Tag Archives: government

How to Handle Federal Lands

Posted on by
Reply

Terry Anderson, of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has some thoughts on how best to handle Federal lands, a unaggregated expanse of some 640 million acres, 28% of US land. In their essence, his ideas are to handle those lands in a business-like manner.

…three options: raise the price of goods and services (timber, minerals, visits to national parks), reduce labor costs and liquidate money losers.

He’s right, but those are the second steps that need to be taken, not the first step.

Twenty-eight percent is far too much of American land to be retained by the Federal government. The necessary first step is the transfer of those lands to their respective States.

Anderson’s ideas, fleshed out some in the fulness of his op-ed, does recommend [t]urn[ing] ownership of some federal lands over to the states, but that’s wholly inadequate. The vast majority of those lands should be turned over.

The amount that might be retained by the Federal government, to suggest a percentage for opening discussion, would be less than 5%, and the retention purposes might be limited to protecting some historical and scenic areas for public park use, to finishing cleaning up Superfund sites of their contamination—following which those sites should be returned to the States—to maintaining (and I say expanding) our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to siting military installations, and to setting up, or finishing, nuclear waste storage sites.

The Federal government has no legitimate interest in withholding from State and private use so huge an expanse of our land. Selling it to the States and to private citizens would raise funds for paying down our national debt, too. The modern equivalent of a dollar an acre comes to mind for a suitable sale price—that original one dollar price wasn’t so much for raising money—though it did for that then small Federal budget—than to transfer the land to owners who, by paying for it, would have some incentive to make economic-based use of it.

The retained land then should be managed IAW business principles.

Bonehead Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Some Federal district judges, liberal activist judges for the most part, have issued temporary restraining orders against many of President Donald Trump’s (R) and his DOGE facility’s moves to root out empirically identified fraudulent and abusive spending and to physically downsize the Federal government through terminating Federal employees and eliminated whole agencies—the CFPB, for instance.

As a result of that,

Several House Republicans are preparing articles of impeachment against the federal judges who are blocking some of [those] President Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s key policies.

This is a textbook example of a bonehead idea.

Arizona Republican Congressman Eli Crane and Georgia Republican Congressman Andrew Clyde present the typical arguments for impeachment:

Our case for impeaching Judge Engelmayer is basically that he’s an activist judge trying to stop the Trump administration from executing their, you know, Article 2 powers to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed

and

I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge John McConnell, Jr. He’s a partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump’s funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending. We must end this abusive overreach

respectively.

It’ll be hard enough to prove, even in the House, much less at Senate trial, that these rulings are out of bounds for an Article III judge. Even were these Congressmen able to make the case that these judges, by their rulings, are violating their oaths of office—a certainly impeachable and convictable offense—it’ll be nearly impossible to get the two-thirds vote required for Senate conviction with so many Progressive-Democratic Party Senators in the Senate, given how knee-jerk opposed as they are to anything Trump or Republican.

In the end, these judges’ behaviors will be tacitly codified by the impeachments’ failures in the Senate, as those failures will lend credence to the judges’ naked activism. That would be even worse than the judges’ individual rulings.

The better answer is to exercise patience—something Republicans lack—and see the matters through the courts to the eventual appellate or Supreme Court rulings in their favor that will occur in the large majority of the cases.

Some Trash Removal Progress

Posted on by
2

With DoJ’s order to the Southern District of New York prosecutors in Manhattan to drop their bribery case against New York City’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Eric Adams, six of those prosecutors resigned in protest. Exemplifying the trash cleanout nature of these failures and of their arrogant insistence that the prosecutors of that Southern District are independent of the DoJ, however, are the words of the seventh prosecutor to resign, Hagan Scotten, in his letter of resignation, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal.

Our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way.
If no other lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.

The former often is true, but regarding the naked, uncaveated, nature of it, it’s also true that prosecutorial power is, in fact, often used to influence other citizens: such influence is the stuff of plea deals, particularly those involving agreements to cooperate here in return for prosecutorial discretion there. That discretion can reach as far as completely dropping the charges against the one agreeing to cooperate. That’s number one, as someone was wont to say.

