On the topic of “Schedule F”

[EMNofSeattle]

Sorry but that’s bullcrap.

The Civil Service is a protector of our democratic republic. The whistleblowing and leaking of the recent criminal nonsense is proof of that.

What “recent criminal nonsense”?

The leaders set law and policy. The true bureaucratic layer of our governing simply slows it down so that it can be fully processed.

Meaning, if a non leftist is elected they use their power to stop policy from being enacted until a new president arrives who will return to forwarding left policy.

It gives time for the checks and balances to work.

That’s not their function

For the other components of our republic to vet the law and policy so no one part of government can ramrod law and policy through the system and create “Teapot Domes” and other illegal products of corruptive acts.

You seem to have a corporatist, autocratic, viewpoint. Why is that?

I do believe in actual corporatism, but that’s an aside since I’m sure you don’t actually know what corporatism is and you’re throwing the term out there believing it means something else

 

[ModernDiogenes]

What “recent criminal nonsense”?

The malfeasance of the FBI for one thing.

Meaning, if a non leftist is elected they use their power to stop policy from being enacted until a new president arrives who will return to forwarding left policy.

So you say. Doesn’t make it so.

That’s not their function

It was an extraordinarily beneficial unintended consequence. In fact since its inception it’s become one of its best benefits. Readily acknowledged as such by any learned individuals on the topic.

I do believe in actual corporatism, but that’s an aside since I’m sure you don’t actually know what corporatism is and you’re throwing the term out there believing it means something else

Corporatism is the bastardization of capitalism. It kills small business and entrepreneurism. It creates monopolies. It fosters business cabals. It stifles innovation. It corrupts government. What else do you want to know about it?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The malfeasance of the FBI for one thing.

Not being specific, not a shock. The FBI is not the civil service, it is more akin to secret police/ regime internal security

So you say. Doesn’t make it so.


It was an extraordinarily beneficial unintended consequence. In fact since its inception it’s become one of its best benefits. Readily acknowledged as such by any learned individuals on the topic.

It is not a benefit to have entrenched bureaucracies slowing down political leadership, that is actually a problem because it denies the leaders the ability to make quick decisions and also makes societies more prone to coups and autocratic rule

Corporatism is the bastardization of capitalism. It kills small business and entrepreneurism. It creates monopolies. It fosters business cabals. It stifles innovation. It corrupts government. What else do you want to know about it?

What you are describing is not corporatism. This is not a shock to me though, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should look up actual political philosophy before throwing words around. You even had the ability to look this up before typing this response and you disnt do it

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Not being specific, not a shock. The FBI is not the civil service, it is more akin to secret police/ regime internal security

It’s clerks are.

Steele Dossier ring a bell.

It is not a benefit to have entrenched bureaucracies slowing down political leadership, that is actually a problem because it denies the leaders the ability to make quick decisions and also makes societies more prone to coups and autocratic rule

Again, you say so. I’ve specifically pointed you at the history of why it was brought into being in the first place. In the ‘20’s. The ram rodding of policy brought about by corruption. Things like the Teapot Dome Scandal.

You advocate the very thing the Civil Service was created to prevent.

What you are describing is not corporatism. This is not a shock to me though, you have no idea what you are talking about. You should look up actual political philosophy before throwing words around. You even had the ability to look this up before typing this response and you disnt do it

Oxford Dictionary:

Corporatism, noun

The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

That’s what you advocate?

That corporatism brings about that which I attributed to it isn’t MY take on it. It’s a pretty standard view on it in social science circles. Economists might differ. There is no doubt aspects of the first Gilded Age were a result of it, or that the Crash of 1929 was an aspect of corporatism’s greed and unsustainable drive for profit today over long term economic viability.

As for what I know verses what you know. I’ll let the court of public opinion pass judgement on that and be fine with that.

 

[AmNat]

The malfeasance of the FBI for one thing.

The FBI is not subject to civil service laws.

You'd think you'd know things like this before pontificating about it.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The FBI is not subject to civil service laws.

