White House rescinds federal aid freeze(cnn.com)
cnn.com
White House rescinds federal aid freeze
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/29/politics/white-house-rescind-federal-funding-freeze/index.html
36 comments
This was the MO the first time around; take a crap in public for the news cycle, walk it back two weeks later when it’s impossible to accomplish and everyone else has moved on.
We’re not getting this for free. PEPFAR data systems are still down and 20 million people are not getting access to life saving medication.
NASA Watch has a copy of the "resume work" order.
https://nasawatch.com/transition/omb-memo-about-payment-free...
The State Department has issued the following guidance
https://www.state.gov/emergency-humanitarian-waiver-to-forei...
However, someone in charge is interpreting programs like PEPFAR as not "life saving" so all data systems needed by medical personnel and researchers are still down.
https://data.pepfar.gov/
https://www.datim.org/
https://nasawatch.com/transition/omb-memo-about-payment-free...
The State Department has issued the following guidance
https://www.state.gov/emergency-humanitarian-waiver-to-forei...
However, someone in charge is interpreting programs like PEPFAR as not "life saving" so all data systems needed by medical personnel and researchers are still down.
https://data.pepfar.gov/
https://www.datim.org/
I'm not against the idea of cutting the government's budget, but this administration is trying to perform surgery with a sledgehammer.
Besides, solving the real high level problems are going to be a disaster.
There are two ways for them to cut the budget. 1: Cut programs - 2: Increase efficiency
1. Reduce programs. The problem for them is that Red states are overwhelming subsidized by Blue states. Just cutting programs across the board is going to hurt their constituents the most. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe...
2. Reduce costs. The reason government projects are so expensive is because of their insane review and oversight requirements. And the reason they have these is because of their constant exposure to lawsuits from citizens and NGOs. Cutting costs would involve eliminating review processes and recusing planners - you would effectively need to increase the power of the federal government to make it more efficient.
I expect the administration to come back with a smarter list and a more targeted set of grants to cancel. But this whole endeavor is going to be a massive lark for them.
Besides, solving the real high level problems are going to be a disaster.
There are two ways for them to cut the budget. 1: Cut programs - 2: Increase efficiency
1. Reduce programs. The problem for them is that Red states are overwhelming subsidized by Blue states. Just cutting programs across the board is going to hurt their constituents the most. https://apnews.com/article/north-america-business-local-taxe...
2. Reduce costs. The reason government projects are so expensive is because of their insane review and oversight requirements. And the reason they have these is because of their constant exposure to lawsuits from citizens and NGOs. Cutting costs would involve eliminating review processes and recusing planners - you would effectively need to increase the power of the federal government to make it more efficient.
I expect the administration to come back with a smarter list and a more targeted set of grants to cancel. But this whole endeavor is going to be a massive lark for them.
> the reason they have these is because of their constant exposure to lawsuits from citizens and NGOs
Maybe, but in my experience, most of the overhead was there to avoid any kind of passive corruption for low-level employees. Also help avoid pressure, because high-level employees have no reasons to pressure temp worker/low-level employees (if they want to use their access to do a qui pro quo, they can, but they couldn't use a temp like me to do their bidding).
I was a temp in a bureaucracy highly susceptible to corruption though (IRS equivalent), maybe this kind of overhead can be found in bureaucracies without as easy access to money/power as mine had, but in that case, i would argue that it is more habit than external pressure.
Maybe, but in my experience, most of the overhead was there to avoid any kind of passive corruption for low-level employees. Also help avoid pressure, because high-level employees have no reasons to pressure temp worker/low-level employees (if they want to use their access to do a qui pro quo, they can, but they couldn't use a temp like me to do their bidding).
I was a temp in a bureaucracy highly susceptible to corruption though (IRS equivalent), maybe this kind of overhead can be found in bureaucracies without as easy access to money/power as mine had, but in that case, i would argue that it is more habit than external pressure.
Instead of taking money out of the defense budget, Delta shut down everything else. Trump’s going to need the military to maintain as authoritarian presidency.
Probably a large donor's money spigot was affected (e.g. FAFSA private loan servicers) and the WH got a call from them. Same with the plan to deport prisoners, queue the calls into the WH from private prison lobbyists in 3,2,1...
boy that is hard to read
twitter really has gone downhill
twitter really has gone downhill
Can such a pathetic loophole really get past a judge?
There are ways to cut wasteful spending without, y'know, creating a panic.
How sure are you that there is in fact a ton of waste? All the sources for that position have a clear bias, and offer essentially no real evidence (at best a few anecdotes).
There is also the question of whether the actions required to cut the waste are themselves expensive. If you spend a huge amount of time and effort to cut waste, there's a point at which it would have been cheaper to just accept that some waste is inevitable and to not worry about it.
Literally every organisation I've been in has had "waste", but most of them have been smart enough to realise that you don't want to spend thousands of person-hours measuring every tiny little thing and doing wildly complex RoI analyses (especially on stuff where it's almost impossible to figure out anyway because there are too many variables), and instead focus on having metrics around the outcomes that they do care about.
