept heads4) Dept heads choose
to manage their departments in the way that they see fit. In some cases, they are less responsible and provide no oversight of unelected people that they have chosen to run various subdivisions of the dept. In other cases, they may choose to take a direct role if they feel that it is important.
Marco Rubio is the SoS. He is the head of the dept that oversees USAID. He has chosen to take over as its' director. he has chosen to freeze all wasteful and corrupt spending not involving legitimate aid projects. He is under no obligation to carry out his job or the funds allocated to him as congress never put anything in their funding bill specifying that he should.
The money saved from wasteful causes could be chosen to be given as an aid package to tax paying citizens. It could be used to provide aid to US citizens on the southern border by funding a protective wall. If congress does not approve of this, they can cut funding or they can provide specifics (good luck with that one in any adminstration as the congressmen would have to tie their names to these loathesome wastes of tax payer money - Dems were being purposely ignorant of what they knew was going on).
No presidential powers issue here whatsoever.
Again - Boom!
"Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress?"...the attached article sheds
light on the issue...along with some history behind it...
Link: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-a-president-refuse-to-spend-funds-approved-by-congress
No.
(no message)
it was formed by executive action. he can do what he wants
(no message)
This cuts to the chase. USAID was formed by EO by JFK, and therefore can be eliminated by EO as well
That is the law. We have seen it over and over again in the past two decades.
It would seem that the libs here are fighting over scraps - the last of the end of year unspent 2024 budget appropriations (which is still a lot, but not with how the spend money).
He was a big Clinton Foundation guy, too.
(no message)
Tellingly, if you look at a Ven Diagram of people sitting on boards of USAID,WHO, WEF,....
...Gates Foundation, UNRWA, Clinton Foundation, etc - there is an incredible amount of overlap of the same names.
Meanwhile, how was the Rally for Bureaucracy?
(no message)
Get real, Cole...Bureaucracies exist in every single business, not just government...they are
fundamental and necessary to the conduct of both types of organizations...so you don't just "Fire" entire swaths of your organizations without any thought as to weather you are helping or hurting the efficiency of the enterprise.
Trump, Musk and their whole crew are true idiots.
Link: https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/what-is-bureaucracy
People in my business don't spend money that the CEO prohibits them from spending. Accountability.
If they do that, they get fired immediately. It's that simple. You don't want government bureaucracy to be accountable because you don't really support democracy, you support autocracy.
You accuse Trump of being an autocrat, which is funny, because people don't normally think of "an elected person who wants to return power to the people" as an autocrat.
Here's more info on the Firing of Federal Employees...
...an except by a GOP Representative...
------------------
We want the bad employees who are gaming the system and perpetuating this culture within the federal government to find somewhere else to work.
REP. JEFF MILLER, R-FLA.
The House did not wait to see the test results before passing in September a bill to expand the firing authority included in the VA law to all departments. The measure floundered in the Senate, but will likely face a much friendlier reception with the chamber’s new Republican majority.
The Democratic aide said her party wants to work with Republicans to better enforce the laws already on the books as well as move legislation to “improve the process” and “make things go more quickly.” She stopped short of endorsing a VA reform expansion.
“That’s why these civil service protections are in place, because unfortunately there will be scandals,” she says. “These protections were put in place to prevent the sort of automatic knee-jerk reaction of ‘OK, let’s fire everybody’ based on political pressure or public outrage.”
Other possible reforms include giving agencies more flexibility in docking pay or considering performance when reducing staff as a result of budget cuts. Blair says the most important thing is harnessing the current momentum to get the conversation started. In each of his last three budget proposals, President Obama has suggested creating a commission to find ways to modernize the civil service, including “personnel performance and motivation.” The commission has yet to receive funding.
Blair adds that even if civil service protections are lifted or loosened, the system will be self-regulated, because good employers will know that “wholesale getting rid of employees” is disruptive to the workplace.
The goal, after all, has never been to punish the overwhelming majority of federal employees committed to public service. “We want good employees to be protected,” Miller says. “We want the bad employees who are gaming the system and perpetuating this culture within the federal government to find somewhere else to work."
-------------------
'Co-Presidents' Musk and Trump don't like Rules for them...only for others.
Link: https://www.govexec.com/feature/firing-line/
Why can't you at least use your browser to ask the question of how federal employees are managed?
...from the attached paper...it's not as if no one has ever thought of this before...there are actual "5 CFR" regulations in place...
--------------------
One of the biggest challenges facing Federal sector managers and supervisors is taking
swift action to manage employees who are not meeting performance expectations and not
contributing to agency goals. Managers and supervisors may not be making full use of
the many options to deal with employees with performance or conduct issues. Managers
and supervisors may take actions against employees, up to and including removal from
Federal employment, for job performance deficiencies and/or misconduct.
This guidance provides agency human resources offices, managers, and supervisors with
a broad overview of the different tools that can be used to manage employees’ job
performance and address unacceptable performance or misconduct. This overview of
authorities under title 5, United States Code, is not meant to be a comprehensive guide
that addresses every possible incident of misconduct or performance problems as each
situation will vary depending on the facts involved. Also, individual agencies may have
unique statutory authorities and guidelines for addressing misconduct or performance
problems. However, it does highlight the tools generally available to Executive Branch
managers and supervisors for addressing misconduct or performance problems. You
should consult with your human resources office to determine which tools are applicable
to your agency.
-------------------
Basically, the Trump "Project 2025" crew doesn't want to 'waste time' respecting the rights of employees...and prefers an "Autocratic" approach. They are also lazy and ignorant of how our democracy works...which will end up biting them...especially in the Ballot Box.
Link: https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/Managing%20Federal%20Employees%27%20Performance%20Issues%20or%20Misconduct_0.pdf
Great, it won’t be able to assist illegals anymore.
(no message)
Mere collateral damage to making America great again. Maybe it would be better to just make America
good, but I digress.
I always thought Americans were a compassionate people, not emboldened by cruelty.
(no message)
You should appreciate the separation of church and state.
(no message)
I'm sure my Bishop will soon send a mass email ripe w/ outrage & disdain. Can't wait.
(no message)