in short it's a real surrender, they did back off on the spending freeze, and MAGA is just telling the Audience of One that nothing has changed to keep him happy (of course this still could get very bad again) - ThreadSky

gregsargent.bsky.social • 25 days ago

in short it's a real surrender, they did back off on the spending freeze, and MAGA is just telling the Audience of One that nothing has changed to keep him happy

(of course this still could get very bad again)

Reposted from Greg Sargent

There seems to be some confusion about what the un-recission of the spending freeze means. This NYT piece seems to explain it: The EOs remain in force directing agencies to *look for* what they're pretending to call "savings," but that's not the same as a freeze

Comments

itgetzbybuckner.bsky.social•25 days ago

it will. they will try again. and again.
like the muslim ban. third try was the real deal.

dmorton.bsky.social•25 days ago

So the goal is for them to be able to say "We stopped eighty gazillion dollars in woke spending"?? Just type up the press release now and save everybody a lot of trouble.

therascaiking.bsky.social•25 days ago

“Write an executive order canceling ‘woke’ spending!”

“We need a tighter definition than that sir.”

“Just cancel ‘woke’ spending!”

“Yes sir”

I suspect it was something like this.

bikemike.bsky.social•25 days ago

Which government lawyer is tasked with explaining what “woke ideologies” means legally to a judge? This stuff works on the campaign trail. In a court, I’m guessing, not so much.

sterlingwright.bsky.social•25 days ago

What, DEI?
Ohhhhhh… I thought you said IED!
I was looking for the IED’s ya’ll have hidden in the government’s offices.

chaos6nine.bsky.social•24 days ago

In short draft dodger’s EO was a suspension of Congress. It was never a spending freeze. The prez cannot direct spending, only Congress. The EO removed the main constitutional power that legitimized congress. Without the power of the purse congress doesn’t exist.

clifflegend.bsky.social•25 days ago

Is there any prayer that this mess turns into Vought getting rejected?

hekintx.bsky.social•25 days ago

Not could, will get very bad again. I work for a private university and am worried about funding.

bbix.bsky.social•24 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/phillewis.bsky.social/post/3lgwckocnz22o

bbix.bsky.social•25 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3lgvkejmgkm25

gregsargent.bsky.social•25 days ago

this is a harder one to win I think

chaos6nine.bsky.social•24 days ago

Suspending Congress should be much harder than limiting travel

bbix.bsky.social•25 days ago

I hope so, I post this to remind us to stay vigilant! Thanks for responding , you’ve done great reporting this week

dbonowitz.bsky.social•24 days ago

I disagree. Every recipient of a Fed grant is now on notice that the money could be pulled at OMB's whim, just for appearing to be "equity-related" or supporting clean energy thru the "Inflation Reducing [sic] Act."

Many will cave just from the intimidation, and won't even have grounds to sue.

chaos6nine.bsky.social•24 days ago

The grounds are the EO is a suspension of congress not a freeze on spending. The main constitutional clause that legitimizes congress is the power to spend. Asserting the prez can override is a de facto suspension of congress.

dbonowitz.bsky.social•24 days ago

IANAL, and this might sound like moving goalposts, but:
1. I think that applies only if the money is already allocated.
2. Grant recipients don't have time, money, or expertise to make that con law argument.

Ultimately, the intimidation factor might be enough.

chaos6nine.bsky.social•24 days ago

Yep I’m with ya, except I would argue allocated or not, the exec branch has no authority to direct or redirect funds even prior to action by congress. The sole power of the purse resides with congress.

dbonowitz.bsky.social•24 days ago

Grant funds are approved by Congress, but they're disbursed by Exec branch. Ex:
- Cong gives FEMA money for risk reduction grants.
- Cities apply/compete for that money thru FEMA.
- Due to EO, must FEMA vet appl'ns wrt City's equity policy?
- Will OMB be watching? FEMA & City have to assume yes.

dbonowitz.bsky.social•24 days ago

So the money isn't frozen, but the priorities for who gets it are now being written by OMB, not by the Congress' Act that allocated the money. And if they're not written clearly (as the EOs are not), applicants will comply by being intimidated.

Mafia tactics.

kimkaufman.bsky.social•24 days ago

Oh, hell no.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-omb-funding-freeze-courts_n_679a8d92e4b02e7053bf8d23

intelstation.bsky.social•24 days ago

They'll do it again in a couple months, and the cuts were indiscriminate because Republicans wanted them to be that way.

noahdahl.bsky.social•24 days ago

With due regard, I don't think that's accurate. Certainly I expect Trump's appointees to continue to withhold funds as long as they can. Which may be quite awhile.

cathygellis.bsky.social•24 days ago

It's good if as a practical matter it's a surrender, but the sense that Trump won may be good to leave out there, not just to appease him but to motivate outraged opposition.

nomnomnomdeplumb.bsky.social•25 days ago

This whole thing with the funding freeze makes me think of Machiavelli's earning about, essentially, not screwing with peoples money because they're more likely to forgive their fathers murder than their disinheritance

zathras5.bsky.social•25 days ago

It’s not just the Ao1, though. Trump’s personality cult — millions of people across the country — is hungry for reassurance that he is strong and powerful and winning. The news sources on which they rely will never used the word “surrender,” but they need a different narrative. This is it.

tracymflourish.bsky.social•24 days ago

Does anyone else wonder if this wasn't, in part, throwing a huge pile of sh*t against the wall to see what would stick?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply