Politics

[mdwest]

The good news (assuming a win) is trump claims one of his priorities is to gut the govt of unnecessary bureaucrats and have policy and procedure overhauls at every level… he wants Elon Musk to head up a commission that would oversee this task…

If he only accomplished that one thing it would be a huge net positive for the country

 

[WAB]

The good news (assuming a win) is trump claims one of his priorities is to gut the govt of unnecessary bureaucrats and have policy and procedure overhauls at every level… he wants Elon Musk to head up a commission that would oversee this task…

If he only accomplished that one thing it would be a huge net positive for the country

I truly hope he wins and he tasks Elon Musk with the job. Musk is one of the few people that I believe could effectively take this on. My concern is that Trump did almost nothing to address this in his first term, so we are betting on him making a radical change in focus.

One thing for certain, the cackling fence post will not just not take it on, she will make it worse.

 

[freefall]

This is spot on. The EPA is a great example of an agency that has instituted regulations well beyond the intent of the law. What is even worse is that the different regions interpret and enforce these regulations differently.

I laugh when I hear this ‘drain the swamp’ mantra because the folks chanting it don’t even know where the problem is. Our greatest problem lies with progressive agendas buried within the administrative branch of the government. If Trump is re-elected, he would do well to spend less time fighting with congress and more time dealing with his administration, an area he would have vast authority over as the chief executive of this branch. I am sick and tired of presidents coming in, making a few figurehead changes, and completely ignoring the vast cultural cancer that needs to be addressed within their organization.

My friend, your story has touched my heart.
The problem (as I see it) lies in the massive layers of protections that nearly any government employee has against termination for nearly any cause, right up to malfeasance, malingering, and outright insubordination. Examples are legion.
Government employee unions are a tool of the devil, even Liberal Saint FDR thought so.

 

[SaintPanzer]

I do not believe that I was confused about anything. I was merely pointing out holding up Trump as the symbol of executive order purity is rather a stretch. That said, I agree, that the legislative branch has given up far too much power to the executive regardless of party.

Please to point out the section where I held up Trump as the symbol of executive order purity. I had thought I implied RINO.

 

[SaintPanzer]

One thing a lot of people are unaware of is that while Congress makes/changes the laws the Executive branch specifically each individual department writes up the rules on implementing those laws. Hence, why we end up with regulations that are contrary to the original intent of the law or extra burden on implementation. EPA is a great example of that in stretching the original intent of the law in many of their regulations.

Oh, I am quite well aware of this. In fact, that's my point!

The Executive has the power to rein in these regulations. The individual departments work for him! EPA is a good example. The Director of the EPA is appointed by the President, and then confirmed by the Senate. If the EPA is writing regulations contrary to the law, it is the President's job to correct (and there is where your executive orders come in!). If the President appoints someone who has stated he will make new regulations that are contrary to the legislation, the Senate is under no obligation to confirm.

That is how the system is designed to work. I agree it does not always work that way. But that's the point. Tell me you're going to correct Agency overreach via the system? Conservative. You may even be a Republican. Tell me you're simply going to appoint someone who is going to come up with different regulations that are not authorized by the legislation, but are better than the other guy's regulation... RINO.

 

[Red Leg]

Please to point out the section where I held up Trump as the symbol of executive order purity.

If I misunderstood your initial post, I apologize.

 

[WAB]

My friend, your story has touched my heart.
The problem (as I see it) lies in the massive layers of protections that nearly any government employee has against termination for nearly any cause, right up to malfeasance, malingering, and outright insubordination. Examples are legion.
Government employee unions are a tool of the devil, even Liberal Saint FDR thought so.

Unions do not prevent leadership from terminating problem employees, they simply make leadership do their jobs properly as they do so. I am speaking from experience in turning around one of the largest chemical complexes in the US. My entire management team told me exactly what you just stated. I said horseshit, you are going to put these employees, who we had identified, on notice that they have three months to address their performance problems or they will be terminated. We did so. The union president became one of my closest friends through that process. We took that plant from the lowest performing asset in a fortune 100 company to its highest performing asset in 18 months. When I began, the backlog of grievances appeared endless. When I left there were none. We negotiated 3 union contracts during my tenure and paid the highest bonuses employees had ever received. This was possible because performance and profits went through the roof and we negotiated contracts on the principle that success needed to be shared fairly with those who made it possible.

