Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdmiralAsshat | Hacker News Reader

Another transparent appointee of Trump's designed to destroy the department to which he/she was appointed. See: Ajit Pai, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, and more.

Is there any precedent for committing "mutiny" in a governmental organization?

View on HN

A more-legal solution might involve invoking the “take-care” clause that requires the executive branch to “faithfully execute” laws. They usually get very wide latitude to (de)prioritize things, but requesting zero money and putting all work on hold might be on the other side of the line.

It turns out that people much smarter than me have thought about this for the ACA (e.g., [this article by a Yale law prof](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/17/16489526/take-ca...) but the treatment of the CFPB actually seems like a much more obvious fit to this non-lawyer....

I don't think that would work, at all. Mulvaney's justification for requesting zero funds was that the agency already had enough funds to more than cover that quarter's spending, the law required him to request "the amount determined by the Director to be reasonably necessary to carry out the authorities of the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law, taking into account such other sums made available to the Bureau from the preceding year (or quarter of such year)", and since he couldn't find any statutory or practical justification for maintaining such a large reserve that amount was zero. It'd probably be rather difficult to come up with any kind of take-care case against someone for seemingly following the law to the letter.

There is no constitutional duty to request funds. The duty is upon Congress to appropriate funds. They have the power of the purse, not the Executive.

In the case of the CFPB, I believe Congress delegated to them the authority/responsibility to request funds directly from the Federal Reserve.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/budget-strategy/fun...

Yes. Congress constantly pulls this rigamarole, even back in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. That's actually why I wrote, "There is no constitutional duty to request funds". I didn't mean to imply anything else.

These requirements on the President are just a shell game from Congress to blame the President, avoid passing a budget, and pretend to be the "white-knights" each time there is a continuing resolution battle.

It is interesting to note that the CFPB passed in July 2010. Yet, 2015 was the first budget passed since 2009. I think it's safe to say that Congress has purposely engineered this situation to get the self-serving results they want.

Best we've got is "resign in protest."

There's been a bit of it lately: 8 of the 28-person National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), all 17 members of the Presidential Committee on the Arts and Humanities, co-chairs of the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Subcommittee of the EPA, 5 members of Trump's business advisory council, 6 members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, the State Department science envoy...

(I haven't been keeping track, this was just a quick google search; probably there are more I missed. Not to mention the wave of early retirements, lateral moves to private sector, sudden new desires to spend more time with family, etc)

>Best we've got is "resign in protest."

How does that help anything? They'll get replaced with cheerleaders.

I don't think people are resigning to send a message, they are resigning, and also sending a message. If you're working for poor pay for something you believe in, and all of a sudden management is making it impossible for you to do your job, burn out is inevitable, along with leaving for a higher-paying job in the private sector.

It took out Nixon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Unfortunately, most of those committees don't have any actual power to enact anything. By resigning in protest, they at least prevent themselves from being used as justification to enact the things that the Trump admin is doing.

Be careful about advocating mutiny in government agencies. Their job is to implement the rules the political system creates. It's a slippery slope if you allow them to inject personal opinions.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding 'AdmiralAsshat, but I think the assertion is that Mulvaney, Pai, Perry, Pruitt, and DeVos are committing mutiny, by refusing to do the jobs they're supposed to do and instead injecting their personal opinions, and the question is whether this has ever happened before.

Most mutinies are from a crew against their captains, yes, but I think that a captain of a ship can commit mutiny by saying "I don't care what my countries' objectives are, this is my objective and I'm taking the ship."

instead injecting their personal opinions

They're political appointees. Injecting their political opinions is their job. Even if their goal is reducing the influence of the organization they've been appointed to.

I don't agree with what they are doing but I don't think there is anything unusual or illegal going on. The elected president or Congress could fire them at any time if they thought that the agency heads were doing anything wrong.

It's also not a surprise that they're doing this. The GOP and Trump campaigned on dismantling government. So, that's what they're doing.

It's wildly undemocratic to push for government employees to usurp the will of the people's representatives.

Like other's have said, the best a government employee can do to protest the direction that the President and Congress set is to resign vocally (as lots of people have done).

Consider the opposite side! People rightly criticize government employees who resist implementing gay rights. But, somehow EPA employees resisting loosening regulations is righteous.

Everyone thinks their political beliefs are righteous.

You're trying to equivocate basic human rights with being able to dump pollution in the water supply.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the subject is. If it helps, think of a different area where right-leaning government employees could resist government. (I can't think of one off the top of my head)

The point is: rogue government employees should not be exerting their concept of what it morally right in direct conflict with leaders elected by the people.

It is inherently undemocratic. If you want an unelected oligarchy of technocrats, that's something to debate the merits of. But, anyone who values democracy should be appalled by an unelected bureaucrat setting policy against the will of the people.

That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

If you hire / appoint / confirm someone with the motivation of doing something unusual or illegal, you’re hardly going to turn around and fire them for it.

This repeated claim that “things must be fine, otherwise the adults in the room would take action” assumes that there are adults in the room willing or able to take action. At some point it’s nonsensical, and clearly just an attempt to avoid acknowledging the obvious.

Nobody said "things are fine", what's being said is that the ends here (stopping these appointees from achieving their goals) doesn't justify these means (mutiny by the civil servants).

Are you saying there is something illegal going on? There is a lot of disagreeable stuff going on but it's all within the law as far as I can tell.

What measure of proof do require?

Ajit Pai was a Senate/GOP/McConnell appointee before Trump was elected, not a Trump appointee. He became Chair when a Republican president was elected, triggering an automatic handover from the previous Democratic chair

More like seeing the effects of cronyism in action. None of these people are very prepared to handle their duties, yet they got the jobs anyways through schmoozing and money.

Hardly unique to Trump in the grand scheme and longer term view.

The only reason we know this was because of a change in plans but we never hear about the thousands of other times where it never gets even close to that for other serious abuses by politically connected organizations and individuals.

The article also mentions the FTC and 50 states are still investigating Equifax so its not like they have been given a pass yet. Nor has the consumer protection agency given them a pass yet either, this article only said they chose not to pursue one particular investigation option planned by a previous admin, not that they have abandoned the whole investigation.

It's called a "strike", and it's risky without public support.

> John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

Arguably, that's exactly what Ajit Pai, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos are doing...

What has Rick Perry done?

During the 2012 Presidential primaries, he campaigned on getting rid of three agencies, including the Department of Energy, which he now runs.

(This may jog your memory if you watch stuff like The Daily Show: in the debates, he fairly embarrassingly forgot which three agencies he wanted to get rid of...)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/19/rick...

I remember that moment quite well, and very fondly; I believe I watched TDS live back then every night.

However, I asked what Rick Perry did, not what he said.

Ah! Fair point.

Will you accept subsidizing unneeded coal plants? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/4/1640727...

No because that clearly is an action in favor of better energy. (Not the best energy, not great environmentally and perhaps bad economically and healthly, but good for energy)

Not if you want to keep your pension.

Sure, because federal goverment agencies not controlled by voters and in open mutiny against elected government is exactly what US needs more of. I don't think you thought it through.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com