Republicans want to fire federal employees for any reason

[General Zod]

We'll keep our swamp ideologically pure!

Feds should put on their body armor now.

A range of Republican proposals on federal hiring, firing and retiring will have them under fire during the Trump administration. One flying under the radar poses a fundamental threat to the purpose of the civil service. It would essentially dispose of federal employee due process rights.

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) considers his bill “a tool for … President [-elect Donald] Trump to use in draining the swamp.” In the process, it would eviscerate civil service protections for all new federal employees. His deceptively named “Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency Act” says staffers hired one year after enactment or later “shall be hired on an at-will basis.”

That raises the question — why would the Trump administration hire potential swamp dwellers? They would be the only folks affected at least for the next four years. The bill’s potential consequences are nonetheless ominous. In current form, it provides an appeal process for suspended staffers, but not for the fired.

Rokita’s bill makes the meaning of at-will status clear: “Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.”

Think about that.

Political appointees could fire civil servants for “no cause at all.”

That’s dangerous.

Civil service procedures can be long and frustrating, but they are designed to guard against arbitrary actions. Federal law governing the workforce permits disciplinary actions for “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” At odds with the “at-will” power Rokita advocates, among the government’s long-standing merit system principles is one designed to “protect employees against favoritism, political coercion and arbitrary action and prohibit abuse of authority.”

The protections are not just there to protect federal employees. In fact, the most important beneficiaries of these protections are the nation’s citizens, taxpayers and residents. Civil service protections are designed to protect everyone against favoritism by political officials and politicized agencies. While political appointees carry out policies designed by elected leaders, federal agencies are charged with serving everyone without regard to their political affiliations. Allowing political officials to fire feds for no reason seriously damages the principle of a nonpartisan civil service.

Rokita introduced the legislation last year and said he plans to offer substantially the same measure soon.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, called the bill a “shortsighted, blatant attempt to undermine a merit-based workforce that would … usher in a return to the spoils system and mean the end of a professional, non-partisan federal workforce dedicated to serving everyone, not just political allies.”

Rokita argued that at-will employment is how the rest of America works. But the federal government is not just another enterprise. The government is a monopoly providing services, many involving life and death, to and funded by all Americans. They cannot take their business elsewhere if treated badly because they are blue when the red team is in power — or vice versa.

“I think the current environment hides too much behind this politicization fear,” Rokita said by telephone. At the at-will agency he ran as an Indiana state official, “I was able to weed out the bad apples very quickly to make sure the good ones could thrive,” he said. “That’s what I’m trying to do here at the federal level … so it’s fair for the good federal workers, of which there are obviously many.”

Rokita’s bill isn’t the only measure worrying feds. Last week, House Republicans reinstated the Holman Rule that allows Congress to cut the pay of individual federal employees down to $1. Other measures call for across the board spending cuts, excepting defense, homeland security and veterans funding. Different legislation would cut the Defense Department civilian workforce by 15 percent by fiscal year 2020. Another to revoke bonuses of employees involved in the manipulation of Department of Veterans Affairs wait lists sounds like a good idea.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that oversees the workforce, is pursuing measures to fire feds faster, freeze federal hiring, decrease federal contributions to federal retirement and disqualify federal employees and contractors who are “seriously delinquent” on their federal taxes.

But none of those pose the peril Rokita’s proposal promises.

The Daily 202 newsletter
A must-read morning briefing for decision-makers.
Sign up
There are better ways to toss the bad apples than gutting civil service protections for the many as Rokita would do. Gregory J. Junemann, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, called the at-will plan “un-American and egregiously harmful to the taxpayer.” J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, fears the bill could backfire.

“Instead of encouraging front-line workers to report mismanagement or wasteful spending, this bill would create an environment where employees are fearful of doing or saying anything that could get them fired,” Cox said. “If this bill had been in place two years ago, we never would have heard about the Phoenix VA wait list manipulations because no one would have dared come forward to blow the whistle on the supervisors who concocted the scheme…

“This bill is called the Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency Act, but it actually would do neither,” he added. “In fact, a better title would be the Promote Fear and Political Allegiance Act, since it would give political appointees and their subordinates unchecked authority to target workers and politicize the civil service.”

Eric Yoder contributed to this report.

[The Romulan Republic]

But we definitely don't have to worry about despotism, no sir. Nothing sinister in effectively making it possible to place all federal institutions under the control of one increasingly corrupt and extremist party.

[General Zod]

The hilarity is all the Republicans who said they'd fight a tyrant tooth and nail are welcoming one with open arms because they think he's their tyrant and has their best interests in mind.

[Tribble]

But we definitely don't have to worry about despotism, no sir. Nothing sinister in effectively making it possible to place all federal institutions under the control of one increasingly corrupt and extremist party.