The other thing is Scotten’s name-calling and virtue-signaling that is his latter bit. That he has to call names against those who disagree with him, including those misbegotten superiors of his so impudently insisting that the heretofore far too independent-acting district should actually be subordinate to the DoJ, merely demonstrates the intellectually and legally bankrupt nature of his objections.

These seven were members of DoJ’s Public Integrity Section, consisting of roughly two dozen lawyers.

In the end, Edward Sullivan, of that section agreed to be the one to sign the filing that would ask the presiding just to drop the case. His reason for doing so, here as cited by the WSJ, is instructive: to spare other career staff in the section from potentially being fired.

The insubordinates—all seven of them—are well removed from the Department. Sullivan’s rationalization for his going along, though, suggests that the entire Section wants close inspection and further rooting out, perhaps complete replacement of the remaining incumbents.

In Which a District Judge is Mistaken

Posted on by
Reply

DC District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from firing any CFPB employee except for cause, and cannot proceed with any large-scale reduction-in-force of staff. The judge is badly mistaken here.

The question centers on this: either the CFPB is part of the Executive Branch, or it is not. The answer is muddied, though not badly, by the then-Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress’ cynical creation of the Board as funded by its own draws on the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States—draws of whatever magnitude the Board demands and that the Fed would be bound to pay up—and of its Chairman being unremovable by the President.

If the Board is not a part of the Executive Branch, then by its Design Specification, it is a fourth branch of the Federal government. It was designed to operate wholly independently of the Executive Branch and given free reign [sic] to operate similarly independently of Congress, which has wholly yielded up its purse string control of it. That would make the Board an unconstitutional creation whose existence must be ended on that ground.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that, contra that Congress’ construction, the Board Chairman can, in fact, be removed by the President for any or no reason at all, because the Board is, in fact, an Executive Branch agency, and so under the control of the President, just the same as are all other agencies and Departments of the Executive Branch.

Since the Board is an Executive Branch agency, the President has the hiring and firing authority he needs to terminate any and all Board members and employees, subject only to already existing due process requirements. These requirements are in flux, too, as the President has considerable, although not total, authority to alter the nature of those requirements.

I look for the Supreme Court to rule in the administration’s favor (the DC Circuit is unlikely to overrule her).

Two More Panic-Mongering Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

Newly installed OMB Director and Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought has moved to curb the abuses of the CFPB by ordering staff to issue no more new rules, to stop new investigations, and to suspend existing investigations and litigations pending a general review of the CFPB’s activities. Vought also has authorized DOGE personnel to audit CFPB’s financial activities, including its payroll.

The National Treasury Employees Union is mightily upset, and it has filed two suits to stop these cease and desists and the audit. The NTEU alleged in the first case

It is substantially likely that these initial directives are a precursor to a purge of CFPB’s workforce, which is now prohibited from fulfilling the agency’s statutory mission[.]

In the second case, the union alleged that the CFPB

granted access, and by extension, disclosed employee records to individuals associated with DOGE without employee consent to such disclosure.

I will be brief, and the NTEU will not find it pleasant.

The union’s first case is entirely speculative as no harm has yet occurred, nor has the union alleged any harm actually has occurred. The suit should be tossed on that ground alone. Regarding the union’s allegation of prohibition, this is pure fantasy: the activities are HIAed, not prohibited, and whether the CFPB is functioning as statutorily required in this context is a political assessment, not one that is justiciable.

In the second case, the union’s allegations are, once again, purely speculative, and no harm has yet occurred, nor has the union alleged any actual harm has occurred. All it has done is raise a series of scary boogieman possibilities for some time in a nebulous future. This case ought to be tossed on that ground as well. Regarding the consent allegation, the CFPB’s employees—all Federal government employees—agreed to have their pay records audited on demand when they signed on to their government employment. That allegation also should be tossed even if the larger case is continued.

The evident frivolousness of these two suits is one more reason why government unions are destructively counterproductive and why the sinecure nature of civil service jobs needs to be severely curtailed.