Podcasts about schedule f

In Washington's think tank row, a single document has become a kind of political Rorschach test. Project 2025, a more than 900 page “Mandate for Leadership” assembled by the conservative Heritage Foundation and allied groups, is billed by its authors as a roadmap “to advance positive change for America.” According to Heritage's own description, it is a presidential transition project designed so a conservative administration can “take the reins of government” quickly and decisively. Critics see something very different. The American Civil Liberties Union describes Project 2025 as “a blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch,” warning that it would replace long standing legal safeguards with “right wing ideals” across immigration, civil rights, and reproductive freedom. Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan watchdog, calls it “a systemic, ruthless plan” that could undermine the quality of life for millions, from workers and veterans to parents and students. At the heart of the plan is a sweeping reimagining of federal agencies. The Brookings Institution notes that on education alone, Project 2025 recommends dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, eliminating the Head Start program for low income children, and phasing out Title I funds that support schools in poor communities. It also calls for rescinding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students and weakening enforcement of disability rights. Brookings warns that these moves would “dramatically reshape the federal government's role” in schooling. The same impulse to centralize power runs through the broader agenda. The Heritage playbook urges a president to assert direct control over the civil service, in part by reviving “Schedule F,” a Trump era job classification that would make it easier to fire career officials and replace them with political loyalists. Democracy Forward reports that Project 2025's authors claim many of these changes could be carried out “through executive branch action alone — without new legislation.” Other proposals reach deeply into daily life. The American Civil Liberties Union highlights language urging mass deportations, new limits on asylum, and even ending birthright citizenship for some children of noncitizens, a direct challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Center for American Progress points to recommendations to raise the Social Security full retirement age from 67 to 69, weaken unions by banning public sector bargaining, and reduce veterans' disability eligibility by narrowing covered conditions and automating denials. Supporters argue that these ideas would cut red tape, restore traditional values, and rein in what they describe as an unaccountable “administrative state.” Opponents counter that, taken together, the proposals would concentrate power in the presidency, erode checks and balances, and roll back protections that many listeners may take for granted. As the next campaign season accelerates, key questions loom: which parts of this blueprint will a future administration embrace, what can be done by executive order, and how will courts and Congress respond. Those decision points will determine whether Project 2025 remains a manifesto on a shelf or becomes a governing reality. Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 began not as a campaign slogan, but as a 900‑plus page manual quietly assembled by the conservative Heritage Foundation and allied groups, titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. According to the Heritage Foundation's own description, it is meant to offer the next conservative president a ready‑to‑use blueprint for governing from day one. Former Trump officials helped draft it, and Heritage president Kevin Roberts has called it “a governing agenda and the personnel to carry it out.” At its core, Project 2025 is about reshaping the federal government itself. The plan urges a future administration to revive and expand “Schedule F,” a Trump‑era job classification that would let the president reclassify thousands of career civil servants as political appointees. Brookings Institution analysts note that this would make it far easier to fire existing staff and replace them with ideological loyalists, dramatically increasing White House control over agencies that have traditionally been more independent. The scope is sweeping. On education, Brookings reports that Project 2025 proposes dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, phasing out Title I funding for low‑income schools, and eliminating the Head Start program that serves children in poverty. It calls for rolling back federal civil‑rights protections for LGBTQ+ students and weakening enforcement of Title IX. Supporters frame this as restoring “parental rights” and shrinking “woke bureaucracy.” Critics warn it would leave vulnerable students with fewer protections and widen inequality. Other chapters reach deeply into social policy. The American Civil Liberties Union explains that Project 2025 recommends ending birthright citizenship, expanding mass deportations, and sharply limiting asylum, effectively remaking the immigration system in a more punitive direction. The Center for American Progress points to proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age to 69 and curb union power, including weakening the National Labor Relations Board and banning public‑sector unions, moves that labor advocates say would undercut working‑class economic security. Reproductive rights are another central front. Reproductive Freedom for All summarizes Project 2025 provisions that would restrict access to contraception and emergency contraception, block abortion medication nationwide, and even describe in‑vitro fertilization as something that should become “ethically unthinkable.” The ACLU argues these ideas would amount to a nationwide rollback of reproductive freedom driven by a specific religious vision of family life. Supporters of Project 2025 argue that all of this is needed to “rescue the country from the grip of the administrative state,” in the words of Heritage's introduction. Opponents, including the Stop Project 2025 Task Force in Congress, counter that it is “a manual on how to turn American democracy into a conservative, authoritarian nation” by concentrating power in the presidency and weakening checks and balances. In the months ahead, listeners can expect more concrete tests: confirmation battles over key appointees, court fights over Schedule F and agency authority, and election campaigns where candidates are pressed to say how closely they endorse the blueprint. Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 began as a 900 page manual, but over the past year it has started to feel less like a blueprint and more like a live script for American government. According to the Heritage Foundation, which leads the effort, the “Mandate for Leadership” is meant to prepare the next conservative administration to, in its words, “dismantle the administrative state” and restore what it calls constitutional government. In practice, that means a sweeping reimagining of how federal agencies work, who controls them, and what rights they protect. At the center is a quiet but profound bureaucratic revolution. The plan urges a president to reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees into an expanded version of “Schedule F,” making it far easier to fire civil servants in policy roles and replace them with political loyalists. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Project 2025 also recommends ending the independent status of watchdog agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, bringing them under direct presidential control. Supporters describe this as accountability; critics call it a path to one person rule inside the executive branch. The stakes become clearer when listeners zoom in on specific policy goals. The American Civil Liberties Union explains that Project 2025 calls for reviving the 19th century Comstock Act to block abortion medication and equipment from being sent through the mail, effectively creating a nationwide ban regardless of state law. The ACLU notes proposals to roll back nondiscrimination protections and to, as it puts it, “mandate discrimination against LGBTQ people by the federal government,” including excluding transgender Americans from military service. Economic and safety net programs are also in the crosshairs. Democracy Forward's “People's Guide to Project 2025” highlights proposals to cut overtime protections for an estimated 4.3 million workers, limit food assistance that more than 40 million people rely on each month, and even eliminate Head Start, the early education program that serves over a million children each year. The guide warns that authors of the plan claim much of this could be done without new laws from Congress, relying instead on aggressive executive action. Environmental policy is another major front. A report from the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy and the Environment describes Project 2025 as a “radical overhaul” of climate and energy governance, calling for dismantling key climate initiatives, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency's authority, and prioritizing fossil fuel development over renewable energy. Supporters see all this as a long overdue correction. Heritage frames Project 2025 as a way to “advance positive change for America,” arguing that unelected bureaucrats have usurped power from elected leaders. Civil rights groups, environmental lawyers, and democracy advocates respond that the project amounts to what the ACLU calls “a roadmap for how to replace the rule of law with right wing ideals,” with profound implications for reproductive freedom, civil rights, and the balance of power in Washington. In the coming months, the key questions will be how far a president is willing to go in adopting this playbook, how courts respond, and whether Congress chooses to reinforce or resist these changes. For now, Project 2025 stands as a test of how much a modern White House can remake the machinery of government in just a few years. Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is no longer just a campaign-season talking point. It is a sprawling governing blueprint, and by early 2026 trackers said roughly half of its domestic administrative agenda had already been started or completed, with implementation spread across scores of federal actions and agencies.[3][1] At its core, the project aims to concentrate power in the presidency and reshape the civil service around loyalty and ideology. The Heritage Foundation's policy manual, *Mandate for Leadership*, calls for reinstating Schedule F, a move that would reclassify thousands of civil service jobs into policy roles and make it easier to replace career officials with political appointees.[2][6] That is not a minor personnel tweak. It is a structural change to how the federal government operates day to day. The education agenda shows the scale of the ambition. Brookings reports that Project 2025 proposes dismantling the Department of Education, ending Head Start, phasing out Title I aid for low-income schools, weakening civil rights enforcement, and privatizing the federal student loan portfolio.[2] Some of those changes would require Congress, but Brookings notes others could be pursued by executive action alone, including rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ students and narrowing student loan safeguards.