Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump’s Sun-Tzu Play
There is an joke about Bush and Cheney having dinner and sharing a laugh. Someone walks over and asks what they are talking about. Bush answers: “We are planning to kill all the muslims and 8,000 blond bicyclists.”
The questioner asks: “Why the bicyclists?”
Bush turns to Cheney. “See! I told you nobody cared about killing all the muslims!”
For me, the essence of this joke is that you give everyone something to look at and scream about. But it is all really just a diversion, while in the background you get the important stuff done.
And I think this is precisely what Trump, Elon and Vivek have in mind. The world goes nuts about Gaetz and RFK – which they are. And the meantime, DOGE is free to go ahead and wreck the Deep State. It does not matter, for example, if RFK is given the power to run the FDA off the rails – if DOGE has effectively destroyed the murderous agency. If the DOJ can prosecute crimes in the past under Gaetz – then great. But if not, it still ends up being defanged by DOGE.
It is classic Sun-Tzu. Provide a plausible cover attack. But the real action is in the flanking maneuver.
I absolutely love it.
Published in General
Now that I looked up the meaning of DOGE it makes some sense.
And with what authority will DOGE do this?
And you can tell that most Leftists have never been in a real fight: They announce, loudly, who they’re afraid of and why; they telegraph every punch; and they all have “glass jaws.”
Hope you are correct. Gaetz and RFKjr are otherwise inexplicably bad picks. RFKjr is very Pro Abortion and very Pro Single Payer Health Care. I don’t see Gaetz as interested in just application of the law or the constitution.
https://x.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1856725762130260383
DOGE identifies. Trump Executive Orders away. For things that require Congress or the Courts, Doge feeds/prompts those processes.
But Vivek (and others) have also identified ways to fire government employees. You can read it here. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/administrative-state-white-paper-v3/cfd9914cc130768c/full.pdf
Here is the text,
Introduction
There is an unconstitutional , fourth branch ofgovernment that is choking American democracy, and itis
called the administrative state. Hordes of unelected bureaucrats stifle innovation and ignore the voted
desires ofthe American people. Till now, no American President has succeeded in rolling back the powers
ofthese administrators who should report to the president but in fact report only to their union bosses.
unveiled my plan to shut down multiple federal administrative agencies by firing mostoftheir
employees andtransferring essential roles to other departments. This includes shuttering the Department
ofEducationand relocating its workforce training programs to the Department of Labor; shutting down
the FBI and relocating the 15,000 special agents who solve cases to the U.S. Marshals, Drug Enforcement
Agency, and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network inthe Department of Treasury and abolishing the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while distributing its responsibilities to other parts ofthe Departmentof
Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. Thisplan will reduce costs, stimulate the economy, and
improve democratic accountability inour federal government.
Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. President cannot exercise such authority without new laws from
Congress . That view is wrong, and I will now establish the case against it.
Strategy
Rule – making authorityandadministrative procedures
The U.S. President enjoys broad statutory authority to prescribe rules for the civil service . The President
may prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service in the executive
branch as will best promote the efficiency of that service (5 U.S.C. 3301) . The President has similar
power to prescribe rules governing the competitive service (5 U.S.C. 3302), which includes most
federal bureaucrats .
PresidentTrump used this authority to issue an executive order directly amending previously enacted
agency regulations, and Presidents from Harry Truman to Barack Obama have similarly amended the civil
service rules by executive order as well. InFranklinv. Massachusetts and Collins v. Yellen the Supreme
Courtheld that the presidential exercise ofsuch authority is unrestricted by the Administrative Procedures
Act(APA) , which requires notice–and–comment periods and other procedural hurdles to implement
federal regulations. This finding makes sense because the APA was designed to protect the governed from
unconstitutional overreach ofthe federal government, not federal employees from their employer.
It’strue that federal employees inthe competitive service enjoy for–cause protections, which means that
they cannot be fired inthe absence ofspecific findings of severe misconduct. However, itis notable that
these protections do not protect federal employees from anexecutive order implementing a mass layoff
that would eliminate a significant number ofjobs at once, for two reasons.
Executive versus agency powerFirst, the statutory for–cause rule is weak by design, set forth as a technical restrictionon an individual
agency’s decisiontoremove a federal employee: “Under regulationsprescribedby the OfficeofPersonnel
Management , an agency may take an actioncovered by this subchapter [includingremoval] against an
employeeonly for suchcause as willpromotethe efficiency ofthe service” (5 USC § 7513a) .Itis
importantto note that the U.S.President is not an agency, so an executiveorder eliminating a significant
number ofjobs does not constitute an agency removal.
Reduction inforcepermissions
Second, a “reduction inforce” a mass layoff offederal employees is treated differently by the statute
and not subject to for–cause limitations at all. Rather, reductions inforce are subject only to 60–day notice
requirements and order–of–retention rules (5 U.S. Code 3502). The statute gives the power to effectuate
such reductions to the Office ofPersonnel Management (OPM) , and the OPM rules give the power to
effectuate reductions inforce to individual administrative agency heads notthe President.
The President should appoint agency heads who are prepared to effectuate mass layoffs ifthat is the
President’s directives , but even ifagency heads refuse to cooperate , the U.S. President can assume the
power to effectuate reductions inforce by overriding these OPM rules through the exercise ofthe
aforementioned 5 U.S.C. 3302 statutory power to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.
