Showing posts sorted by date for query Administrative state. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Administrative state. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, September 4, 2025

DIANA WEST: yes, immigration [is] an important, important tactic used by the Communists to infiltrate the United States and other Western countries

the Communist Party never really trusted it's American acolytes.  Always wanted to have foreign born controllers here.  I mean this is a matter of command and control.  So right from the Russian Revolution forward, you see the Left, the Communist Left, the fellow Travelers agitating for immigration in order to be able to bring in these kinds of people, bring in these Legions who are also hostile to the American way as part of their unrestricted warfare we might call it today.  --Diana West

7:35. Stanley Rothman's book on the new left.  He made the point there that there are two counter types on the new left: the gentile people on the new left, who are in genuine revolt against the families, and the Jews who were supportive by the families.  

7:45.  It does continue today, and I would even add that the New Left in my experience and in analysis, I go into this in The Red Thread, the New Left was just a name, a new name, for a younger generation of the Old Left.  They tried to pretend that it was something different.  It really wasn't.  It was just a continuation of the same communist war against America.  But that is true, and these people replicate themselves.  You mentioned we only scratched the surface in terms of outing any of these people.  Most of them never suffered anything in terms of coming to trial for, say, treason or something, something serious like that.  That did not happen except they point to the Rosenberg case. I always think of them as sort of small fry in a much larger conspiracy, one conspiracy amongst so many.  So these people were never truly revealed the thought of people like Whittaker Chambers, and Elizabeth Bentley, Igor Gouzenko, the defector out of Canada, they believe there were multiple rings that were being run in the middle of the 20th century that never ever were exposed.  Now they only had a window into one or two of these rings and some other people, so if you had all these other rings running inside the federal bureaucracy, well, who did those people ensure moved into their seats, into their slots, into their network after they left?  So we've seen this replication of regenerations of like-minded people who are, now, we call it the Deep State, now call it the Swamp, but this is the origin of it, and it does go back that far. People tend to think everything went wrong with Obama, you know, talking about the short memory we observe.  But it goes back at least 100 years in terms of the assault.  Also, through immigration, to tip onto your bailiwick here, but the notion that the Communist Party never really trusted it's American acolytes.  Always wanted to have foreign-born controllers here.  I mean this is a matter of command and control.  So right from the Russian Revolution forward, you see the Left, the Communist Left, the fellow Travelers agitating for immigration in order to be able to bring in these kinds of people, bring in these Legions who are also hostile to the American way as part of their unrestricted warfare we might call it today. 

10:13.  Can you tell us what the Venona transcripts are?

10:20.  Sure, they even know the transcripts are decrypts, about 2000 released decrypts of KGB conversations that took place largely in the 1940s that were copied by Western Union during World War II.  And they were actually along the order of something like 2 million of these communications.  We only have about 2,000 that have been released, and they attest to the maneuvering and more administrative in some ways, activities of Soviet agents working here, many of them, hundreds of them, inside the federal government and surrounding institutions with their controllers with Moscow Center.  They were released, it is important to know, by the US government by the intelligence agencies.  So in other words, it wasn't as if there was a wholesale release and scholars could go pick and choose what they would like to read.  We were given a set of these things and we've been using them ever since sort of to corroborate what the actual deal . . . 

11:25.  When were they released?

11:26.  They were released in the 1990s . . . I would say early 90s, 1993, '94. After we started seeing some revelations coming out of Moscow, not before.  Again, they were control-released by government authorities in the former Soviet Union.  So, in other words, we do see this not as something really a free-wheeling revelation, but a controlled revelation which has been very helpful but I do not believe it attests to what was really known inside the security agencies.

12:02.  So the question is why doesn't Donald Trump just order them to be released?

12:06.  I don't know if he's aware of this particular not you know at this point Tempest I mean I wish I actually Drew up a plan to declassifier in Chief in 2016 because there are just piles and piles probably miles and miles archives that should be of archives that should be unredacted and released to the public that go back 100 years 80 years spy rings that everyone is long deceased of black ink if you look at the paperwork and then going forward through so many other scandals that have been kept from the American people and important National Security issues that tend to by staying secret perpetuate the power of the swamp the stature of the traitors in our midst and all the rest of it.  They don't protect anyone good in other words.

13:04.  One of the things that fascinates me about this is this is so often hereditary.  That's one of the things that Rothman pointed out the new Left literally was the second generation of the old left and of course they've continued to reproduce themselves the strong personal connections across the generations.  One of my other great interests is you know have a great speech which Enoch Powell who gave a great speech that kicked off the immigration debates in Britain in 1968 and Powell was sort of like a subtle Trump in that he was able to throw bombs and can then defend himself one of the bombs he threw in the years after he gave his great speech on immigration and was a major figure in British politics, conducting a kind of guerilla war against the establishment.  At one point, he said he wondered if the revelations about communist infiltration the Hallmark of the Department of Interior for them that there had been communist infiltration there, if it hadn't continued to be responsible for the Paradox of the immigration policy where they're letting in people who were obviously of course his point was he simply said I said I wonder I wonder about it I wonder about it too in the context of the US where is immigration policy in the US come from?