You'd think you'd know things like this before pontificating about it.

I’m double checking but as far as I know there civilian staff not operating under oath of office is civil service. The secretaries, record keeping, computer operators, science labs, other support staff. Ours were.


Added post script.

Government Jobs - Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Civil Service | Government Jobs & Employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI is actively hiring new people for civil service jobs at locations across the United States. Civil service job opportunities exist across a broad spectrum of skills and duties.

defensestudies.net

“The FBI is actively hiring new people for civil service jobs at locations across the United States. Civil service job opportunities exist across a broad spectrum of skills and duties. ”

 

[AmNat]

I’m double checking but as far as I know there civilian staff not operating under oath of office is civil service. The secretaries, record keeping, computer operators, science labs, other support staff. Ours were.


Added post script.

Government Jobs - Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Civil Service | Government Jobs & Employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI is actively hiring new people for civil service jobs at locations across the United States. Civil service job opportunities exist across a broad spectrum of skills and duties.

defensestudies.net

“The FBI is actively hiring new people for civil service jobs at locations across the United States. Civil service job opportunities exist across a broad spectrum of skills and duties. ”

I know I'm putting in more effort than you're worth, but all FBI positions are exempt from the general rules regarding termination and discipline of federal employees:

This subchapter does not apply to an employee
...
(8) whose position is within the United States Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Panama Canal Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an intelligence component of the Department of Defense (as defined in section 1614 of title 10), or an intelligence activity of a military department covered under subchapter I of chapter 83 of title 10, unless subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section or section 1005(a) of title 39 is the basis for this subchapter’s applicability

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I presented you with a link to a head hunter specifically stating the non-oath support positions of the FBI are Civil Service.

You present a cut out of 5 US Code 7511

5 U.S.C. § 7511 - U.S. Code Title 5. Government Organization and Employees § 7511 | FindLaw

U.S. Title 5. Government Organization and Employees 5 USCA Section 7511. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

There is the entirety of 5 US Code 7511

No where in it does it stipulate non-oath taking support members of the FBI can’t be Civil Service positions. In totally fairness it doesn’t prove they are either. So I fall back on the head hunter link I provided that strongly suggests they are Civil Service. They are, or should be, knowledgeable of the nature of the jobs they are seeking to fill.

I know I'm putting in more effort than you're worth, but all FBI positions are exempt from the general rules regarding termination and discipline of federal employees:

Well that’s rude. I don’t dismiss folks that way but if you’re fine with what that potentially says about you …{shrugging shoulders}.

I politely extend the invitation to dismiss me. Feel free to skip over anything I write. You won’t be hurting my feelings so you do you, Boo. I’ll wish you well, and mean it, regardless. ;cool:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes.

Even if he wishes to be a tsar, a monarch or a flat out dictator.
Nope, he does not have that right.
We fought a revolutionary war because of crap like that and you must have slept through history or made up your own version because you have the sadz when people who don't agree with you thrive in a merit based system that follows the rule of law.

 

[PirateMk1]

Even if he wishes to be a tsar, a monarch or a flat out dictator.
Nope, he does not have that right.
We fought a revolutionary war because of crap like that and you must have slept through history or made up your own version because you have the sadz when people who don't agree with you thrive in a merit based system that follows the rule of law.

I suggest you reread the constitution. The power of the purse and the ability to make law are the EXCLUSIVE domain of the Congress. The executive branches exclusive domain is to be commander of the army, representative of the of the United States to foreign states, to execute the laws enacted by congress with the proviso they pass muster with the constitution, finally it is his job to protect and defend the Constitution first and foremost before all other duties. He is the only one elected to do this job, therefore he IS the executive branch and as the people he hires represent him as the president directly to the people in their interactions with federal government, it is his prerogative as to whom he choses to do this. The congress controls how many people he can have and how much money he will spend. Note the the power of NO is not often used by the president but it is their most powerful weapon. They do not have to hire the maximum amount of people nor do they have to spend the money allocated to hiring those people nor does he have to hire the people the congress choses. The president has a direct veto of pending legislation and an indirect veto of simply saying no. These powers are in most cases with the exception of the power of no, De Jure as well as De Facto, the power of no while not directly De Jure, it is quite De Facto.

