Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Benjamin Franklin

Trump's leadership team

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

 

He’s already under scrutiny for excessive travel spending.  He’s being looked at for getting a sweatheart deal on a nice condo from the wife of an energy lobbyist.  Now it’s reported that the EPA approved a pipeline project for that lobbyist’s firm, during the time of Pruitt staying at the condo.  Also, he reportedly used dept. resources (an EPA aide) to help him shop for housing.  And he gave big raises to his favorite aides after the White House declined his request for those raises.

 

So far Trump is standing by him, but I don’t think it will hold out.  Today even a couple of Republican congressmen publicly called for Pruitt to resign.

 

I’ll be surprised if he makes it to the weekend.

 

If true that is textbook corruption. Righties won’t acknowledge it though because it doesn’t include Obama or Clinton. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

If true that is textbook corruption. Righties won’t acknowledge it though because it doesn’t include Obama or Clinton. 

Oh, I doubt very much that's true.  I'd love to see this investigated, and if true as Cuga has outlined it, I'd love to see him a) prosecuted if any laws were broken, and b) removed from office.

 

If any of this is true, however, I think he'll be resigning as soon as his work on his current project is completed, and it seems to be wrapping up now.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if Trump wants to ignore the corruption least people begin to focus on his corruption. He really is trying to be the worst of the worst presidents. Pearl? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow is Friday...Usually the day Trump tweets a firing. 

 

 

2. SWAMPY SPENDING

6 minutes ago

EPA Officials Were Reassigned, Demoted After Questioning Pruitt's Spending: Report

 
 
 
 
pruittttt_snqlwm

REUTERS/AARON BERNSTEIN

 

After five Environmental Protection Agency officials—four of them high-ranking—raised concerns “about the spending and management" of Administrator Scott Pruitt, they were “reassigned or demoted, or requested new jobs in the past year," according to The New York Times. Their concerns ranged from Pruitt's expensive office furniture and first-class travel to requests for a 20-person security detail and a bulletproof vehicle. When the four career employees and one Trump political appointee—Kevin Chmielewski, Reginald E. Allen, Eric Weese, John E. Reeder, and John C. Martin—confronted Pruitt, he “bristled,” according to the report. Chmielewski, who was placed on administrative leave without pay, objected to a “$100,000-a-month charter aircraft membership” for Pruitt and a request to spend $70,000 on two desks in his office suite. Weese, who was head of Pruitt’s protective detail, was moved to another job that gave him less of a say in the administrator's spending. He'd objected to Pruitt’s request to “use flashing lights and sirens in his motorcade” to get to restaurant dinners in Washington, as well as his use of first-class air travel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Pruitt is safe after all.  For a while anyway.

 

Seems that the only way he gets forced out is if he does something really silly, like use his agency to actually protect the environment in some way.

 

:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

Looks like Pruitt is safe after all.  For a while anyway.

 

Seems that the only way he gets forced out is if he does something really silly, like use his agency to actually protect the environment in some way.

 

:D

 

He has been tasked with returning the organization to the role it was chartered for:  clean air and clean water.

 

The President is working to put an end to the unaccountable regulatory state, and to make congress responsible for the creation of law again.  This serves multiple purposes, including:  a return to the rule of law, making the government directly accountable to the citizens, subjecting Congressmen and Senators to voting records which has the potential to act as a defacto term limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

Looks like Pruitt is safe after all.  For a while anyway.

 

Seems that the only way he gets forced out is if he does something really silly, like use his agency to actually protect the environment in some way.

 

:D

 

Yeah. He should have weaponized the EPA to regulate companies which go against the policies of the administration and fine them, removing their environmental credits.  You know, something like the IRS did in the first years of 44?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

He has been tasked with returning the organization to the role it was chartered for:  clean air and clean water.

 

The President is working to put an end to the unaccountable regulatory state, and to make congress responsible for the creation of law again.  This serves multiple purposes, including:  a return to the rule of law, making the government directly accountable to the citizens, subjecting Congressmen and Senators to voting records which has the potential to act as a defacto term limit.

 

Ok, but that’s a generous take.  To me, it reads like Pruitt is doing the bidding of industry lobbies, over the interests of the people.  Obviously, Pruitt (and this administration) does not give credence to climate change for example, but I do.