14:46.  Absolutely there has to be because no Institution was impervious to the same kind of subversion infiltration embeddedness.  I mean this is what you really do start to get a better sense of when you look at the Venona, the Vasiliaev, the FBI declassifications, the Senate sessions, that were declassified later, you know, the executive sessions later declassified.  I mean this is what comes through loud and clear.  Many of our lawmakers had a real handle on it going back to the 1950s and we're doing things about it but they were constantly assaulted by the same left and media infiltration is also something real.  Whittaker Chambers wrote about the communist cell in Time Magazine.  We know about the various departments and agencies of the US government that were infiltrated.  So, yes, immigration is an important, important tactic here.  As I mentioned earlier you know there was a very good Roosevelt, I consider him, Archibald Roosevelt, who is the son of Teddy Roosevelt.  He was very big on unmasking communist infiltration, and he gave a really important testimony before Congress in the mid 50s.  And he was discussing how communism used immigration everywhere to advance their armies going back to the Russian Revolution and forward.  He was using the example, for example, Hungary after the Russian Revolution.  You saw Bolsheviks entering Hungary after World War II, the same, so that by the time you get to the takeover in 1956 of Hungary you had this whole Trojan Army in place and he was making the case at the same thing happened here.  So you are exactly dead on in terms of people coming in through immigration and then the government pushing for this kind of thing from the Left.  I mean again, it's always the same kind of combination.  You actually have the hardened actors and agents then you have your fellow travelers who believe in the same goals, and you also have your dupes.  I mean always with these activities there are so many people who have no idea they are being manipulated, however, they are part of essentially what we might think of as communist fronts.  Our government becomes a  Communist front, various sectors of a Communist front once there is this kind of infiltration.  I mean just look at the Roosevelt White House, where you have senior advisors to the president later unmasked just in Venona as Soviet agents, whether it was Lachlan Currie, some of the other people in the offices there.  The case against Harry Hopkins is quite strong.  I go through that piece by piece in American Betrayal.  I mean these were the men influencing American policy making at the highest level.  So, yes, it definitely happened in the State Department we know, and the related immigration agencies.  Has to be.  Has to be.

17:42.  The Red Thread is basically your account of how the intelligence agencies organized a coup against Trump.  Just tell us who the chief actors were.

18:03.  We're looking at your Brennans, your Comeys, your Clappers, your Nelly Ohr from the group Fusion GPS that came up with the  dossier.  Christopher Steele her opposite number of former MI6, she had . . even

18:21.  are you saying these people obviously had left wing connections obviously before we even saw them doing this kind of thing.

18:31.  Well I don't think they were obvious to anyone but themselves.  But they are obvious to anyone who takes a look to see what motivates these people.  I mean what motivates these people could I find their ideas because they are such cyphers when you see them in testifying or in print or just look at their CVs.  You don't really know who they are except officials but it turned out there was quite a lot of information about a number of them often in their own words, whether their college thesis.  John Brennan, for example, I mean, James Comey, for example, or John Brennan's Master thesis.  His own John Brennan actually fessed up in public that he had been, that he had voted for Gus Hall in 1976 in his CIA interview and was not cut off.  I mean this is such an extraordinary thing.

19:29.  People tend to think of the FBI particularly the CIA as being right wing.  But of course the Nazis started it all particularly the CIA it's always been a liberal establishment operation.

19:41.  It's always been prey to infiltrators it's been prey to disinformation and party to it I mean this is the reality that we have to accept about these agencies the FBI I think fell at a later date but when you look at James Comey's own writings, his own behaviors he's a very much an "ends justifies the means" social justice warrior.  His ideal to this day starting from the time he was a young man and a self-professed communist at William and Mary was Reinhold Neibuhr.  He claims Reinhold Neibuhr to this day as his leading intellectual influence.  Well, Reinhold Neibuhr especially in the writings that Comey cites as having been so in influential on him was essentially a Marxist in a clerical collar, someone who was always pro-Soviet, pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, always an opponent of the anti-communist of the day.  He had a very clear record of writings actually, even proselytizing for violent overthrow of the established order on college campuses in the 1930s.  I mean he was a real radical.  And when you actually look at Comey the Communist falling in love intellectually . . .

21:00.  Do you think that Comey has left wing connections when he was at college?

21:02.  I don't know what connections he had but he described himself as a communist his own words in 2003 and my point being that Reinhold Neibuhr being his intellectual leader back when he was a communist it is very strange to me that someone who was not a communist is still so guided by him in terms of his communist leanings, social justice, using the law to redistribute wealth and justice, and these are the main ideas of Reinhold Neibuhr in the writings that Comey draws from.  So he's certainly not your typical FBI recruit who would have come in under J Edgar Hoover.  I mean this is what happened to that agency and he ran it.  And was involved in this Palace coup against the president along with all of these other ideological cohorts Christopher Steele, . . . 

21:58.  What did you think they were . . . the curious thing about this is that it developed after the election. I guess they thought . . . what do you think they were actually aiming to do to, get him impeached, or what? 

22:10.  Well, I think hey they were trying to protect themselves and what had been going on inside this government for generations. I mean I think that the fact that they all took such dangerous steps rather than just simply let Trump go come back in 2 years, take over the Congress, I mean that's what we normally do when you get thrown out of power, you come back into power.  So there was something abnormal here about these machinations, this International conspiracy that certainly efforts to subvert the election, the presidency, and the rest of it, and spy on the domestic opposition, that is not normal.  And so when you ask yourself why would they risk everything, of course they assumed Hillary would win, but still do the seditious things, you have to start wondering what the game really was.  My assessment of it is that they were, A) trying to cover everything up that they'd been doing; B) I think ideologically they could not be more opposed to Donald Trump and everything he stands for because he is the man who came to build the nation, again to impose, you know, to build a wall, to impose the immigration controls, to bring manufacturing home; in other words, to interrupt the New World Order, which had been in perfect motion since certainly 1945 in terms of taking away our sovereignty, our nationalism, and everything else, and ending up with this Global type governance, and International economy, and all the rest of it.  And going back to that period . . . just remember who set up the UN, who set up the IMF.  Two Soviet agents who worked very high, at high levels in the American government: Alger Hiss at the UN, and Harry Dexter White at the IMF.  I mean that's pretty astonishing when you actually think about it and where we are.

24:00.  I was very taken with the releases of the list of journalists in 2008 and 9 when it became obvious that all of these Elite Left-wing journalist from different and allegedly.

25:50.  Well they'd work it out and publish it in a daily worker and other organs I mean it was a much slower day right now you can look on Twitter and look at the thought leaders and sort of pick it up right there.  They probably don't need anything like journalists although they may have one I don't know but yes you notice the coordination you notice the pressure to coordinate the pressure not to say something else that's a big part of this as well some of it is staged I'm sure as you say some of it I think becomes a psychological just a psychological on scene pressure I mean people definitely know how to play up to someone and make sure their career continues in a certain way right?  So someone I mean it is like a mass kind of psychosis I guess

Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, Peter Brimelow, 1995.  Thank you to this post. 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, July 20, 2025

ERIC WEINSTEIN, WEF, & WORLD BANK: Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes. Yet, migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages.

Eric Weinstein has succeeded in making Americans poor and poorer. 

Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives” 
Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore

Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore.  

Full article from Johnny Vedmore here.
At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today is highly unpopular with native workers of the target countries. The United Nations International Labor Organization in Geneva set up "the MIGRANT Division" to analyze and find solutions to these issues. To lead the unit, the UN appointed Manolo Abella to be Chief of MIGRANT, who is now linked with the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the University of Oxford, and others. Their stated challenge was to: “Find a free market solution to let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their costs while boosting the income of native workers to the point where their interests become aligned with their employers.” To achieve this goal they decided on a solution. They wrote: “Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes. Yet, migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages. Thus the solution is to realize that total income must rise while wage income is allowed to fall. This suggests that any natural free market solution must involve a natural income stream to host country workers which has previously been obscured or hidden. We then discover that if the (highly valuable) right of host country citizens to block access to labor markets is properly converted into a salable right, workers are made better off (since a salable right is always more financially valuable than a non-salable one). We thus convert the rights to preferential labor market access into rights of workers to license migrant work permits to employers. We find that with a little bit of care the market will now return an efficient solution with all parties being made better off.” Essentially the UN decided that the democratic voters of a nation-state would oppose unfettered economic migration, as we are experiencing today, and the folks at this globalist entity believed they knew better. To achieve their goals, the United Nations needed to subversively introduce this agenda in an undemocratic manner without gaining the consent of the native citizens of the democracies that they were to target. The man they chose to analyse and map out this scheme, which many refer to now as “The Great Replacement” was Eric R. Weinstein, who has since become a central figure in the “Intellectual Dark Web” whose members include Ben Shapiro, David Rubin, Jordan B. Peterson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan, and Eric’s brother Bret Weinstein.

@EricRWeinstein
was employed by the UN to produce a document entitled, "Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration." Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives”, Weinstein wrote: “When migrant and native workers of comparable value to an employer are asked to compete, it is to be expected that the employer will take the applicant who costs him/her less. If, however, the respective terms of employment of the native and the migrant workers differ considerably, the employer may develop a preference between otherwise equal candidates. If migrant workers are not permitted to seek alternative work in the host country, then their “company loyalty” is reduced to a matter of law and regulation. In such circumstances, employers know that they will not have to earn migrant worker loyalty with the expenditure of resources that would be needed in the case of native workers. Thus it is to be expected that in systems tethering migrant workers to their employer-sponsors, some migrants will out-compete natives of comparable or greater value simply by virtue of the terms of employment set by the MWP. Since this is precipitated by a rational market response on the part of native employers, this consequence must be seen as a natural, if unfortunate, by-product of direct migrant sponsorship.” The Weinstein plan was always going to cost the government money, as we see unfolding today. A meticulous and proactive plan would have to be enacted by the nation-state in question to deal with the impact of large-scale migration and the author makes this clear in the document, with Eric R. Weinstein stating: “In effect, the government would assume all the administrative and transport costs for a group of migrants, as well as calculating the additional external impacts of hosting them. To indicate these costs, the government would calculate the expected migrant impact cost as a function of the number of migrants. Such a function would be expected not only to grow as the number of migrants increased, but also to do so in accelerating fashion, because of concern for the environment, monitoring costs, societal stress, and security risks.” The plan which was set out by Eric Weinstein predisposes the necessity of what he describes as “a much larger redistribution of native income”. The influx of migrants will always take wealth and opportunities away from the native population and this has a knock-on effect on how the “self-interested electorate” of the nation-state involved will vote. “In the first instance, the tethering of migrants to employer-sponsors creates a non-market system with a host of inefficiencies, as well as the potential for human rights violations. Second, naively opening markets to migrants from lower-income countries can act as a kind of “tax”, redistributing native income away from workers and towards employers. Of course, it can be argued that any proposed redistribution is intrinsically neither good nor bad, yet such transfers can make it nearly impossible to reach broad consensus on many important migration issues within the host country electorate: rationality indicates that proposals which threaten to harm the majority of individuals are unlikely to be approved by a self-interested electorate.” While comparing and analysing different methods of controlling the influx of migrants, Weinstein also studies the “Borjas Model” of economic migration and the predictable effect of its implementation on native workers, stating: “Native workers in the sector concerned may experience none of the economic benefits of the migration program. In fact, in the absence of any compensation measures, they may experience a substantial loss of income, as the benefit to the host society stems from the ability to lower wages while simultaneously increasing the number of workers employed.”

The problems of “ghettoization” and issues relating to “long-term native shortages” are brought up by Weinstein as known consequences of the redistribution of income away from native populations, but at no point are these problems expressed as reasons not to force economic migration upon target populations. In this United Nations document, Eric Weinstein specifically pushes Marxist ideology concerning the redistribution of income and wealth which benefits economic migrants at the expense of the native populations. Eric Weinstein proudly advertised his work for the United Nations on his website at the time, as well as posing himself as an expert on the subject. Under the title of “International Migration”, Weinstein even had a special email address for issues concerning migration where it was written: “If you are interested in the creation of efficient markets for facilitating increased international labor migration, please contact me at migration@eric-weinstein.net regarding the article 'Migration for the Benefit of All' to appear in 2002 in the International Labor Review. It is a pleasure to thank the MIGRANT division of the United Nations ILO in Geneva for sponsoring this work.” Whether you like him or not, Eric Weinstein has not been honest about his part in designing the failed Globalist system of economic migration which many people today refer to as the “Great Replacement”. He also hasn’t advertised his previous involvement with the United Nations, and his connection to Edge while it was fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. During this time, Weinstein was also producing models for JP Morgan, one of Epstein’s keenest employers. Find this article with source material at newspaste.com/2024/09/25/eri I have also linked the original UN sponsored document produced by Eric Weinstein, entitled: "Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration." in PDF format.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Thursday, July 3, 2025

and notice how Trump is not doing anything about this.  I made the point the other day and I will make it again.  Trump controls Israeli politics now.