[2] In practice, that means a child in a low-income district or a borrower struggling to repay debt could feel the effects long before any new law is passed. The project's broader policy goals reach beyond classrooms. Democracy Forward says the plan could cut overtime protections for 4.3 million workers, reduce food assistance relied on by more than 40 million people, and restrict access to medication abortion.[4] The ACLU says Project 2025 would also target immigrant communities through mass deportations, end birthright citizenship, and dismantle asylum protections.[7] Meanwhile, reproductive-rights advocates say the agenda seeks to restrict contraception, abortion care, IVF, and emergency treatment, while increasing government tracking of reproductive health data.[1] Supporters frame these proposals as a restoration of conservative governance. Critics see something else: a coordinated effort to centralize power and weaken checks and balances. The Center for Progressive Reform said the Trump administration had already initiated or completed 53 percent of Project 2025's domestic administrative agenda by February 2026, across 20 federal agencies.[3] That pace matters because it turns an abstract blueprint into a governing reality. For listeners, the next milestones will come from the courts, Congress, and the executive branch itself as more agency rules, staffing decisions, and budget fights take shape. Those decisions will determine whether Project 2025 remains a contested document or becomes the governing architecture of the federal state. Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Send us Fan MailThe host frames the episode as a non-expert, trauma-informed attempt to understand politics and then argues that by May 2026 Project 2025 has become the governing blueprint, despite Donald Trump publicly claiming in 2024 he didn't know its authors. They describe Project 2025 as a roughly 900-page Heritage Foundation “mandate for leadership” written by many Trump-aligned former officials, and point to cabinet staffing—naming FCC head Brandon Carr and Attorney General Pam Bondi—as evidence the authors are now in power. The episode focuses on “Schedule F” reclassification, describing an executive order that turns tens of thousands of civil servants into fireable political appointees, prompting an exodus of about 50,000 professionals replaced by a vetted loyalist database. It also warns about Department of Education plans like universal school choice, phasing out Title I funding, and federal investigations of curriculum around gender identity and systemic racism. The host previews part two on “Operation Restore” and a mass deportation plan and invites discussion. #Project2025 #ScheduleF #Trump #HeritageFoundation #FCC #DepartmentOfEducation #SchoolChoice #TitleI #Politics #MAGA #ExecutiveOrders #Media #CivilService #CultureWar #DeportationSupport the show

Host James-Christian Blockwood talks with Academy Fellow and McGeorge School of Law Professor Clark Kelso and American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Adam White about why public agencies struggle and what the executive branch does in response. They discuss how checks and balances slow action and make errors hard to undo, while polarization and congressional dysfunction push presidents toward unilateral action, creating separation-of-powers conflicts and court intervention. The conversation centers on Schedule F and fears it could expand political appointments and erode civil service protections. They conclude trust is rebuilt through tangible, non-rhetorical improvements, suggesting a public-safety focus like FAA modernization.01:14 Why Agencies Fail03:25 Checks Balances and Speed05:22 Congress Gridlock Executive Action09:44 Unitary Executive and Independence12:47 Courts Guardrails and Chevron15:44 Real World Impacts and Trust19:30 Reforming Bureaucracy and DOGE23:45 Schedule F Debate29:31 Rebuilding Trust and OptimismManagement Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

This week on The GovNavigators Show, Robert and Adam are joined by Drew Friedman, reporter at Federal News Network and nominee for the ECHO Award for Best Government Management Journalist. Drew pulls back the curtain on what it's like to cover the federal workforce in one of the most turbulent periods in recent memory.The conversation covers the shifting landscape of federal hiring, including OPM's push toward skills-based hiring in the IT space, the latest on Schedule F's successor, and the growing body of litigation challenging the administration's workforce actions, as well as budget issues, and the administration's push to shrink the federal real estate footprint. Drew also reflects on what it takes to keep up with stories this big, and why the Federal News Network team's collaborative approach has been essential to staying on top of it all.Show Notes:New OMB Memo on commercial buyingVote for Drew at the ECHO Awards' websiteWhat's on the GovNaviagtors' Radar:Apr 21: Grants QSMO's Industry DayApr 22: House Oversight Committee Markup on anti-fraud legislation (TBD)Apr 26-29: NASCIO Midyear Conference