“
That much allows the U.S. President to fire large numbers offederal employees, but what about
reorganizing executive departments? Many believe the President has no unilateral authority to abolish
agencies, but, incertain cases, that view is wrong.
Reorganizationpowers
A Reorganization Act was passed in 1977 giving the President the power to submit “Reorganization
Plans” to Congress inwhich entire agencies could have been abolished that would go into effect after a
period oftime unless rejected by Congress . The “Reorganization Planprocess which requiredthe
consent ofCongress expired on its own terms in 1980, but the followingprovisions ofthe 1977
Reorganization Act (5 U.S.C. 901) are still ineffect:
( a ) TheCongressdeclaresthatitisthepolicyofthe UnitedStates
(1) to promotethe better execution ofthe laws, the more effective management ofthe executive branch
and ofits agencies and functions, and the expeditious administrationofthe public business ;
(2) to reduce expenditures and promote economy to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient
operation ofthe Government
(3 )to increasetheefficiencyoftheoperationsofthe Government to thefullestextentpracticable ;
(4) to group, coordinate, and consolidate agencies and functions ofthe Government, as nearly as may be,
accordingto major purposes;(5) to reducethenumberofagenciesby consolidatingthose havingsimilar functions under a single head,
andto abolishsuch agenciesor functions thereofas may not be necessaryfor the efficientconductofthe
Government ; and
(6) to eliminate overlappingand duplication ofeffort.
(d) ThePresidentshall from time to time examinethe organization ofallagenciesand shalldetermine
whatchangesinsuchorganizationarenecessaryto carryout anypolicysetforthinsubsection (a) of
thissection.
Thesespecific provisions were never repealedand give the U.S. President independent power to make
changes inthe “organizationofallagencies.
It’strue that a subsequent 1984 Reorganization Act was passed to cure a procedural defect inthe original
congressional review process the one-house veto that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional inINSv.
Chadha The 1984 Act required Congress to affirmatively approve presidential reorganization plans by
majority vote inboth houses . But the 1984 Act has an expiration date that has long pastwhile the 1977
Act’s unexpired provisions are still ineffect.
Conclusion
Article IIofthe U.S. Constitution states that the executive Power shall be vested ina President ofthe
United States ofAmerica. Conservatives have long been frustrated by an expansive and unaccountable
federal administrative state, butthe good news is that the democratically elected leader ofthe executive
branch is already empowered by Congress to dramatically reduce the size and scope ofsprawling federal
agencies. The missing element is a U.S. President who reads the law carefully and is prepared to act
accordingly
Apologies for the weird copy-paste typos. The original is cleaner
Yeah, that’s the sticking point. I’d think DOGE is more likely the thing to draw attention away from what is really happening, because it has authority to make headlines and get Lefts all excited and outraged, but not much else.
I’m on board with “wrecking the deep state.” I’m even more on board with making sure it stays wrecked. That’s why I think eliminating departments and programs is a higher priority than making things run more efficiently. I’m hoping DOGE will give us a fair amount of both.
This is pretty much the Obama stray voltage tactic.
Back in the chaotic days of Trump45, the question always seemed to be “is this four-dimensional chess… or drunken lawn darts?”
I always thought it was more the latter than the former. I still think that.
But, given the alternatives, I’m okay with that.
Drunken lawn darts sounds sounds like a sport you’d find on ESPN 8 “The Ocho.” I’d watch.
Instead of making things run more efficiently I’d like to see them run less corruptly. That usually requires less efficiency.
Say more.
It is a commission that will make recommendations to the president and Congress. Trump can use Presidential Reorganization Act of 1977 to eliminate most employees.
The same authority with which it was created. None.
I thank you for this, @iwe. It clears up a lot of misconceptions I had.
Is that true? Or is it just something some podcaster is saying.
Well, it seems to be coming from Vivek, who went to Harvard and then Yale Law. So there’s some chance that it’s true.
I don’t know. Harvard and Yale are two strikes against.
It depends what people do with the education. Many do put their knowledge to evil purposes, but not Vivek, at least not so far.
The DOGE is not a Department. It is the 21st Century equivalent of the Grace Commission and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Nothing happens without Congressional approval.
Here’s why it’s a little different this time.
One of the gentlemen tasked with heading this commission tweets to more than 200 million people, is worth more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, and is now engaged in politics.
I expect people will be impressed by how much our government spends to poorly do jobs it shouldn’t do at all.
Plus I believe this can happen a good many times without waiting for Congress:
I’ve played drunken lawn darts. Never underestimate muscle memory.
Do you want me to Google it for you?
Lots of people have gone to Harvard and Yale Law. So the first one who pops up and says it’s not true means it’s probably not true, right?
What is Vivek’s record on litigating constitutional powers issues in the courts? Or hiring people to do it for him?
Not necessary. The fact that nobody here on Ricochet knows the basis for that claim in precedent, previous litigation, or court decisions tells me what I wanted to know.
The Presidential Reorganization Act of 1977:
Like I said. An act of Congress.
Which is why, with thin margins, it is unwise to nominate Republican Senators or Reps to fill spots in the administration ( unless the State has a Republican Governor who can fill that seat with someone with a high probability of holding it (not Martha McSally)).