I'm disappointed in Iran.  They turned out to be bluffing the entire time.  Maybe I'm going to be wrong about that, but as of right now the facts on the ground state pretty clearly that Iran was a paper tiger.  --Tom Luongo

7:40.  And my position is very clear now. Iran never gained a nuclear weapon because they never wanted to gain a nuclear weapon but not for the reasons that Alex and everybody else have been talking about, the fatwa, no, it has nothing to do with that at all.  It's clear that these guys are in bed with freaking GCHQ on both sides. It's the search for the nuclear weapon.  It's the striving for it that is the casus belli, not the actual nuclear weapon.  If they wanted to make a nuclear weapon, they would have done so 20 years ago.  Hell, f*cking North Korean made one.  And if the Russians wanted them to have a nuclear weapon, they would have had one.  If the Chinese wanted them to have a nuclear weapon, they would have had one.  My logic here is not wrong.  My logic here just comes to a different conclusion than your logic, and we're going to find out who's logic is correct, and there's no amount of brow beating me into submission on this.  Because at the end of the day, I understand the strategy of bitches like Christine Lagarde and Andrew Bailey and all the rest of them, and Tony Blair and Benjamin Netanyahu.  The goal is chaos.  Of course, they want regime change in Iran.  Of course, it's playing out like a certain freaking script, and notice how Trump is not doing anything about this.  I made the point the other day and I will make it again.  Trump controls Israeli politics now. The British are trying to resurrect, you know, Reza Pahlavi.  It's not working.  The Russians are going after the NGOs in all of the -stans.  They are arresting people.  Aliyev in Azerbaijan is trying to prop up his failing regime.  He's been caught with his hands in the cookie jar, helping Israel attack Iran from the north, and betray Russia at the same time.  He knows he's in trouble.  

After all of the drama on the slack server for the last couple of days, again I think it's funny that everybody thought I would be upset about this, "Don't tell Tom."  I don't give a s***.  I hope you all found your soulmates being juiceburgs together it's Grand I always want people to find there in the world and if you're not part of mine it's great I don't want you to be in that in this club.  

11:27.  This is my position because I'm trying to end this nightmare.  We have been blackmailed by these evil freaking people for 85 years, 80 years, since the end of World War II, the Cold War, Cold War Redux, the Lost 90s in Russia, all of it.  It's all Downstream of this when you stop to really do the math about how much money is spent trying to deal with minimizing the threat and of nuclear weapon proliferation, and the amount of money that's spent on defense and espionage and cloak-and-dagger stuff, all of it, the Congressional hearings, and the lost wages, all of it, the SG&A costs, [Selling, General, & Administrative Costs] and every corporation in the world.  It's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars every year.  And who does that serve?  Level up and see through the b*******.  The way to end all this is to start cleaving Gordian knots.  Your move, or you get a B2 up your ass.  Your move, or we fly in some F-22s.  Your move.  If you want to know why I have anger in my voice, I'm disappointed in Iran.  They turned out to be bluffing the entire time.  Maybe I'm going to be wrong about that, but as of right now the facts on the ground state pretty clearly that Iran was a paper tiger.  That's what we have and I've been pretty clear, I don't like Israel.  I'm trying not to use the word "hate" because I don't want hate to be the operative means by which I do analysis because that's a bad way to do analysis . . .  because you know that whole anger-fear-aggression path that leads to the dark side, like it's real, folks.  Hate makes you powerful, like yeah.  I'm just not playing that game.  So I want Israel to pay for their crimes, all of them, including the ones where they got us involved and s*** that poured moral stain all over me because I wound up paying for it.  I'm angry about that.  I really wanted to Iran to really knock their freaking teeth in.  Really did. A little angry about that.  A little sad, sad that I was actually sucked into that b******* for a few years.  That being said, they hit them hard enough and hit us hard enough because of the perilous state that our actual military supply lines are in and our ammunition supply lines are in, which has a nugget of truth to it, which is not . . . not untrue that we can't sustain that war for that long.  But we can sustain it longer, long enough to get rid of the assholes who were "fighting the good fight of the resistance." I love Star Wars but it's a bad metaphor for this.  We're not the Empire, they're not the Rebellion or the resistance.  That's not the way this works. Okay so let all that go and let's move forward and say you know what I don't want to be blackmailed by evil f****** shitbags anymore you guys want to fight amongst yourselves for resources you want to text us for military's and all that great great you developed weapons now where you only have to fight each other we're back to where the wars are fought by the King's armies.  And only the king's armies need to be targeted, and the civilians can be left alone.  You know, gentlemanly warfare.  Lob ballistic missiles and drones at each other's ammo dumps and weapons development sites and research departments and Skunk Works and all the rest of it and their barracks.  You sign up for the military, your life is forfeit.  My dad was NYPD.  I never once was under any illusions about the fact that my dad had to put himself In harm's way in order to protect and serve.  And I found it offensive the older I got here in the United States, as time went on, we sat here protecting cops.  F*** protecting cops. Cops are forfeit in service of protecting and serving civilians.  If you've read this month's newsletter I think you understand my perspective on this if you haven't read this month's newsletter maybe consider spending an extra $7 a month on it, or $8 bucks, whatever it is. 

17:50.  I've just come into a different state of mind about all of these things watching this play itself out brought a lot of clarity I'm tired of watching the Vorlons in the Shadows manipulate us into fighting their f****** wars for them.  I want a new way even for people like us.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 7, 2025

MARIA ZAKHAROVA, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESWOMAN: It is an intervention machine in internal affairs, it is a mechanism for, . . . I don't know, changing regimes, political systems, the state structure. It's like some kind of Terminator, but it is definitely not a helper

U.S. AID TO ISRAEL AND EGYPT IS ALSO EXEMPTED FROM THE FREEZE ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman,

One thing noteworthy of course is the feeling of satisfaction from the fact that everything that we talked about presenting facts was fully confirmed after the data on the activities of the structure were disclosed there is truly satisfaction in the fact that we withstood the monstrous onslaught of criticism, accusations, insults, threats when we closed USAID in our country that it was anything but an aid, assistance, and development agency.

