Tag Archives: government

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.

“Completely Unprecedented”

Posted on by
Reply

In an article centered on the Musk-led DOGE’s move to poke heavily into each of the Federal government’s agencies with a view to identifying misspent—for whatever reason—monies, Alexander Ward and Ginger Adams Otis quoted Richard Painter, Bush the Younger’s Ethics Lawyer, as he lamented,

This is completely unprecedented. I’ve never seen anything like this before.

That really is a weak argument against DOGE’s moves. Precedent does matter; it gives a measure of stability and predictability in law and in economic activities and in other milieus.

Precedent isn’t immutable, though; making unprecedented moves isn’t even illegal, nor should it be. If we never did anything because it would be unprecedented, we’d never get anything done. Everything that’s ever been done was done for the first time—was unprecedented—when the doing got started initially.

“Completely unprecedented”—so what? We’ll see soon enough the outcomes of these unprecedented moves.

Here’s a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

I do actually have one, every once in a while. This one is brief, as my thoughts often are.

President Donald Trump (R) has nominated a long and broad list of folks for various of the Departments, Agencies, and White House staff poitions; many of these are controversial, at least in the minds of Progressive-Democrats and the press. A subset of the controversial ones may not get confirmed.

There’s a way around that.

Trump should include all those whose confirmations are denied in his kitchen cabinet. There’s no reason for him to lose their advice, just because weak sisters and Progressive-Democrats in the Senate disapprove.

NB: There are parallels between a Trumpian kitchen cabinet as I propose and the origin of the function in President Andrew Jackson’s administration.

Testing?

Posted on by
Reply

Some folks think that Baby Kim, the gang leader of northern Korea, is beginning to question the loyalty of the youngest adult and near-adult cohorts in that area.

He is particularly worried about the foreign media trickling into his information-repressed country….
At risk is Kim’s ability to maintain the illusion of North Korea as a socialist paradise, which is key to his ability to maintain power. And no group is more vulnerable to ideological slippage than North Korea’s youngest citizens.

Thus,

That is why Kim has handed a central propaganda role of late to the Paektusan Hero Youth Shock Brigade. …hailed as national heroes for helping to rebuild a western border region leveled by summer floods. Over four months, they erected 15,000 houses, schools and hospitals, the country’s state media claimed.
…
The construction work, Kim was quoted as saying in state media, had represented a “good opportunity for training our young people to be staunch defenders and reliable builders of socialism.”

That’s one test. Baby Kim also has sent 12,000 soldiers to fight on the side of the Russians against Ukraine. Those soldiers, despite their claimed reputation for prowess, are performing extremely poorly, even after accounting for the Russian tactics they’re expected to operate within.

Could Baby Kim be testing Ukraine as his version of being sent to the Eastern Front? It’s true enough that a severely wounded northern Korean soldier kills himself rather than risk capture, or his comrades murder him to prevent that capture, even as they run away from the battlefield. Those incidents, possibly representing a newly claimed loyalty in an attempt to protect the family left behind, are quite rare, though, compared to the casualty rate they’re experiencing.

Incomplete Progress against DEI

Posted on by
Reply

As a result of President Donald Trump’s (R) Executive Order regarding Diversity, Equity, Inclusion in the Federal government and government contractors, nearly 400 bureaucrats have been “sidelined:” put on paid leave. Additionally, some $420 million in related contracts have been canceled.

There remains, though, a question that shouldn’t be a question.

It is not yet clear when or if they [those bureaucrats] will be terminated.

Charles Ezell, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management, though, seems clear on the matter.

[A]gency heads were required to submit to OPM a written plan for executing a reduction-in-force action regarding DEI employees and a list of all contract descriptions or personnel position descriptions that were changed since November 5, 2024, to obscure their connection to DEI programs.

That plan was due by COB last Friday. It seems simple enough, and mostly clear: all of those employees should be RIFed. More to the point, since their positions have been eliminated, there’s not even any need to RIF them; they already have no jobs. Send them to the private sector where their vasty experience will stand them in good stead in their job search. The only reason for a formal RIF would be in the event that’s the mechanism to prevent them from being reassigned elsewhere on the Federal—which is to say our tax funded—payroll.