 

What’s your take on the recent auto emissions roll back?  Did you think the previous goals were too ambitious or that they were handcuffing the car companies?

 

i get your point about putting the burden and responsibility where it belongs in terms of legislating these issues—I just don’t see it happening.  Congress is too inept.  I don’t think it’s inappropriate for an agency like this to have some control over setting standards.  Also, I think the real point of what is taking place now is deregulation, as much as the can get away with.

 

We have different perspectives on this.  I can see the value of being efficient and cutting unnecessary and burdensome policies.  I just worry that the EPA’s current agenda is too extreme.

 

Edited by Cugalabanza
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Ok, but that’s a generous take.  To me, it reads like Pruitt is doing the bidding of industry lobbies, over the interests of the people.  

 

It reads that way because it's being presented that way.  Take, for example, the recent "The EPA is no longer regulating methane emissions!" story.  The actual story: The EPA is reversing most (not all) of the 2016 rule on methane leaks and recapture from oil and natural gas production.

 

28 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

We have different perspectives on this.  I can see the value of being efficient and cutting unnecessary and burdensome policies.  I just worry that the EPA’s current agenda is too extreme.

 

 

It is certainly too extreme...for reasons relating back to your "inept Congress" observation: not exclusively, but most particularly, the Obama administration used regulation and executive action to sidestep the fact that their legislative agenda was stonewalled.  One of their main mechanisms for this was expanding the scope of bureaucratic oversight...so the EPA's agenda expands well beyond the initial legislative mandate, Title IX is abused to replace criminal prosecution of sexual assault, a DHS memo misleading people as granting legal residency is promulgated as immigration reform, etc...

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Ok, but that’s a generous take.  To me, it reads like Pruitt is doing the bidding of industry lobbies, over the interests of the people.  Obviously, Pruitt (and this administration) does not give credence to climate change for example, but I do.

 

What’s your take on the recent auto emissions roll back?  Did you think the previous goals were too ambitious or that they were handcuffing the car companies?

 

i get your point about putting the burden and responsibility where it belongs in terms of legislating these issues—I just don’t see it happening.  Congress is too inept.  I don’t think it’s inappropriate for an agency like this to have some control over setting standards.  Also, I think the real point of what is taking place now is deregulation, as much as the can get away with.

 

We have different perspectives on this.  I can see the value of being efficient and cutting unnecessary and burdensome policies.  I just worry that the EPA’s current agenda is too extreme.

 

 

As I have long said, process is more important than individual outcomes.

 

A bureaucratic regulatory state is more in-line with a monarchy or other form of dictatorship than a free society.

 

Defacto law should never be created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats; because it justifies the actions of tyrants, and separates the people from the power which rules over them

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

A bureaucratic regulatory state is more in-line with a monarchy or other form of dictatorship than a free society.

 

 

It's actually a feature of fascist states, ironically.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

As I have long said, process is more important than individual outcomes.

 

A bureaucratic regulatory state is more in-line with a monarchy or other form of dictatorship than a free society.

 

Defacto law should never be created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats; because it justifies the actions of tyrants, and separates the people from the power which rules over them

 

38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's actually a feature of fascist states, ironically.

 

Progressivism = Enlightened Despotism

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, /dev/null said:

 

 

Progressivism = Enlightened Despotism

 

 

Tell it to the kulaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

As I have long said, process is more important than individual outcomes.

 

A bureaucratic regulatory state is more in-line with a monarchy or other form of dictatorship than a free society.

 

Defacto law should never be created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats; because it justifies the actions of tyrants, and separates the people from the power which rules over them

 

But the EPA *is* still regulating emissions. It’s just that they’re setting the standard (yet to be determined, according to Pruitt) to levels more beneficial to the auto industry.  It’s not like they’re saying this is not our jurisdiction, so take it away, lawmakers.  Instead, they’re still owning it, but setting a different agenda.

 

I think attributing to Pruitt, Trump, et al, this noble mission of re-engineering how our gov functions, to a purer democratic ideal is inaccurate. It’s a little disingenuous.

 

What it’s really about is selling out to the lobbies.  Regulation should be a balance between what’s good for the public and what’s good for industry.  But what Pruitt is doing seems out of balance to me.