RUSSIA WELCOMES THE U.S. DECISION TO SHUT DOWN USAID AS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY DESCRIBES USAID AS A "MACHINE FOR INTERFERING" IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS

USAID WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, FUNDING GLOBAL HEALTH AND EMERGENCY PROGRAMS

IT ALSO PROMOTED DEMOCRACY INITIATIVES IN OVER 120 COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE WORLD'S POOREST REGIONS

U.S. RIVALS, INCLUDING RUSSIA, SEE USAID'S WORK AS A KEY SOURCE OF U.S. SOFT POWER AND INFLUENCE

"It is an intervention machine in internal affairs, it is a mechanism for, . . . I don't know, changing regimes, political systems, the state structure.  It's like some kind of Terminator, but it is definitely not a helper, . . . And it is definitely outside the framework of both Russian legislation and international law."

"One thing noteworthy of course is the feeling of satisfaction from the fact that everything that we talked about presenting facts . . . was fully confirmed after the data on the activities of the structure were disclosed.  There is truly satisfaction in the fact that we withstood the monstrous onslaught of criticism . . . accusations, insults, threats when we closed USAID in our country, . . . . saying that it was anything but aid, assistance, and development agency."  

EARLIER AMID TRUMP CRACKDOWN, USAID HAD ITS WEBSITE VANISH WITHOUT EXPLANATION

TRUMP CRITICIZED USAID, CALLING IT "RUN BY A BUNCH OF RADICAL LUNATICS"

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS PLACED AT LEAST 60 SENIOR U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

REPORTS SAY THE MOVE AIMS TO SUPPRESS DISSENT OVER CHANGES IN U.S. FOREIGN AID POLICIES

THE SUSPENSION IS PART OF TRUMP'S LARGER EFFORT TO RESTRUCTURE FOREIGN AID SPENDING

IT REMAINS UNCLEAR WHEN THE USAID EMPLOYEES WILL RETURN OR IF EXEMPTIONS WILL BE GRANTED

THE 90-DAY PAUSE IN FOREIGN AID HAS CAUSED HALTS IN PROGRAMS AND LAYOFFS GLOBALLY

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE EXEMPTED ONLY EMERGENCY FOOD AND MILITARY AID FROM FREEZE

U.S. AID TO ISRAEL AND EGYPT IS ALSO EXEMPTED FROM THE FREEZE ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, November 28, 2024

MARC ANDREESSEN: Operation Chokepoint: No due process, none of this is written down. There are no rules. There is no court. There is no decision process. There is no appeal. Who do you appeal to, right, like who do you go to to get your bank account back?

the way we would describe it is it's administrative power.  It's political power being administered not through legislation, right, so there's no defined law that covers this.  It's not through regulation, right, there's nothing you . . . you can't go sue a regulator to fix this.  It's not through any kind of court judgment.  It's just raw power.  It's just raw administrative power.  It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it.  --Marc Andreessen

Marc Andreessen.  

00:00. Debanking is where you as a person or as a company are literally kicked out of the banking system.

00:13.  Like they did to Kanye.

00:14.  Exactly, like they did to Kanye.  My partner [Ben Horowitz], Ben's father, has been debanked.  

00:15.  Really! 

00:16.  We had an employee . . . 

00:17.  For what?

00:18.  For having the wrong politics.  For saying unacceptable things under current banking regulations here's a great thing under current banking regulations after all the reforms of the last 20 years called "Politically Exposed Person," PEP.  And if you are a PEP, you are required by the financial regulator to kick them off to kick them out of your bank you're not allowed to have a . . . 

00:40.   Whaaat?  Well, what if you are politically on the left?

00:42.  That's fine because they're not politically exposed.

00:47.  So no one on the left gets the bank?

00:48.   I have not heard of a single instance of anybody on the left getting debanked.

00:50.  Can you tell me what the person you know did, what they said that got them debanked?  

00:55.  Oh, well Dave Horowitz is a right-wing, Pro-Trump.  I mean he's said all kinds of things.  He's been very anti-Islamic terrorism.  He's been very worried about migration, all these things.  

01:02.  And they debanked him for that?

01:03.  Yeah, they debanked Dave.  So you get kicked out of your bank account.  You get kicked out of . . . you can't do credit card transactions.  By the way, you can't . . . 

01:10.  How is that legal?

01:12.  Well, exactly.  This is the thing.  This is where the government and the companies get intertwined, back to your fascism point, which is . . . there's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there is no constitutional amendment that says the government can't debank you, right? If they can't do the one thing, then they do the other thing.  Then they don't have to debank you, they just have to put pressure on the private company on the private company banks to do it, then the private company banks do it because they're expected to.  But the government gets to say, "We didn't do it.  It was the private company that did it," and, of course, JP Morgan can decide who they want to have as customers, of course, right, because they're a private company.  And so it is this sleight of hand that happens, so it's basically a privatized sanction regime that lets bureaucrats due to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran is to kick you out of the financial system.  And so this has been happening to all the crypto entrepreneurs in the last 4 years.  This has been happening to a lot of the fintech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service because they're trying to protect the big banks.  And then this has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like.  And so a lot of this started about 15 years ago with this operation Trump point where they decided to . . . as marijuana started to become legal, as prostitution started to become legal, and then guns, which there's always a fight about.  Under the Obama Administration, they started to debank legal marijuana businesses, escort businesses, and then gun shops . . . just like your gun manufacturers, and just like you're done, you're out of the banking system.  And so if you're running a medical marijuana dispensary in 2012, guess what, you're doing your business in cash because you are literally . . . you can't get a bank account, you can't get a Visa terminal, you can't process transactions, you can't do payroll, you can't do direct deposit, you can't get insurance; like none of that stuff is available.  You have been sanctioned.  None of that stuff is available.  And then this administration extended that concept to apply it to tech founders, crypto founders, and then just generally political opponents.  Yeah, so that's been like super pernicious.

03:05.  I wasn't aware of that.