 

[Mycroft]

Because you and the “alt facts” folk say so? Lay out the proof of that. I’m not talking links to articles that parrot rhetoric. I’m talking the actual smoking gun(s) that prove corruption has sunk from the elected branch into those mid-level and staffers of the bureaucracy.

You won’t be able to, but I’ll show you that while both political parties if the elected branch are involved in that corruption one 9f the two is more adept and deeper involved in it than the other.

We can start with the enigma that is the head of one of those parties in the Senate, the leader of one side if that mess, who with the same mouth stated that one POTUS was unworthy of placing a SCOTUS candidate before that body for consideration because he had eight months left in his term, yet the next POTUS wit four months left in his not only was worthy, but did, and had that candidate confirmed.





What feet dragging that was done was done by “deep staters” (of which I proudly declare membership) being presented with policy that violated the Constitution and was a detriment to our elective process and the best interest of “We The People” they had sworn an oath to. Giving time for the judiciary branch to resolve the problem and whistleblowing when it was beyond that.

They did PRECISELY what makes it work in service of “We The People” and why it needs to stick around.



You got that wrong. It’s what I pointed out above. Never so violently tested by any administration before Trump, except Trump’s potential second coming where he’s absolutely promised to do far worse. What don’t folks understand about that? He’s saying who he is. Why aren’t you listening? If you are listening why aren’t you believing? If you are believing why don’t you care? Just how much do these folks hate our representative democracy and want to see it go away?

Sorry, but you don't get to determine the information...or the source of the information that I present. All you have the right to do is either accept or dismiss the information or source. That, of course, is your choice.

Anyway...here: https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/cia-officials-implicated-knab/?utm_medium=agg&utm_source=economics

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Sorry, but you don't get to determine the information...or the source of the information that I present. All you have the right to do is either accept or dismiss the information or source. That, of course, is your choice.

Anyway...here: https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/cia-officials-implicated-knab/?utm_medium=agg&utm_source=economics

The above was read, in its entirety, and it is what I’d expect thus very short of any smoking gun(s). It went on about folks like Schiff, Ciaramelia and Misko and repeated allegations about how it all went diwn but presented no proof of it. Just stated it took place a particular way.

Anyone can do that.

I can say “Mycroft” went into an office and participated with Stone and Trump to plant false evidence of election tampering in Georgia on November 29th to facilitate a claim by Trump of election fraud. That doesn’t make it so. Where’s the video of you all entering and exiting the hotel, the cellular records of your communicating with each other, the paper trail of the money used to finance it, etc.

Saying stuff doesn’t make it so and it’s not real evidence.

 

[trouble13]

The Trump, and certain Pub’s, desire to roll our civil employees back to the spoils system where hiring was all “at the will of and service to” the current administration is horribly wrong. Those that support it horribly flawed in their thinking. This is why.

Please study your US history. The spoils system, with its loyalty requirement to those currently in charge, was the way of things in the beginning. It was HORRIBLY CORRUPTED.

We were so lucky that we got a break and the Civil Service merit system came to be. It’s one if the great things that makes this country better. It not only put a huge dent in governmental corruption it added a component of institutional memory to our system. Where as administrations changed the bureaucracy did not. It remained intact with experienced laborers who knew and understood the workings of the system and kept things moving forward, though slowly, even as the new guys who had no hands in experience got up to speed.

Further still, it left a layer of workers beholden to no political masters. They hadn’t sworn an oath to a political boss. They swore an oath to the Constitution and each other, our fellow citizens. It placed a layer of potential whistleblowers in the mix who, if a politician tries to corrupt the system they’ll protect it, the Constitution and our citizens from that act. (Which is precisely why some want it gone).

If they succeed in demolishing it, it likely is not coming back and the bad ol’ days of the spoils system will return. Don’t mess up something that’s good about our system. Merit based Civil Service, despite how frustrating it can be sometimes, is a good thing.