Every workforce in the USA (with the possible exception of the armed forces where I have very little knowledge) has the right of representation if they so choose. Choosing to be represented does not make them evil, or in any way reduce your responsibility to them as their employer and leader.

I apologize for the long response. I cared deeply for my organization and felt
It my duty to ensure that they won.
A few problem employees can never be allowed to drag an organization down. It is a
Herculean task at the federal level, but it can be done, and it must start with a leader who will lead.

 

[freefall]

Bravo!!

 

[wesheltonj]

Unions do not prevent leadership from terminating problem employees, they simply make leadership do their jobs properly as they do so. I am speaking from experience in turning around one of the largest chemical complexes in the US. My entire management team told me exactly what you just stated. I said horseshit, you are going to put these employees, who we had identified, on notice that they have three months to address their performance problems or they will be terminated. We did so. The union president became one of my closest friends through that process. We took that plant from the lowest performing asset in a fortune 100 company to its highest performing asset in 18 months. When I began, the backlog of grievances appeared endless. When I left there were none. We negotiated 3 union contracts during my tenure and paid the highest bonuses employees had ever received. This was possible because performance and profits went through the roof and we negotiated contracts on the principle that success needed to be shared fairly with those who made it possible.

Every workforce in the USA (with the possible exception of the armed forces where I have very little knowledge) has the right of representation if they so choose. Choosing to be represented does not make them evil, or in any way reduce your responsibility to them as their employer and leader.

I apologize for the long response. I cared deeply for my organization and felt
It my duty to ensure that they won.
A few problem employees can never be allowed to drag an organization down. It is a
Herculean task at the federal level, but it can be done, and it must start with a leader who will lead.

Except most have a property right in their job. That does not exist in the private sector.

 

[franzfmdavis]

I read this thread regularly out of interest, but rarely (perhaps never) contribute.

It reminds me of the couples I would see arguing during the 22 years I worked as a divorce lawyer.

They always both claimed to have the welfare of the family as their primary concern, but spent most of the time misunderstanding each other and focused on highlighting their differences through intellectual gymnastics and veiled insults, eventually ruining the thing they claimed to care the most for as a result.

There was very little energy spent on exploring common ground or acceptable compromises. As a result they both eventually ‘lost’ through the divisive processes they chose (family, assets, time, respect) and often their children suffered the most.

The comments in this thread show clearly that most everyone here wants:

1. To feel safe in their home, neighborhood, community etc;
2. To have the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and their loved ones;
3. To be healthy;
4. To pursue their interests and enjoy their hobbies;
5. To express their opinions;
6. To be free to worship who they want, or not;
7. To be able to decide where and how to live;
8. To be able to congregate with whom they choose;
9. To avoid living in chaos, turmoil and war.
10. To have privacy;
11. To travel freely;
12. To have their belongings, investments and assets safe;
13. To have the freedom to live as they choose;
14. Etc.

Notwithstanding, most of the discussions on this thread are directed against one another rather than in pursuit of the same goals. They sometimes stay polite, but often devolve into anger and insults.

This phenomenon is becoming commonplace in our American family.

It is a genuine privilege that we have the freedom to discuss and express our opinions, but which of our common problems have been solved in the currently 2,173 pages of this discussion thread - very few if any.

Instead, it more likely contributes to the greatest threat to our country, which in my opinion is that we are increasingly becoming the “disUnited” States of America.

Their is no benefit or value in becoming a dysfunctional or dissolved American family. Those who promote the concept of civil war and division should reflect on the actual implications. This is what the true enemies of the USA want - the easiest path to victory for our enemies is for us to do the fighting for them!

Please lets all remember that we are countrymen (and even when we are from different countries - we are still on the same small tiny dot of a planet in a giant universe). We are all in this together.