03:06.  100%.  So it's called Operation Chokepoint, 1.0 was 15 years ago against the pot and the guns.  Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies, and then to their disfavored tech start-ups.  And it's hit the tech world like we've had like 30 founders debanked in the last 4 years.  It's been a big recurring pattern.  This is one of the reasons why we ended up supporting Trump.  We can't live in this world.  We can't live in a world where somebody starts a company that is a completely legal thing, and then they literally like get sanctioned, an embargo by the United States government through a completely unaccountable . . . 

By the way, no due process, none of this is written down.  There are no rules.  There is no court.  There is no decision process.  There is no appeal.  Who do you appeal to, right, like who do you go to to get your bank account back?

03:57.  And then there's the civil asset-forfeit side of it, which is right the other side.  And that doesn't happen to us, but it happens to people in a lot of places now who could get arrested, and all of a sudden the state takes their money: civil asset forfeiture.  

04:07.   Yeah that happens to people who get pulled over and have a large amount of cash in some states.

04:12.   Right, or there'll be well-publicized examples of like, you know, there'll be some investigation into like safe deposit boxes, and the next thing you know the FED have seized all the contents of the safe deposit boxes and that stuff never gets returned.  It's this . . . this is when Trump says the "Deep state," the way we would describe it is it's administrative power.  It's political power being administered not through legislation, right, so there's no defined law that covers this.  It's not through regulation, right, there's nothing you . . . you can't go sue a regulator to fix this.  It's not through any kind of court judgment.  It's just raw power.  It's just raw administrative power.  It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it.

04:55.  So what happens to those 30 tech people that you know?

04:58.   They go into a different field and try to do something different.  Yeah, complete upending of your life, and try to change . . . try to get out of . . . try to get away from the Eye of Sauron.  Try to get out of whatever Zone got you into this and keep applying for new bank accounts at different banks and hope that at some point a bank will say okay we've checked it's now all right but there's no . . . 

05:24.  So what do they do with their money, like what happens?  

05:27.   You go to cash.

05:30.  So where do you put it?

05:32.  Under your mattress?. 

05:37.  That is so insane so if someone has 30 million dollars in the bank and they get d-banked . . . 

05:42.  Diamonds.  Art.  I don't know, go overseas.  Somewhere.  Yeah, yeah.  It just happens, and it's really really important, there are no fingerprints.  There's no person 

05:55.   Right.  There's no stick above the strings.  

05:56.  Yeah, exactly.  It just happened, and we can trace it back because we understand . . .  we know the politicians involved, and we know how agencies work, and we know how the pressure is applied, and we know that the banks get phone calls, and so forth.  And so we understand the flow of power as it happens, but when you are on the receiving end of this, your specific instance of it, you can't trace it back.  There's no such . . .

06:19.  What are the instances like what is the company what are they trying to do and how do they run afoul . . . 

06:25.  All the crypto startups in the last 4 years the crypto thing got everybody got excited and like it just like stopped and the reason it stopped is because is because every crypto founder every crypto startup got d-banked personally and forced out of the industry or their company got debanked where they couldn't keep operating or they got prosecuted charged or they got threatened with being charged this is a fun twist the SEC has been trying to kill the crypto industry under fight this has been a big issue for us because we're the biggest crypto startup investor the SEC can investigate you they can subpoena you they can prosecute you they can do all these things but they don't have to do any of those things to really damage you all they have to do is issue you what is called a Wells notice and the wells notice is a notification that you may be charged at some point in the future it's like you are on notice that you might be doing something wrong and they might be coming after you at some point in the future terrifying yes the eye of Sauron is on you now trying to be a company with a Wells notice doing business with anybody else try to work with a big company try to get access to a bank try to do anything

07:36.   So that's when I support Dei initiatives.

07:39.  The SEC under Biden became a direct application of exactly, so DEI.  They did a lot with that, and then all the ESG stuff, and ESG is very malleable concept and they pile all kinds of new requirements into that.  So through this process, the SEC could basically just simply dictate what companies do with no accountability at all there's no oversight.  There are hearings where they get yelled at, but nothing ever changes.  Nothing ever happened in the hearing that changed anything.  It's just the raw application of power.

08:11.  And these are your friends that this has happened to?

08:13.  We had an employee who got debanked because he had "crypto" in his job title.  He was doing crypto policy for us, and his bank booted him because they did a screen across the . . . that's what they told us, they did a screen across there customer base because anyone with crypto became "Politically Exposed Person."

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

PETER ST ONGE: That means DOGE and Trump are simply enacting the will of the Supreme Court, which the Rogue Biden Administration ignored.

The Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, is going straight for the jugular for the exhaust ports on the Death Star. Last week, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal laying out their strategy for radically shrinking the federal government, the unelected occupying Army that Lords over our Fair Republic.  Beyond auditing the $500 billion in pure waste and fraud, there are two key parts.  First is two recent Supreme Court decisions that invalidated nearly the entire administrative state because it was not, in fact, passed by Congress, who is supposed to write all the laws not just the fun ones.  The second is the long-established precedent that the president can get rid of government workers who are not needed, a so-called "reduction in force."  Put them together and you get a beautiful three-step process: first, get rid of the unconstitutional regulation that renders the bureaucrats redundant so assess minimum Staffing needs and force reduce away then the leftover money reverts to Treasury to cancel out the leftover deficit, or dare we dream pay down debt if greedy Congress things can keep their paws to themselves.  I covered in a recent video how the Loper-Bright decision alone renders nearly every single Federal Regulation unconstitutional since just 50 of the tens of thousands of rules passed per year are actually authorized by Congress despite having the force of law.  The other 99% are unconstitutional.  That means DOGE and Trump are simply enacting the will of the Supreme Court, which the Rogue Biden Administration ignored.  So concretely how will this play out?  So DOGE will present Trump a list of regulations that overstep Congressional authority, meaning ones that involve major policy decisions without explicit Congressional authorization.  Trump can then instantly pause enforcement effectively nullifying the rule and then do a full review for formal rescission, getting rid of the rule, at which point if Congress really wants the rules, they are free to pass them in a law which they will not do for the same reason they never passed [it] in the first place.  So nullifying thousands of rules would Rocket Fuel the economy but it would also automatically render tens of thousands of bureaucrats redundant.  Trump being a good steward of the Treasury can then fire them, and given the federal workers earn six figures with gold-plated benefits twice the tax-paying plebs, that alone returns billions to taxpayers.  But that is just the beginning because the problem isn't the salaries; the problem is the regulations themselves and the control it gives.