When Trump said "drain the swamp" it was kind of obvious that he meant far more than just the politicians and that the Republicans are going to try and purge as many independents and democrats as possible. From the Republican viewpoint, everyone who is not a Republican is the enemy, no exceptions.

[The Romulan Republic]

The hilarity is all the Republicans who said they'd fight a tyrant tooth and nail are welcoming one with open arms because they think he's their tyrant and has their best interests in mind.

Its going to be interesting to see what happens when their interests and Trumpolini's don't align.

That said, I have little hope in the majority of Republican politicians turning against him. Not unless the nation overwhelming turns against him. Even most of those who don't necessarily like Trump have tied themselves to him for the sake of partisanship or power, and they'll sink with him. They're afraid of their base. And frankly, it wouldn't shock me if he has blackmail material on much of the Republican leadership (as Russia allegedly has on him), especially if some of them were aware of/complicit in his alleged dealings with Russia.

Probably the best we can hope for is that their are enough of the bastards who put nationalism (foul a plague as it is) over pure greed and partisanship that the Russia thing will lead to a bipartisan coalition for impeachment.

[The Romulan Republic]

But we definitely don't have to worry about despotism, no sir. Nothing sinister in effectively making it possible to place all federal institutions under the control of one increasingly corrupt and extremist party.

When Trump said "drain the swamp" it was kind of obvious that he meant far more than just the politicians and that the Republicans are going to try and purge as many independents and democrats as possible. From the Republican viewpoint, everyone who is not a Republican is the enemy, no exceptions.

I don't doubt the dearest dream of much of the Republican Party leadership is an effectively one party state, run by an oligarchy of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

[Tribble]

But we definitely don't have to worry about despotism, no sir. Nothing sinister in effectively making it possible to place all federal institutions under the control of one increasingly corrupt and extremist party.

When Trump said "drain the swamp" it was kind of obvious that he meant far more than just the politicians and that the Republicans are going to try and purge as many independents and democrats as possible. From the Republican viewpoint, everyone who is not a Republican is the enemy, no exceptions.

I don't doubt the dearest dream of much of the Republican Party leadership is an effectively one party state, run by an oligarchy of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

That and the Constitution being reduced to the 2nd and 10th amendments, as those are the only ones that matter.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is amazingly short-sighted, when you think about it, that Republican politicians strive so hard to create a government where the only means left of opposing or constraining those in power (i.e. them) would be force of arms.

For their sakes as much as ours', I hope they never get their wish.

[Tribble]

It is amazingly short-sighted, when you think about it, that Republican politicians strive so hard to create a government where the only means left of opposing or constraining those in power (i.e. them) would be force of arms.

For their sakes as much as ours', I hope they never get their wish.

Ah, but the beauty of it is that the people who tend to be the most likely to own weapons and be willing to use them... also happen to be Republicans. So only people who could realistically hope to threaten a Republican government would also generally be its biggest supporters. Why go after a government which is giving you the right to "stand your ground" carry your guns everywhere and actively encourages you to take matters into your own hands to deal with your "enemies"?

[The Romulan Republic]

And yet, I've been reading about a surge in Left wing gun ownership with Trump coming in. Somewhat anecdotal, yes, but not terribly surprising either. Its incredibly disturbing, and probably, in many cases, quite hypocritical, but also predictable enough, unfortunately.

But yeah, those in power tend to be arrogant enough to assume that that will never change, and that the laws they pass to benefit them will never bite them in the ass.

Pity most politicians don't have Lord Vetinari's foresightedness.

[Ralin]

It is amazingly short-sighted, when you think about it, that Republican politicians strive so hard to create a government where the only means left of opposing or constraining those in power (i.e. them) would be force of arms.

For their sakes as much as ours', I hope they never get their wish.

I don't think Republicans will be endangered by hypothetical liberal violence that can be fairly easily crushed and used as an pretext to claim emergency powers or whatever.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is amazingly short-sighted, when you think about it, that Republican politicians strive so hard to create a government where the only means left of opposing or constraining those in power (i.e. them) would be force of arms.

For their sakes as much as ours', I hope they never get their wish.

I don't think Republicans will be endangered by hypothetical liberal violence that can be fairly easily crushed and used as an pretext to claim emergency powers or whatever.

Well, I think a hypothetical armed revolt by Left or Right is unlikely to succeed without foreign and/or military support, because the US military is a lot more powerful than random citizens with their private gun collections. And you're right, it probably would give them a pretext they'd make full use of if someone tried it. Add that to the long list of reasons why armed revolt is almost always a horrible idea.

Its still stupid and irresponsible for a government to try to cut off as many non-violent forms of opposition as possible. I'm not talking just revolutions here either- assassinations can and do happen, unfortunately.

[Ralin]

The SS is good at their job. And failed assassinations also let them double down on whatever they were going to do anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

They are good at their job (mostly- they've had their share of scandals recently). But that's not really the point.