 

Edited by Cugalabanza
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

But the EPA *is* still regulating emissions. It’s just that they’re setting the standard (yet to be determined, according to Pruitt) to levels more beneficial to the auto industry.  It’s not like they’re saying this is not our jurisdiction, so take it away, lawmakers.  Instead, they’re still owning it, but setting a different agenda.

 

I think attributing to Pruitt, Trump, et al, this noble mission of re-engineering how our gov functions, to a purer democratic ideal is inaccurate. It’s a little disingenuous.

 

What it’s really about is selling out to the lobbies.  Regulation should be a balance between what’s good for the public and what’s good for industry.  But what Pruitt is doing seems out of balance to me.

 

Google Solyndra and then explain how Trump's EPA is selling out any more so than Obama's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Do this and then do that

 

Ok, but first I think we need to renegotiate my compensation package.

 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Ok, but first I think we need to renegotiate my compensation package.

 

1kaz77.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

As I have long said, process is more important than individual outcomes.

 

A bureaucratic regulatory state is more in-line with a monarchy or other form of dictatorship than a free society.

 

Defacto law should never be created by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats; because it justifies the actions of tyrants, and separates the people from the power which rules over them

 

Hey we agree! In principle. Corporate lobbying is too powerful. Power to the people. Right on.

 

Inept Congres is also due to gerrymandering and the misproportioned House. The average House Rep speaks for 700,000 people. This needs to change. The limit of 435 was set in 1913, when the proportion was 1 House Rep = 200,000. What that means is present-day Americans are among the worst represented proportionally. 

 

Quote

 

according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the House of Representatives is on the very high side of population per representative at 729,000. The population per member in the lower house of other major countries is considerably smaller: Britain and Italy, 97,000; Canada and France, 114,000; Germany, 135,000; Australia, 147,000; and Japan, 265,000.

 

 

This won't happen on it's own -- Congress isn't going to just want to take power out of their hands. 

 

But if we agree in principle on the above, we'd agree with increasing representation of the people by increasing the size of the House. What do you think?

 

Quote

 

Smaller districts would also end the two-party deadlock. Orange County, Calif., might elect a Libertarian, while Cambridge, Mass., might pick a candidate from the Green Party.

 

Moreover, with additional House members we’d likely see more citizen-legislators and fewer lifers. In places like New York or Chicago, we would cross at least one Congressional district just walking a few blocks to the grocery store. Our representatives would be our neighbors, people who better understood the lives and concerns of average Americans.

 

More districts would likewise mean more precision in distributing them equitably, especially in low-population states. Today the lone Wyoming representative covers about 500,000 people, while her lone counterpart in Delaware reports to 900,000.

 

The increase would also mean more elected officials working on the country’s business, reducing the reliance on unaccountable staffers. Most of the House’s work is through committees, overseeing and checking government agencies.

 

With more people in Congress, House committee members could see to this critical business themselves — and therefore be more influential, since a phone call from an actual member is a lot more effective than a request from the committee staff.

 

True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates. But Internet technology already provides effective low-cost management solutions, from Google Documents to streaming interactive video to online voting.

 

The biggest obstacle is Congress itself. Such a change would require the noble act — routine before World War I but unheard of since — of representatives voting to diminish their own relative power.

 

So if such reform is to happen, it will have to be driven by grassroots movements. Luckily, we are living in just such a moment: the one thing Move On and the Tea Party can agree on is that the Washington status quo needs to change. So far this year, that has meant shrinking government. But in this case, the best solution might just be to make government — or at least the House of Representatives — bigger.

 

 

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-representatives/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html

http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/NumberOfSeats.asp?REGION=All&LANG=ENG&typesearch=1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote


 

 

While Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) has railed against Scott Pruitt, he quipped Saturday in a tweet that President Donald Trump should keep the beleaguered head of the Environmental Protection Agency because he’s “such a great symbol” of the corruption and fraud in the president’s administration.

He also asked Trump to “do more toxic rallies” and bring Pruitt along.

Both actions should help the “Dem wave” that continues to get stronger, Lieu said.

 

Later in the day he jokingly asked House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) if he could get a multimillion-dollar security detail on a vacation to Disneyland because “right-wing trolls said mean things about me.”


 

On 4/6/2018 at 7:14 PM, DC Tom said:

 

It's actually a feature of fascist states, ironically.

Actually it's a feature of any developed state. Tell me one modern state that doesn't have a robust and extensive bureaucracy. (You can't) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...