So I've covered how regulations massively increase the cost of everything you buy.  To illustrate, Biden was proposing rules that would increase the cost of a washing machine by $200, a furnace by $500, an air conditioner by $1,000.  They've been piling this crap on for 40 years.  One study estimated regulations add $10,000 to the price of a car.  Gets worse.  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers estimated regulations add $30,000 to the cost of hiring a manufacturing worker.  They add $50,000 a year for small manufacturers.  So not only does that mean little guys cannot compete, it drives all of them to China.  All of that gone with the swipe of a pen.  

Historically waste and fraud efforts get bogged down in the details and end up cutting a few embarrassing programs and then they peter out.  This time looks very different.  Elon and Vivek have correctly identified the thermal exhaust ports of the Death Star and they are going in.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 14, 2024

SENEFF: WOW! Trump didn't renege on his promises!! Trump Picks RFK, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services

Stephanie Seneff writes,

WOW! Trump didn't renege on his promises!! 

"The HHS, created in 1979, oversees 13 separate agencies. The most well-known of these are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health." 

From the article, "Trump Picks RFK, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services," Epoch Times, Austin Alonzo and Jeff Louderback, November 14, 2024.  [article is behind a paywall.]

Are statements like this a negotiating technique to get RFK, Jr. to agree to terms from the entrenched administrative state? 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 16, 2024

ZEROHEDGE: U.S. Military Now Authorized to Kill Americans on U.S. Soil? Ah, by "American," do you mean citizens only?

US Government is getting ready to kill its citizens. It must be clear to everyone that all our governments in the West are run by traitors. Ron Paul warns that the US military was just “authorized to kill Americans on US soil … " Daniel McAdams:
“It’s not a law, it’s a DoD Directive. So, this is the administrative state, where they take over, they don’t pass laws".
I thought that the Chevron Deference eliminated this.
"It’s a DoD Directive that was re-issued September 27, 2024".  
"It governs the Department of Defense intelligence activities, and now includes provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances, and it supplants the 2016 version which did not mention that.”

"U.S. Military Now Authorized to Kill Americans on U.S. Soil?" Ron Paul points out what no one else likes to see. "This would open up the door for the careless and legal use of the military to kill Americans. And by Americans, does the DoD really mean that illegal and undocumented are exempt from murder by your government? "Send in the troops. We need you to shoot a couple of these people."


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, September 19, 2024

PETER ST ONGE: Many more suits are coming, perhaps tens of thousands given there are roughly half a million federal regulations almost none of which were actually authorized by Congress.

Some rare good news as left-wing mouthpiece, Politico, worries a recent Supreme Court decision will be "abused" to erase the "legacy of the Biden Harris nightmare."  The decision in question of course is June's Loper v. Bright case that gutted Chevron Deference, as it said that major regulations actually have to be passed by Congress, not by unelected Deep State bureaucrats.  This is because the Constitution very clearly states that Congress, who works for the people in theory, is supposed to make laws, not random bureaucrats who indisputably work for themselves.  

Source: Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

Loper Bright gutted a "cornerstone of progressive policymaking their ability to sneak laws in through the administrative state and running voters," which, fun fact, converts democracy into tyranny.  So what's upsetting Politico is that if Congress is supposed to make the rules, it turns out the vast majority of rules in existence at the moment were not made by Congress.  They just sort of spawned from the moist bowels of the deep state.  Politico is upset that "small government conservatives are suing to eliminate these apparently unconstitutional mandates." Worse for them, in a separate Supreme Court case Corner Post said that "there is no statute of limitations to challenging unconstitutional regulations," meaning they're all at risk even the old ones.  So which moist spawnings in particular are at risk?  Well, we're only two and a half months into Loper Bright and such things do move slowly, but we've already seen a Mississippi judge void transgender mandates; a Texas judge block an unconstitutional non-compete ban; and an Ohio appeals court block a rule regulating internet companies.  Another Texas judge struck down so-called "parole in place" that puts illegals on a path to citizenship.  They struck it down specifically because the rule "illegally bypassed Congress."  Others involve former mandates, small business mandates, manufacturing, abortion benefits, price controls, and, of course, the Biden-Harris student loan bailouts that would make blue collars pay for other people's gender degrees.  None of these were actually voted by Congress, meaning they are all gloriously unconstitutional.  In theory, Congress could turn around and actually pass the rules, replacing bureaucratic diktat with clean law.  In reality, almost no federal rules are actually popular; that's why Congress passes the buck in the first place.  So in all likelihood, the vast majority of mandates that are struck down will stay down.  Democrats know this and being the party of the administrative state they realize that even if cackles gets the White House they are losing the game.  The activist industrial complex is being dethroned. Some major suits have already been filed, one to dismantle a massive market surveillance system run by the SEC.  Other challenges a raft of "conservation measures on small farms that would drive them out of business."  Many more suits are coming, perhaps tens of thousands given there are roughly half a million federal regulations almost none of which were actually authorized by Congress.  As each mandate melts away, the economy gets stronger and the space for Liberty expands how you run your farm, how you run your business, earn a living, and how you educate your children.  It may not feel like it, but we are winning.  Thanks to the Constitution, things will get worse before they get better but we're turning the corner thanks to some very brave men 200 years ago and the greatest constitution in history that they left us.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, September 11, 2024

MASSIE: Why do we never cut spending? It's because the Democrats want to grow the welfare state, and the Republicans want to grow the military industrial complex

From BipartisanPolicy.org,

What is a CR, a continuing resolution?

On an annual basis, Congress is responsible for providing funding for around 30% of all government functions, called discretionary spending. This funding is split up into 12 bills, which are typically due to be passed by both chambers by the start of each fiscal year on October 1, known as “regular appropriations.”

