[ Disclaimer: these words are solely the thoughts of the author. My goal is to get people to consider ideas in depth and not go for the feel-good sound bites.]
A recent proclamation by former Pres Trump expedited me to pen something that has been in my thoughts for some time. Below is what Pres Trump said
-------
“Congress should pass historic reforms empowering the president to ensure that any bureaucrat who was corrupt, incompetent or unnecessary for the job can be told — did you ever hear this — ‘You’re fired. Get out, you’re fired,”.
---------
So, if elected for a second presidential term Trump’s intent is to resurrect his Schedule F executive order which would make members of the federal workforce at-will employees. Here’s the rub/obstacle: Schedule F was repealed in Pres Biden’s first week in office and he gave agency heads the authority to reclassify certain policy-making positions from the career civil service to the excepted service under this new schedule. Additionally, earlier this month the House passed the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act with an amendment that would block future administrations from bringing back Schedule F. The amendment passed in a 215-201 vote. Here are some of the follies of Executive Orders:
- the next Pres can repeal the Executive Order
- Congress can pass legislation that makes it difficult, nearly impossible, to carry out the order e.g., remove funding.
IMHO, Presidencies should not be the battle place of Executive Orders.
"The Swamp" career Federal employees and bureaucrats are well entrenched in DC. Career employees are a dual edge sword – they can be for the good, with vast historical knowledge/know how and they can provide a level of stability, or they can serve to undermine any meaning full change. This is a perfect segue to the idea of “Term Limits”
Term limits is where I diverge from one of the tenets held by many, I don’t endorse the idea. Why?
- I think it further rewards uniformed voter that chooses not to stay engaged. My mindset is every time we go to the ballot box, we have an opportunity to vote someone out. I acknowledge it can be hard to dislodge an incumbent especially when people fail to research candidates. Money doesn’t vote – PEOPLE vote. The real problem is us going with the familiar. Collectively we’re horrible at doing our due diligence. Example – how the hell did Georgians elect Herschel Walker, name recognition over substance. If you doubt that thought just look up his primary opponents. Well damn Georgians, just give up that seat in the General Election.
- What happens when you have a good Representative (Rep), who is doing the peoples’ business and they are term limited out? It will suck for those constituents if that Rep is replaced by a bozo.
- We often think OUR Rep is good, it’s the other person’s Rep that sucks. Newsflash people on the other side are saying the same thing.
So here’s my challenge to all, myself included. Before you figuratively punch the ballot for someone, ask yourself why you’re voting for them. Are you voting merely because of name recognition? Do they bring anything to the position they’re running for such as demonstrated trench/grassroots work? Can they give you their 3 priorities that lie within their SPAN of CONTROL for the position? If you can’t answer these questions perhaps you should seek info or skip this section of the ballot. I know the latter goes against the school of thought that no vote is a vote for the other person. I say, NO not really. I still scratch my head as to how Robert Morrow won 52% of the primary votes in Guadalupe County; did people confuse him with the actor?