Literally every organisation I've been in has had "waste", but most of them have been smart enough to realise that you don't want to spend thousands of person-hours measuring every tiny little thing and doing wildly complex RoI analyses (especially on stuff where it's almost impossible to figure out anyway because there are too many variables), and instead focus on having metrics around the outcomes that they do care about.
There's bound to be some.
Is it as much as the right pretends it is? Is it the cause of the ballooning federal debt? No on both. But it does exist.
And honestly, the worst thing you can do is have someone try to run the organization allocating those funds as if he's the CEO of his own personal organization.
Is it as much as the right pretends it is? Is it the cause of the ballooning federal debt? No on both. But it does exist.
And honestly, the worst thing you can do is have someone try to run the organization allocating those funds as if he's the CEO of his own personal organization.
Is it much more proportionate to over all budget then Google, Microsoft, Walmart, UPS, bank of America, etc?
Those companies can't produce money to "pay off debts", increasing the defecit. So I'd say there's a fighting chance there.
I'm no economist nor businessman though, so I won't pretend I can answer that with confidence.
I'm no economist nor businessman though, so I won't pretend I can answer that with confidence.
Just don’t see why I should take it on faith that the US department whatever has 10X the “waste” of a big multi-national bank. Or that DOGE can improve anything.
DOGE will improve everything... For billionaires. The working class is screwed.
But hey, they might lobby to finally get rid of penny production. So that's a micro-win.
I definitely wouldn't claim that the government is on a scale of 10x the waste of corporate. But the structure of government budgeting does make it easier to create more efficiency
But hey, they might lobby to finally get rid of penny production. So that's a micro-win.
I definitely wouldn't claim that the government is on a scale of 10x the waste of corporate. But the structure of government budgeting does make it easier to create more efficiency
There's inefficiency in any system. Engines, motors, fusion power, and transistors. We can calculate their efficiency, and the numbers aren't impressive if that's all you care about. Maybe it's better to ask how they compare to other methods of doing work. This is the cost of the system, and it's either worth it or it isn't.
The US medical system is a public-private partnership, and it's likely the most expensive system in the world for what the benefits it provides (see "List of countries by total health expenditure per capita" on Wikipedia). The government can only optimize here if it's willing to rein in the for-profit middlemen.
To paraphrase a quote, I'd be tempted to call an obsession with efficiency a hobgoblin of little minds. Or maybe it's just an excuse to cut programs.
The US medical system is a public-private partnership, and it's likely the most expensive system in the world for what the benefits it provides (see "List of countries by total health expenditure per capita" on Wikipedia). The government can only optimize here if it's willing to rein in the for-profit middlemen.
To paraphrase a quote, I'd be tempted to call an obsession with efficiency a hobgoblin of little minds. Or maybe it's just an excuse to cut programs.
Fear and stress is actually the desired outcome.
> "When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains"
Trump's nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/27/trump-federal-eorkers-inspe...
> "When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains"
Trump's nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/27/trump-federal-eorkers-inspe...
Treat people like villains, and they'll start to act like it.
This pithy, stupid comment is completely missing the forest for the trees. Most of these people have long histories of being the villain. Treating them as villains because of their history of being villains isn't what caused them to be villains.
Most workers at federal agencies don't have long histories of being the villain.
I've been far more screwed by the private sector than by people in government.
I've been far more screwed by the private sector than by people in government.
I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about villains, like Trump and Musk, Kash Patel, Mitch McConnel, the people we treat as villains because they have shown us repeatedly that's what they are.
That was only a matter of time. Congressionally directed spending is supreme under Article I of the Constitution.
Hindsight is 20/20 ... foresight, not so much. The president did try to go against the constitution ... again.
Actually, I think it was Musk. If you consider the Issacson biography in which Musk (basically) said to remove enough of something until it breaks, and you have to add something back. What I call the move fast and break things mentality is a very, very bad idea for government, but it seems to be what they are doing. Pause everything, and see what is really needed; Get rid of as many employees as possible, see what stops working, then bring people back in.
It's Musk with Trump's authority.
It's Musk with Trump's authority.
That plan works just as well as the equivalent "tighten the bolt until you hear the crack, then back off a quarter turn" does with fasteners. The thing tends to stay broken!
[deleted]
Sen. Elizabeth Warren suggested alternative plans for savings:
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/01/28/warren-to-mu...
“My recommendations would reduce spending on wasteful programs and contracts, would cut out unfair loopholes and giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, would make the government more efficient and effective.”
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/01/28/warren-to-mu...
“My recommendations would reduce spending on wasteful programs and contracts, would cut out unfair loopholes and giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, would make the government more efficient and effective.”
It would be remarkable if DOGE was bipartisan but IIRC the last time a bipartisan committee came together to cut federal spending, they were not able to agree and it triggered automatic cuts.
Up to some limit we are very far from, IRS enforcement staff more then pay for themselves.
So trump blames the media, gets a bunch of blow back from officials, a Judge comes in to block part of it... And they choose to blame the media to upkeep their narrative when they need to backpedal.
Gonna be a long 4 years. But at least they are getting everything through for free.