Look at what its gotten us. A corrupt bureaucracy that protects itself. How do you suggested we fix that?

 

[Ahlevah]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

Keep it the way it is: a mixture of political appointments at the policy-making level to carry out the chief executive's vision, with career public servants who know the ropes and can keep the machine humming. Imagine, for example, cleaning out the State Department or CIA every four years. Some of those positions--e.g. analysts or diplomats who immerse themselves in the language, politics, and culture of a country or region--take years to master. Many of these people possess valuable connections and insight. Political appointees would suck at it. By the time they figured out what they were doing it would be time to pack their bags for the next political operative.

 

[Mycroft]

The above was read, in its entirety, and it is what I’d expect thus very short of any smoking gun(s). It went on about folks like Schiff, Ciaramelia and Misko and repeated allegations about how it all went diwn but presented no proof of it. Just stated it took place a particular way.

Anyone can do that.

I can say “Mycroft” went into an office and participated with Stone and Trump to plant false evidence of election tampering in Georgia on November 29th to facilitate a claim by Trump of election fraud. That doesn’t make it so. Where’s the video of you all entering and exiting the hotel, the cellular records of your communicating with each other, the paper trail of the money used to finance it, etc.

Saying stuff doesn’t make it so and it’s not real evidence.

As I said...it's your choice.

You are dismissed.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Look at what its gotten us. A corrupt bureaucracy that protects itself. How do you suggested we fix that?

The middle management and staff are fine. It’s the politically appointed hacks with big ideas of having what the bosses who put them there, so they do their bidding that are the problems. Unless they go rogue and the problem force multiplies.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

As I said...it's your choice.

You are dismissed.

That’s up to you. Totally your choice. Doesn’t mean I won’t comment in an open forum where I see fit, as is anyone’s right who is present here.

Still, legitimately, wishing well…

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump's 2024 plans for the federal Executive Branch.... little different than the patronage army of loyal city employees in 'The Machine' (1955 – 1976) of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.

Corruption was intregal and endemnic and continued (1989 – 2011) under son Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Schedule F appointment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Project 2025 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PirateMk1]

Keep it the way it is: a mixture of political appointments at the policy-making level to carry out the chief executive's vision, with career public servants who know the ropes and can keep the machine humming. Imagine, for example, cleaning out the State Department or CIA every four years. Some of those positions--e.g. analysts or diplomats who immerse themselves in the language, politics, and culture of a country or region--take years to master. Many of these people possess valuable connections and insight. Political appointees would suck at it. By the time they figured out what they were doing it would be time to pack their bags for the next political operative.

Those same people were working at cross purposes to the president. The ability to fire at will should be intrinsic to the presidency. It should be up to the president whether people are kept or not.

 

[trouble13]

The middle management and staff are fine. It’s the politically appointed hacks with big ideas of having what the bosses who put them there, so they do their bidding that are the problems. Unless they go rogue and the problem force multiplies.

Your response does not offer a solution nor is it accurate.

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were not political appointees. They were middle middle management career civil servants and clearly corrupt.

Lois Lerner was a civil servant. She showed a bias.

To be clear I am empathetic to the idea that replacing one bad system with another bad system isn't a good solution. At the same time there is a problem within that does need to be addressed. We need a way to ensure people are doing their job without bias and there needs to be accountability for those who do show a bias.

 

[Ahlevah]

Those same people were working at cross purposes to the president. The ability to fire at will should be intrinsic to the presidency. It should be up to the president whether people are kept or not.

In a manner of speaking, isn’t that what Stalin did during the Great Purge? “Fired”—permanently, it turns out—government cadres who he thought weren’t loyal and who were working at cross purposes? He eliminated most of his experienced military officers just prior to the onset of WWII, when he really could have used them. Not too bright. Firing everyone in the political cone of the State Department who specializes in China and is fluent in Mandarin because they’re not sycophantic poodles wouldn’t be fatal, but it still would damage the long-term interests of this country.