More often than not, though, Congress fails to complete all spending bills on time. A continuing resolution (CR) is a temporary “stop gap” by which Congress funds the federal government for a limited period to avoid a lapse in appropriations (more commonly referred to as a government shutdown). Lawmakers use CRs to ensure federal agencies continue operations until Congress and the President reach an agreement on how to appropriate federal funds for the rest of a fiscal year.

How does a continuing resolution work? What are the different types of CRs?

There are six main components of a CR that determine how federal agencies can operate when it is in effect:

  • Coverage: Which agencies, programs, projects, and activities are subject to the CR.
  • Duration: The timeframe over which the CR will fund those operations.
  • Rate of Operations (Funding Rate): The rate at which federal agencies can spend funds, usually expressed in annual terms (even if the CR covers less than a full year).
  • New Activities: CRs only cover initiatives funded in the previous fiscal year unless they are directed otherwise through provided legislation (a type of “anomaly”).
  • Anomalies: Legislative provisions that allow an agency’s current-year coverage and/or rate of operations to differ from the previous year’s levels, or allow for spending on specified items not ordinarily permitted during a CR.
  • Legislative Provisions: Additional legislative components that may be attached.

CRs can be enacted for part of a fiscal year (short-term CR) but can be extended or even enacted for the full year (full-year CR). CRs can also cover all or only select federal agencies, depending on the status of individual appropriations bills, and they can vary in their duration.

When Congress has passed full-year appropriations for some agencies and not others, the government is sometimes referred to as “partially funded.” When different CRs cover different agencies for different time periods, it is often called a “laddered” CR.

A “year-long” or “full-year” CR is when one or more federal agencies or programs are covered by a CR for the entire fiscal year. This has happened for all or some of the regular appropriations bills 15 times since 1977, three of which were in the 21st century: in FY2007, FY2011, and FY2013.

What’s the difference between a continuing resolution and a shutdown?

A CR is a legislative measure used by Congress to avert a government shutdown. A shutdown occurs when there is neither a full-year spending bill nor a CR in effect for a department or agency with expiring budget authority. For many parts of government, that expiration date occurs at least once annually at the end of the fiscal year. If a CR or a full-year deal is not in place when an agency’s budget authority expires, some federal agencies and programs agencies are required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment and Control Act of 1974 to stop all programs or activities that are not critical to national security or the protection of lives or property.

How have continuing resolutions been used in the past?

CRs have become a regular tool for Congress, which repeatedly struggles to complete the annual appropriations process on time: Congress has enacted at least one CR in all but three of the past 47 fiscal years. From 2010 to 2022, policymakers passed 47 continuing resolutions ranging in duration from one to 176 days. From FY1998 to FY2023, an average of five CRs were enacted each fiscal year, though as many as 21 were implemented in one fiscal year (FY2001). In the 21st century, Congress has used CRs to provide funding for federal agencies for an average of five months each fiscal year, though lawmakers have also passed full-year CRs.

Why does Congress pass continuing resolutions?

Congress may pass a CR when it cannot reach political agreement on full-year funding, often due to divided party control in government. This includes failure to agree on any or all of the following:

  • The overall level of funding in the discretionary budget that Congress is required to pass annually (referred to as 302(a) allocations, named for the section of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act that governs the congressional budget process);
  • The subdivision of funding into the 12 appropriations bills, such as Defense, Agriculture, or Homeland Security (called 302(b) allocations); and
  • Policy provisions that are often included in appropriations bills and reflect non-budgetary priorities of the two parties, often referred to as policy “riders.”

Even when there is political agreement on some or all of the above, delays from the president, one chamber of Congress, or both chambers can prevent lawmakers from enacting full-year appropriations before October 1. For example, the House may not consider all of its appropriations bills by June 10 (required by law but without any penalty for lawmakers’ failure to act). These procedural delays can necessitate a CR even absent the political disputes outlined above.

What effects do continuing resolutions have on the federal government?

CRs can yield operational challenges and funding uncertainty for impacted agencies, including disruptions to financial planning, hiring staff, or beginning new projects and activities—demonstrating the difficulty of relying on CRs for federal budgeting. They can also place significant administrative burdens on federal agencies and waste taxpayer resources.

Many agencies’ programs may be limited or halted altogether under a CR. For instance:

  • The Department of Education cannot determine grant amounts for predominantly black institutions until Congress finalizes appropriations (whether full-year regular appropriations or a full-year CR), potentially causing delays in grant award notifications for these institutions.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services and its grantees can struggle to provide summer cooling assistance to households under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
  • Property managers working with the Department of Agriculture on its Section 521 program providing rental assistance to rural tenants can experience weeks-long payment delays during a CR.
  • The Department of Commerce can delay or cancel critical field testing of modernized surveying technology, which can have negative downstream impacts on the quality of household and economic survey data that Congress, other government agencies, and the business community depend on.

In addition to these effects, the rate of spending during a CR can create problems even after full-year spending is passed, especially if it comes late in the fiscal year. For example, if the spending level is cut in an agency’s final appropriation, but the agency had been operating at a higher, prior-year annualized rate under the CR, it may have to drastically adjust operations during the latter months of the fiscal year to avoid overspending. This can mean sharp decreases in services, activities, or even stopping ongoing projects. Conversely, if the appropriation is at a higher level than covered during the CR, the agency may be incentivized to accelerate spending in the final months of the fiscal year, which can lead to wasteful spending on unneeded goods or services.

Just as important, a CR leaves federal agencies stuck on the funding levels and policy directives of the prior year, even though public needs and program priorities change on a consistent basis. For example, federal agencies are stuck in early 2024 on spending laws that were put in place in December 2022, over a year prior.

What are the effects of a CR that lasts the whole year?

Before FY2024 appropriations were completed in March 2024, some lawmakers had discussed enacting a year-long CR. Other lawmakers in both parties, and some federal officials, have pointed to the numerous ways in which a year-long CR—while preferable to a government shutdown—could disrupt federal agencies and programs:

A CR leaves federal agencies and departments with limited flexibility to adapt to shifting program needs and requirements, forcing programs to operate as if the current budget year is largely the same as the last one, when no two budget years are the same

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)