I have always believed that the role of a bureaucracy is to make changes slow. In the far extreme, it leads to red-taping, corruption, and obscurity and presumably that's why one's first response would always be to advocate for more efficiency and cuts. However, there's a reason that virtually every bureaucracy in this planet is slow. Not one, not two, but all of them are not designed, rather devolve over time to such a state. The reason is that any change you make at such a level has tremendous consequences flowing downstream to every single level so you need time to plan, review, and document (for accountability) such changes. Plainly, that's not happening right now. I just wish that people who were doing this would stop and think for a while on the difference between the consequence of tanking a social media company versus tanking a government. I sure would be glad to be proved wrong and see it all work out though.
My concern is the lack of due process [1]. By changing government programs that directly or indirectly benefits citizens without due process. The US will be without rule of law. It will become a winner take all situation. The winner of an election will be above the law. And the loser be potentially denied property and/or incarcerated simply for being in the wrong political party.
While, thus, some law-based relationship or expectation of continuation had to be shown before a federal court would say that process was "due," constitutional “property” was no longer just what the common law called “property”; it now included any legal relationship with the state that state law regarded as in some sense an “entitlement” of the citizen. Licenses, government jobs protected by civil service, or places on the welfare rolls were all defined by state laws as relations the citizen was entitled to keep until there was some reason to take them away, and therefore process was due before they could be taken away.
I will say, the CEO of the USA Elon and his friend Trump did announce they were going to do this some time ago. So I’m a bit dismayed at folks acting surprised.
To me it seems clear they want to clear the government out of people who disagree with them, and make government less effective overall. I don’t see how reducing the federal government into barely anything and granting the richest corporations with massive tax breaks will help the average citizen afford housing, groceries, healthcare, keep them and their kids safe, and improve the quality of life in general. I’d love someone to explain it to me.
On a personal note, I’m highly annoyed that Elon Musk, who forever seemed to be a cringey edgelord who is severely unlikable (to me) now controls the US government.
3 comments
[ 1.1 ms ] story [ 19.3 ms ] thread[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
While, thus, some law-based relationship or expectation of continuation had to be shown before a federal court would say that process was "due," constitutional “property” was no longer just what the common law called “property”; it now included any legal relationship with the state that state law regarded as in some sense an “entitlement” of the citizen. Licenses, government jobs protected by civil service, or places on the welfare rolls were all defined by state laws as relations the citizen was entitled to keep until there was some reason to take them away, and therefore process was due before they could be taken away.
To me it seems clear they want to clear the government out of people who disagree with them, and make government less effective overall. I don’t see how reducing the federal government into barely anything and granting the richest corporations with massive tax breaks will help the average citizen afford housing, groceries, healthcare, keep them and their kids safe, and improve the quality of life in general. I’d love someone to explain it to me.
On a personal note, I’m highly annoyed that Elon Musk, who forever seemed to be a cringey edgelord who is severely unlikable (to me) now controls the US government.