Basically, we’re not talking about Walmart here. You need civil service protections to ensure you have professional, experienced, and dedicated public servants who serve the interests of the public without political influence or favoritism. Objective standards for employment, such as passing a civil service exam or clear criteria for promotion, also tend to support a meritocracy and not a system based on nepotism or political patronage like we find in so many corrupt, dysfunctional countries. That’s bad for the overall morale and efficiency of the organization. These protections are a cornerstone of ensuring that the rule of law keeps corruption and decay at bay. Let’s keep Boss Tweed where he belongs: in the grave.

 

[eohrnberger]

The problem with it is we end up with entrenched unaccountable bureaucrats. I will take the spoils system any day. The be simple, the president IS the executive branch and the people in the executive branch represent him. If the buck stops with the president then the president has a right to make sure he is represented as he wishes. Congress still holds the purse strings and can put numbers limits as before. When the president leaves so do their bureaucrats. Thats a good thing. The really good thing about that system is its intrinsically small because bring a lot of people in is a bitch. Aint no way they are hiring 23 million people.

Not only.
It would disrupt the public sector unions at the federal level, which even FDR didn't think had a right or reason to exist.

 

[eohrnberger]

The problem we have now is that "lower level administrative infrastructure" isn't serving the people. It isn't putting the "laws and policy of the elected into effect". Those people are serving a political ideology.

We saw that throughout Trump's first term with people dragging their feet, leaking sensitive and classified information, and outright working in opposition of the elected President.

Exactly.

That should not be tolerated and there should be a mechanism that allows the President and his appointed directors to cut those people loose.

Agreed.

 

[PirateMk1]

In a manner of speaking, isn’t that what Stalin did during the Great Purge? “Fired”—permanently, it turns out—government cadres who he thought weren’t loyal and who were working at cross purposes? He eliminated most of his experienced military officers just prior to the onset of WWII, when he really could have used them. Not too bright. Firing everyone in the political cone of the State Department who specializes in China and is fluent in Mandarin because they’re not sycophantic poodles wouldn’t be fatal, but it still would damage the long-term interests of this country.

Basically, we’re not talking about Walmart here. You need civil service protections to ensure you have professional, experienced, and dedicated public servants who serve the interests of the public without political influence or favoritism. Objective standards for employment, such as passing a civil service exam or clear criteria for promotion, also tend to support a meritocracy and not a system based on nepotism or political patronage like we find in so many corrupt, dysfunctional countries. That’s bad for the overall morale and efficiency of the organization. These protections are a cornerstone of ensuring that the rule of law keeps corruption and decay at bay. Let’s keep Boss Tweed where he belongs: in the grave.

I don't care about the competency requirements, however the President IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, therefore all of the executive branch employees represents not the government, but the president. The president has the intrinsic right to make sure he is represented by HIS people to HIS standard. It is up to the president to build the organization that represents him best within the confines of the budget and numbers limits provided by congress. He can CHOOSE to keep people or fire them all, but the president has that choice as a consequence of the nature of his unique position as THE executive branch.

 

[Ahlevah]

I don't care about the competency requirements, however the President IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, therefore all of the executive branch employees represents not the government, but the president. The president has the intrinsic right to make sure he is represented by HIS people to HIS standard. It is up to the president to build the organization that represents him best within the confines of the budget and numbers limits provided by congress. He can CHOOSE to keep people or fire them all, but the president has that choice as a consequence of the nature of his unique position as THE executive branch.

That’s why he’s permitted to make presidential appointments. He appoints military officers, who serve at his pleasure. If they’re not doing their job or he’s lost faith in their leadership, with, say, Trump-hating underlings undermining his program, he can fire them. But taking your logic to its obvious conclusion to “fire them all” if he so desires, why not give him the power to fire every soldier, airman, and sailor down to the last private, airman basic, and seaman recruit He can then install HIS people and train pilots, sonar operators, SEALS, etc. to HIS standard, and see HIS military be a complete FAIL when the next war arrives on OUR doorstep, leaving the next president to pick up the pieces.