Not so. I can’t imagine thousands of low-level and mid-level folks refusing to do what they’re told. If it were targeting only those who refuse to follow orders, it’d be at most a few hundred.
Are the DOGE savings going towards reducing the deficit? Or towards justifying more tax cuts?
2 Likes
I don’t think they said. But either seems fine if you’re a taxpayer. More $ in your pocket from lower taxes or more buying power from less inflation / money printing to finance the debt if they reduce that instead.
2 Likes
After decades spent entrenching a bureaucracy dedicated to doing their bidding, Democrats have taken to the streets in protest of Trump hiring unelected officials to fire their unelected officials.
3 Likes
They arent “targeting” anyone. They’re targeting spending details, the only order they’re being given is to provide the requested details. The associated people are either refusing to disclose those details or they’re choosing to walk away.
2 Likes
New DOJ mgmt
- no federal funds to sanctuary cities
- Malicious persecution investigations of lawyers like Bragg, etc
- death penalty
- anti Jewish investigations of top colleges, prosecute Hama leadership
- legal efforts vs drug cartels senior members
a new task force to root out antisemitism on college campuses
the “Weaponization Working Group,” which will review the activities of all law enforcement agencies over the past four years to identify instances of “politicized justice.” The working group will also review any potential prosecutorial abuse regarding Jan. 6, 2021; the FBI’s targeting of Catholic Americans; the Justice Department’s targeting of parents at school board meetings;
identify and evaluate all funding agreements with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that provide support to illegal aliens.
investigate instances of jurisdictions that are impeding law enforcement, and directing they be prosecuted
pursue criminal charges where applicable against Hamas; seek the arrest and extradition of Hamas leadership
3 Likes
Like so:
1 Like
So it violates privacy laws for the government to access government data? And each of us is entitled to pick and chose which individual government employees are allowed to see the information we provide to the government?
Perhaps we should also call you a theif when you withdraw the money in your bank account?
Talk about circling the wagons…
The agreement allows two individuals associated with Musk but employed by the Treasury Department – called special government employees – to have “read only” access to the sensitive data.
So regardless, this result seems like no big deal that doesnt really stop anything.
How does a random employee union have standing to file such a suit in the first place, and why would they even get involved? Makes me wonder if the actual claim wasnt about non-union personnel accessing data that is the purview of union employees? Or are the unions just scared that a half dozen “wiz kids” are going to demonstrate more competency than thousands of union employees combined?
3 Likes
Of course. Just because you’re a government employee, does not mean you can access all government data.
2 Likes
Right. But government officials determine what access a given employee can have. We dont get to dictate which employees can access what, any moreso than I can pick and choose who is allowed to read my FD posts.
1 Like
I guess by “we” you mean you and I? Sure, which is why there are laws on the books that must be followed by the government officials who determine what access a given employee can have, and allegedly those laws were being violated.
2 Likes
Following the law, here’s a bill to shut down USAID the Congressional way.
$1B was giving to Hamas via that UN aid agency, later found to be sponsoring terrorism vs Israel
2 Likes
The move by DOGE, a Trump administration task force assigned to find ways to fire federal workers, cut programs and slash federal regulations,
Of course, forget the whole weeding out inefficiency part. Which is the actual assignment.
“People who must share information with the federal government should not be forced to share information with Elon Musk or his ‘DOGE.’ And federal law says they do not have to.”
Yet no mention of the federal law that actually says this. Again, nothing but fearmongering, trying to create the implication that Musk is just wandering into the Treasury and accessing their systems on his own whim. Ignore the pesky detail that he’s working for the Executive branch, on an assignment from the President.
And if you want to get technical, once the government has this information they own it, and it is the government choosing to share it. So maybe they should stop making it sound like each individual is being forced to provide whatever information DOGE asks for, individuals arent being asked, let alone forced, to do a damn thing.
expressing concern that “officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs.”
That is the root of all this. They’re scared Musk, et al will find misuses of funds and stop the payments that are either being misused or werent properly authorized in the first place.
“To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy,”
So they harp the possibility Musk could potentially stop legally authorized payments. Again, ignore the pesky fact that doing so would be counter to his assignment, and wouldnt be allowed by anyone.
Again, focus on what bad things could theoretically happen, as justification for preventing DOGE from doing their job. Fearmongering.
2 Likes
Can you cite the laws that are on the books that were supposedly violated? Because I’ve tried, and various Google searches and pages and pages of results have no mention beyond this lawsuit’s vague claims that something was violated.
What the search results do strongly imply is that the objections are mostly fear-driven, that DOGE will start stopping payments being made by the Treasury if they’re able to review what is being paid. And the lawsuit is fearmongering, trying to plant the seed that Musk is going to stop the Treasury from sending social security payments (or whatever legal benefit program you hold dear).
3 Likes
My best guess is the Privacy Act of 1974, which establishes rules and regulations regarding U.S. government agencies’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. Summary. I’m guessing, based on the article I linked above, that the reason is because DOGE associates who are not Treasury employees are not allowed to see Treasury’s records that contain information protected by the Act. That’s why the judge was asking whether Musk, who is in not a Treasury employee, gets to see what his DOGE people find in the Treasury’s data.
2 Likes
More alleged laws that may have allegedly been broken. This lawsuit claims that since USAID was established by Congress, it can’t be dismantled by the President.
1 Like
“The agency’s collapse has had disastrous humanitarian consequences,” Thursday’s lawsuit said, including shutting down efforts to fight malaria and HIV. “Already, 300 babies that would not have had HIV, now do.
Trump gave 300 babies HIV. Enough said… 
spearheading the president’s effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy and replace career civil servants with politically loyal appointees.
Still sticking with the mantra that if it’s reported enough, it’ll become true.
2 Likes
That’s a fair guess. I still think that it requires the presumption that Musk is waltzing in and perusing these records on his own initiative, rather than being a contractor assigned the task by the President of the United States. Even if you do not consider the President to be the top official of every agency, the Treasury Secretary certainly is an officer with authority to grant access to their designated agent. And the Treasury Secretary is clearly on board, since he’s being named in these lawsuits.
2 Likes
Please note that I did not mention any potential bias in the article itself and I didn’t even read it in detail. I only scanned it for and mentioned here what is relevant to our discussion regarding the legality of these actions. Your accusations of potential bias does not automatically invalidate the legal basis (i.e., no, not “enough said” 
).
The article has quotes that at least to me demonstrated that the judge tried to figure that out (asking about Musk’s and the executive branch’s involvement), and I guess the answers weren’t satisfactory enough to allow these actions to continue without some changes or restrictions.
The defending side was the DOJ, and they agreed with the judge’s order to limit access. I would think that if the accusers had no standing or merit, the DOJ would’ve fought harder to get it thrown out.
1 Like