In short, my point is that if you cut off non-violent forms of opposition, more and more people will likely turn to violent ones. They may be wrong to do it, and they may lose. Indeed, they will almost certainly be wrong to do it, and they will almost certainly lose. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of innocent people can get hurt in the attempt.

[Ralin]

In short, my point is that if you cut off non-violent forms of opposition, more and more people will likely turn to violent ones. They may be wrong to do it, and they may lose. Indeed, they will almost certainly be wrong to do it, and they will almost certainly lose. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of innocent people can get hurt in the attempt.

What part of this do you believe Trump and his supporters are not okay with?

[Dragon Angel]

Not that I'm one to support violence as an answer, but, I wonder how long we will all be able to afford to be high-minded and holier-than-thou about violence until ... well, the government may end up making it virtually impossible to have our voices heard? I imagine such a scenario could be at least a decade away, if current trends continue without effective opposition.

If the hammer falls, and we truly have a single-party autocracy with only the veneer of being democratic, will we still tut tut and condemn the downtrodden for reacting the way they would as a last ditch, desperate effort for any way to be heard? As it is even today, it is shocking the number of violent outbursts have been as low as they have. We haven't seen anything close to the Rodney King riots since, well, the Rodney King riots.

As much as I'd like to avoid such an outcome, especially knowing how bystanders and other downtrodden people will be caught in the crossfire, at that sort of point, I don't think it would be fair of me to.

Please note: This is a hypothetical. Anyone approaching me with the idea I'm a paranoid militia nut who will support violence at all opportunities will be summarily ignored.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would always default to supporting non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, except in the most extreme situations (i.e. the government engaging in or failing to prevent genocide or slavery in America). Anger at some point is understandable, but it is very rare that a society degenerates so far that civil war is the lesser evil. I mean, the American Civil War killed over 600,000 people in an age of single shot firearms and cavalry still being relevant on a battlefield. A repeat now truly doesn't bear thinking of, and indeed I can't think of anything more catastrophic that could befall us short of an all-out nuclear exchange.

Their is also no guarantee, of course, that even a victorious revolution will be any better than what it overthrew, as history (some of it quite recent) has made painfully clear again and again.

In short, my point is that if you cut off non-violent forms of opposition, more and more people will likely turn to violent ones. They may be wrong to do it, and they may lose. Indeed, they will almost certainly be wrong to do it, and they will almost certainly lose. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of innocent people can get hurt in the attempt.

What part of this do you believe Trump and his supporters are not okay with?

Pretty much none of it. Hence my continued condemnation of them (among many, many other reasons).

[Ralin]

If the hammer falls, and we truly have a single-party autocracy with only the veneer of being democratic, will we still tut tut and condemn the downtrodden for reacting the way they would as a last ditch, desperate effort for any way to be heard?

Yeah, we will. Doesn't matter how bad it gets or how justified they are. We'll always find a reason.

As it is even today, it is shocking the number of violent outbursts have been as low as they have. We haven't seen anything close to the Rodney King riots since, well, the Rodney King riots.

As much as I'd like to avoid such an outcome, especially knowing how bystanders and other downtrodden people will be caught in the crossfire, at that sort of point, I don't think it would be fair of me to.

I'm curious if you see any scenario where violent resistance of that sort won't fail and make things worse, or at least facilitate them getting worse faster.

[FTeik]

Alright Federal Employees, lay down your work and watch how the Republican dumbfucks cope without you holding their hands and doing their legwork for them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alright Federal Employees, lay down your work and watch how the Republican dumbfucks cope without you holding their hands and doing their legwork for them.

I know Robert Reich floated the idea of a nation-wide strike on inauguration day to protest Trump. Obviously not a lot of people ready to get behind something like that yet, but if things get bad enough, a strike of Federal employees would be a potent non-violent means of bringing a corrupt regime to its knees, if such a thing could be organized.

That's the big if, of course. Especially if communications are being monitored/censored and dissenters being fired, as one would expect if things did get that bad.

[Flagg]

Not that I'm one to support violence as an answer, but, I wonder how long we will all be able to afford to be high-minded and holier-than-thou about violence until ... well, the government may end up making it virtually impossible to have our voices heard? I imagine such a scenario could be at least a decade away, if current trends continue without effective opposition.

If the hammer falls, and we truly have a single-party autocracy with only the veneer of being democratic, will we still tut tut and condemn the downtrodden for reacting the way they would as a last ditch, desperate effort for any way to be heard? As it is even today, it is shocking the number of violent outbursts have been as low as they have. We haven't seen anything close to the Rodney King riots since, well, the Rodney King riots.

As much as I'd like to avoid such an outcome, especially knowing how bystanders and other downtrodden people will be caught in the crossfire, at that sort of point, I don't think it would be fair of me to.

Please note: This is a hypothetical. Anyone approaching me with the idea I'm a paranoid militia nut who will support violence at all opportunities will be summarily ignored.

I have no issue with using violence to fight oppression (note: taxes and fees for your millions of dollars of property and livestock do not constitute oppression). But I don't believe in fighting fire with Fire. You fight fire with dynamite like the guys who put out the post-Gulf War Kuwaiti oil field fires.
But I fully supported Trayvon Martin attacking the crazy racist who may well have been some pevry rape-o for all the poor kid knew. Under no circumstances does US law any you have to "take it" even if the degenerates wear a badge and scream "IT'S GUILIANI TIME!" When ramming a plunger up your rectum.

[Ralin]

I have no issue with using violence to fight oppression (note: taxes and fees for your millions of dollars of property and livestock do not constitute oppression).

That's actually something I'd been thinking about earlier. Whether they were oppressed or not the Bundys did show that it is possible to use violence or at least the clear threat of violence against the authorities and come out alive and more or less on top. I have to wonder if, in the worst case dystopian near future of the Trump administration, that might not end up being a flash point that finally leads to successful push back against Trump.

i.e., a stand-off with white, gun-owning conservative Christians who for whatever reason ran afoul of one of the administration's lesser abuses. I can totally believe that could end up being the last straw after a deluge of much worse crap aimed at blacks, gays, trans women, etc.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, that was a really, really bad precedent to set.

[Dragon Angel]

Yeah, we will. Doesn't matter how bad it gets or how justified they are. We'll always find a reason.

I hope (and it's probably doubtful but ... history has surprised us before) if TRR's scenarios of concentration camps and execution squads actually does come to pass, that people would recognize those for what they are. Or even suspending rights for marginalized groups, like regressing LGBT rights back a century or making this country a situation for women comparable to Gilead.

We all know what happened the last times we [royal we] turned moral blind eyes to that sort of behavior. There has to be a point where all but the most die hard of deplorable Trump ghouls will recognize an atrocity.

Seeing the support the Standing Rock protests have been receiving gives me hope that we haven't reached the level of total censorship ... yet. And it gives me hope of the level of support future nonviolent protests will have in the eyes of the public. Then again, a lot can change in 4, 8 years. Standing Rock was under Obama, and he absolutely loved those corporates, but he still had some sense of a moral core. I wonder what we will get in an all-Republican federal government.

I'm curious if you see any scenario where violent resistance of that sort won't fail and make things worse, or at least facilitate them getting worse faster.

I don't. At least, not unless they can have massive organization paralleling the military, but even then a resistance would be facing the full might of the United States government. They would need allies either foreign or domestic, and I'm unsure if they would be capable of forging such relationships.

Even if they hypothetically win... The planning for the world afterward is something that would be concerning. Not all revolutions have ended in a better system of government for the people, etc.

But I guess if the country's situation really turns to this, we'd have already lost complete faith in the devil we know and turned to the devil we don't.

It's an extremely dangerous unknown.

I have no issue with using violence to fight oppression (note: taxes and fees for your millions of dollars of property and livestock do not constitute oppression). But I don't believe in fighting fire with Fire. You fight fire with dynamite like the guys who put out the post-Gulf War Kuwaiti oil field fires.
But I fully supported Trayvon Martin attacking the crazy racist who may well have been some pevry rape-o for all the poor kid knew. Under no circumstances does US law any you have to "take it" even if the degenerates wear a badge and scream "IT'S GUILIANI TIME!" When ramming a plunger up your rectum.

My beliefs are slowly molding, but yeah this more or less sums up what I'm beginning to accept / have already accepted.

That's actually something I'd been thinking about earlier. Whether they were oppressed or not the Bundys did show that it is possible to use violence or at least the clear threat of violence against the authorities and come out alive and more or less on top. I have to wonder if, in the worst case dystopian near future of the Trump administration, that might not end up being a flash point that finally leads to successful push back against Trump.

I don't know if Il Duce's administration will be capable of giving such consideration. Human life is already an afterthought to many of them ... well, human life that isn't straight and white, that is.

[General Zod]

I have no issue with using violence to fight oppression (note: taxes and fees for your millions of dollars of property and livestock do not constitute oppression).

That's actually something I'd been thinking about earlier. Whether they were oppressed or not the Bundys did show that it is possible to use violence or at least the clear threat of violence against the authorities and come out alive and more or less on top. I have to wonder if, in the worst case dystopian near future of the Trump administration, that might not end up being a flash point that finally leads to successful push back against Trump.

i.e., a stand-off with white, gun-owning conservative Christians who for whatever reason ran afoul of one of the administration's lesser abuses. I can totally believe that could end up being the last straw after a deluge of much worse crap aimed at blacks, gays, trans women, etc.

They'll just find a way to blame Hillary or Obama.