Imagine a blueprint so ambitious it aims to remake the entire U.S. federal government from the ground up. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, as detailed in its 900-page Mandate for Leadership document. According to the Heritage Foundation's own publication, the plan seeks to "deconstruct the centralized administrative state" by consolidating power in the presidency and installing loyalists across agencies.[8]At its core, Project 2025 outlines four pillars: a policy agenda, personnel database, training academy, and a 180-day playbook of executive orders ready for Day One. Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. It calls for dismantling the Department of Education, handing education oversight to states, and eliminating the Department of Homeland Security, privatizing the Transportation Security Administration despite its post-9/11 role in national security, as noted by the American Federation of Government Employees.[2] The FBI and Department of Justice would fall under direct White House control, with the FBI director personally accountable to the president; the Mandate describes the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy" pushing a "radical liberal agenda."[1][8]Reforms extend to reinstating Schedule F, reclassifying up to 500,000 civil service jobs as political roles for easier firing and hiring of ideologues. The plan urges cutting corporate taxes, imposing a flat income tax, slashing Medicare and Medicaid, and abolishing agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission to curb antitrust enforcement.[1] Environmental regulations would shrink, and DEI efforts banned government-wide.Experts warn of profound implications. The ACLU highlights risks to civil liberties, including exploiting warrantless surveillance and ending protections against discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.[5] AFGE President Everett Kelley calls it a "takeover... not loyal to the Constitution," potentially costing a million federal jobs.[2]By February 2026, the Center for Progressive Reform reports the Trump administration has initiated or completed 53 percent of Project 2025's domestic agenda across 20 agencies, from regulatory rollbacks to personnel shifts.[7] This illustrates the project's sweeping ambition, blending stated goals of efficiency with critics' fears of authoritarian overreach.Looking ahead, midterm elections and court challenges loom as pivotal decision points. Thank you for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Tax season is here, and we're breaking down key strategies you need to know RIGHT NOW.In this episode of MX3 Podcast, we dive into:- The Augusta Rule and how it really works- Schedule C vs Schedule F explained in simple terms- The realities of farming, ranching, and government subsidies- Why self-employment taxes can catch people off guard- How to properly prepare before starting a businessIf you're earning income outside of a W-2 or thinking about starting a business, this episode could save you money and headaches.We believe in money, motivation, and taking action—and this episode is all about helping you level up your financial understanding.

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, a 900-page manifesto unveiled in April 2023, now thrusting into reality under President Trump's second term. According to the Heritage Foundation's “Mandate for Leadership,” it aims to “dismantle the administrative state”—those federal agencies seen as bloated and unaccountable—by consolidating power in the White House.The plan kicks off with a radical workforce overhaul. It revives Schedule F, reclassifying up to 500,000 career civil servants in policy roles as at-will employees, stripping job protections to install political loyalists on day one. The AFGE warns this could eliminate up to a million federal jobs through cuts, freezes, and privatization. Already, Trump's Executive Order has begun remaking the workforce, as noted in a White House fact sheet, while Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—has fired thousands, shuttering agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a Project 2025 target that returned $21 billion to scam victims, per Government Executive reporting.Agency by agency, the ambition unfolds. The Department of Homeland Security and TSA face elimination or privatization, risking post-9/11 security gains, says the AFGE. The Department of Education would vanish, shifting funds to states and gutting anti-discrimination rules on gender and sexual orientation. FEMA moves to Interior or Transportation, offloading disaster costs to locals. The ACLU highlights plans to abuse warrantless surveillance, dismantling DOJ and FBI independence under unitary executive theory.Proponents, like those in the Mandate, declare, “The unelected administrative state is antithetical to our constitutional system of divided powers.” Critics, including the Brennan Center, see threats to democracy, civil rights, and impartial justice. The Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling, overturning Chevron deference, bolsters this by curbing agency rulemaking, aligning perfectly with the project's vision.These changes ripple through taxes—pushing a flat rate and corporate cuts—Medicare trims, and reversed Biden policies, illustrating a sweeping bid to shrink government and amplify presidential control.Looking ahead, court battles over DOGE firings loom, with judges reinstating some workers, and midterm elections could test this overhaul. As implementation accelerates, America watches a high-stakes experiment in governance.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, a 900-plus-page manifesto unveiled in 2023 to consolidate presidential power and dismantle what its authors call the “unelected administrative state.” According to the Heritage Foundation's document, “The unelected administrative state is antithetical to our constitutional system of divided powers and checks and balances.”Fast forward to early 2026, and the Trump administration has embraced much of it. The Center for Progressive Reform's February 2026 update reveals that 53 percent of Project 2025's domestic policy agenda across 20 agencies has been initiated or completed. President Trump's February 2025 fact sheet boasts of an executive order “reforming the federal workforce to better serve Americans,” echoing the plan's core.Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. The Heritage Foundation blueprint calls for eliminating the Department of Education, shifting oversight to states, and gutting the Department of Homeland Security, privatizing the Transportation Security Administration—agencies born from 9/11 to safeguard the nation. FEMA faces dissolution, pushing disaster costs to local governments. The AFGE warns this could axe up to a million federal jobs through budget cuts, hiring freezes, and Schedule F—a reclassification stripping protections from over 500,000 policy-related civil servants, turning career experts into political pawns.Reforms extend to unions and equity: stripping rights from TSA, DOJ, and FEMA workers, banning DEI efforts at the VA and Labor Department, and ending data collection on racial disparities. The National Federation of Federal Employees describes it as a “radical blueprint for government political corruption,” with a 180-day playbook of executive orders ready for Day One.Experts see sweeping implications. The Brennan Center cautions it prioritizes political agendas over law enforcement independence, while Government Executive reports Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has fired tens of thousands, targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—which returned $21 billion to scam victims—and hit Voice of America, though courts have pushed back some moves.This ambition connects to unitary executive theory, centralizing control in the White House, curbing agencies like the FBI and FTC. The Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling, overturning Chevron deference, aligns perfectly, shifting regulatory power to judges.As midterms loom, battles over Schedule F and agency fates will define governance. Will checks and balances hold, or yield to this vision? Tune in next week for more. Thanks for listening.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for reshaping America's government, drawn up by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation and now unfolding in real time. Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as a 900-plus-page manifesto, aimed to dismantle what its authors call the "administrative state" and consolidate power in the presidency. According to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation, it promises a "180-day playbook" of executive orders ready for "Day One" of a new Republican administration, starting January 20, 2025.Fast forward to today: President Donald Trump has embraced core elements, with his Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency accelerating cuts. Government Executive reports agencies like the IRS have gutted 75% of their civil rights offices through reductions in force, while the Agriculture Department shutters its D.C. headquarters and field offices. A White House fact sheet boasts Trump signed an executive order remaking the federal workforce, reinstating Schedule F to strip protections from up to 500,000 career employees, turning policy roles into at-will political posts.Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. The plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education, handing education oversight to states, and eliminating the Department of Homeland Security, privatizing the TSA—agencies born from 9/11's ashes, as AFGE warns, risking national security. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission face erasure, shrinking antitrust enforcement. The DOJ and FBI would fall under direct presidential control, rooted in unitary executive theory, which the Center for American Progress labels an "absolutist view" that shreds checks and balances.Proponents, like Heritage, argue this restores efficiency: "Maximize presidential control to implement conservative priorities," including corporate tax cuts, a flat income tax, and slashing Medicare and Medicaid. Critics, including the National Federation of Federal Employees, decry it as politicizing civil service for "personal and political gain," potentially firing a million workers and ending public unions.These changes ripple outward, from privatizing CDC labs—splitting data from policy, per Project 2025—to blocking DEI hiring and reinstating discriminatory tests. NAACP Legal Defense Fund tracks how executive actions curb civil rights.As agencies submit RIF plans by April deadlines, the real test looms: court battles and midterm elections. Will this ambition hold, or fracture under scrutiny? Tune in next week for updates. Thanks for listening.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, a 900-plus-page manifesto unveiled in April 2023, aimed at dismantling what its authors call the "administrative state" and placing the executive branch firmly under presidential control, according to the project's own documentation and Wikipedia's overview.At its core, the plan pushes unitary executive theory, seeking to end the independence of agencies like the DOJ, FBI, and Federal Trade Commission. "The federal government's entire executive branch [should be] under direct presidential control," it argues, challenging long-standing Supreme Court precedents like Humphrey's Executor, as detailed by the Center for American Progress.Key proposals target federal agencies with sweeping changes. The Department of Education and Homeland Security would be eliminated outright, with TSA privatized and education oversight shifted to states, per AFGE analysis. FEMA might move to the Interior Department, offloading disaster costs to locals. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau faces abolition, while the NIH realigns with conservative priorities, and economic bureaus merge under ideological oversight, Heritage Foundation outlines state.A 180-day playbook spells out "Day One" actions: reinstate Schedule F to reclassify up to 500,000 civil servants, stripping job protections for political loyalty. "This scheme allows... full control of the Executive Branch for personal and political gain," warns the National Federation of Federal Employees.By March 2026, echoes of these ideas have materialized. President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has fired tens of thousands, imposed hiring freezes, and prompted reductions in force at agencies like the IRS and Agriculture Department, Government Executive reports. The White House fact sheet touts "reforming the federal workforce to better serve Americans" via executive order.Experts highlight risks: politicized hiring could ease discrimination by reviving aptitude tests deemed biased and gutting DEI efforts, AFGE notes. Unions might be declared illegal, eroding worker rights.This ambitious scope connects tax cuts, like a flat income tax, to broader power consolidation, reversing Biden-era policies. As midterms loom, upcoming court challenges and congressional battles will test its staying power.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, a 900-plus-page manifesto unveiled in April 2023, aimed at dismantling what its authors call the “administrative state” and placing the executive branch firmly under presidential control.At its core, the plan pushes the unitary executive theory, seeking to end the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice and FBI, as detailed in the Heritage Foundation's policy document. “The federal government's executive branch must be under direct presidential control,” it argues, proposing to reinstate Schedule F—a Trump-era order to reclassify up to 50,000 civil servants, stripping job protections and enabling mass firings for political loyalty, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. The Department of Education and Homeland Security would be eliminated, with TSA privatized and FEMA shifted elsewhere, per the project's chapters. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and parts of the CDC face abolition or drastic cuts, while HUD's housing aid devolves to states. Tax reforms eye corporate slashes and a flat income tax, alongside Medicare reductions.Fast-forward to 2025: With Donald Trump back in office since January 20, these ideas are leaping off the page. The White House's January executive order on “Restoring Accountability” echoes Schedule F, while Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency accelerates cuts. Government Executive reports agencies like the IRS slashing civil rights offices, Agriculture dismantling headquarters, and OPM mandating reductions in force for 70,000 jobs by April deadlines.Experts warn of peril. The Center for American Progress calls it an “imperial presidency” destroying checks and balances, potentially politicizing everything from antitrust enforcement to disaster response. The National Federation of Federal Employees fears a “scheme to hire unlimited political appointees,” eroding nonpartisan expertise.This ambition connects daily life to high-stakes power: Privatizing TSA could weaken post-9/11 security, while gutting unions strips worker rights. As implementation ramps up, upcoming milestones like agency RIF plans by mid-April and court challenges loom large, testing democracy's guardrails.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint so ambitious it aims to rebuild America's government from the ground up, placing the president's vision at its absolute center. That's Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's 900-plus-page Mandate for Leadership, unveiled in April 2023 to guide a conservative administration starting on Day One.According to the Heritage Foundation's documentation, the plan calls for dismantling the Department of Education entirely and shrinking the Department of Homeland Security, while merging economic agencies like the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau into one aligned with conservative principles. It pushes to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission, which enforces antitrust laws, and reinstate Schedule F to strip protections from up to 50,000 civil servants, replacing them with loyalists. "The federal bureaucracy has been weaponized against conservatives," the document states, advocating White House oversight of the DOJ and FBI to root out what it deems a "radical liberal agenda."Fast forward to 2025: With Donald Trump back in office since January 20, the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has surged ahead. Government Executive reports DOGE firing thousands in diversity roles, issuing reductions in force targeting 70,000 positions, and cutting 20,000 at Health and Human Services—25 percent of its workforce—via buyouts and attrition. The IRS gutted 75 percent of its civil rights office, and courts have temporarily reinstated staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Voice of America, both Project 2025 targets. Politico notes 37 Trump executive orders echoing the blueprint, despite his campaign disavowal.Experts warn of peril. The Center for American Progress argues this unitary executive theory destroys checks and balances, potentially weaponizing the DOJ against rivals and blocking rules like the FTC's noncompete ban, harming workers. The ACLU and AFGE highlight risks to civil rights and nonpartisan expertise, enabling corruption.This sweeping reform connects efficiency dreams to power consolidation, from tax cuts and Medicare trims to partisan control of justice. As agencies submit reorganization plans by April 14, legal battles loom, testing America's governance. Will courts halt the chaos, or will DOGE redefine the executive branch?Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, unveiled in April 2023 as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Its 900-plus-page Mandate for Leadership outlines a radical overhaul, aiming to dismantle what it calls the bloated administrative state and place the executive branch under direct presidential control.At its core, the plan pushes unitary executive theory, granting presidents sweeping authority over agencies long shielded from politics. According to the Heritage Foundation's document, it calls for replacing federal civil servants with loyalists via reinstating Schedule F, a Trump-era order that could strip protections from up to 50,000 policy-influencing workers. "The next conservative president" would fire skeptics and install ideologues on day one, as the blueprint urges.Concrete targets abound. It seeks to gut the Department of Education entirely, eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—which has returned $21 billion to scam victims—and shrink the FBI and DOJ into White House extensions. The FTC, enforcer of antitrust laws, faces abolition, while the Department of Homeland Security gets restructured. Tax cuts for corporations, a flat income tax, and slashes to Medicare and Medicaid round out economic goals, all while reversing Biden-era environmental rules.Fast-forward to 2026: With Donald Trump back in office since January 20, 2025, echoes of Project 2025 pulse through actions led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Government Executive reports agencies slashing jobs—HHS targeting 20,000 positions, a 25% cut via buyouts and firings. The IRS gutted 75% of its civil rights office, USDA dismantled D.C. headquarters, and attempts to axe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hit court blocks, reinstating staff. OPM mandated reductions-in-force plans by March, aiming to eliminate 70,000 non-statutory roles.Experts warn of peril. The Center for American Progress argues this destroys checks and balances, weaponizing DOJ against foes and politicizing watchdogs like the FCC, potentially silencing dissent or skewing media licenses. Yet proponents, per Heritage, see salvation in accountability: "A bloated bureaucracy infatuated with a radical liberal agenda," as their DOJ critique claims.This ambition connects daily life to power—your taxes, healthcare, consumer protections all in flux. As courts battle DOGE's blitz and agencies submit reorganization blueprints by April, upcoming milestones like Supreme Court rulings on Schedule F could cement or curb this imperial shift.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Project 2025 represents one of the most ambitious plans to reshape American federal governance in decades. Published by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023, this comprehensive policy blueprint arrived with a single, sweeping objective: to consolidate executive power under a conservative presidency while fundamentally dismantling the system of checks and balances that has defined American government for centuries.The initiative spans nearly 900 pages and extends far beyond theoretical policy proposals. According to the Heritage Foundation, the project includes a personnel database designed to identify and vet ideologically loyal staff members, with plans to populate it with 20,000 candidates by the end of 2024. This database serves a critical function within the broader vision—replacing tens of thousands of career civil servants with appointees who pledge loyalty to conservative principles rather than institutional independence.The scope of proposed changes is staggering. The plan calls for dismantling entire agencies, including the Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security, which would be replaced with a new immigration agency consolidating border control functions. According to government efficiency analyses, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned 21 billion dollars to consumers harmed by scams, would be eliminated. The Federal Trade Commission, responsible for enforcing antitrust laws, would also be abolished. These aren't marginal adjustments—they represent a wholesale reorganization of federal power.What distinguishes Project 2025 most strikingly is its approach to presidential authority. The plan embraces what experts call an expansive interpretation of unitary executive theory, seeking to place the federal government's entire executive branch under direct presidential control. This means the FBI and Department of Justice would no longer operate with institutional independence. Instead, the FBI director would become personally accountable to the president, fundamentally altering law enforcement's ability to investigate political figures without interference.Since President Trump took office on January 20, his administration, working alongside Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, has begun implementing these proposals with remarkable speed. Federal agencies have received directives to eliminate positions not required by statute, targeting approximately 70,000 employees. The Health and Human Services Department alone plans to cut 25 percent of its workforce. Meanwhile, the administration has pursued a rebranding of the controversial Schedule F process—now called Schedule Policy/Career—which would strip civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal workers in policy-related positions, making them far easier to fire.The implications are profound and contested. Supporters argue these changes will create efficiency and eliminate bureaucratic obstacles. Critics warn that gutting institutional independence will concentrate unchecked power in the presidency while undermining career experts—engineers, scientists, and attorneys whose expertise protects public welfare—by making their employment contingent on political loyalty rather than merit.As agencies submit detailed organizational restructuring plans with April deadlines approaching, the implementation of Project 2025 remains in active motion, with courts increasingly weighing in on the initiative's constitutional boundaries.Thank you for listening. Please come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Project 2025 began not with a bill in Congress, but with a 900‑plus page playbook assembled by the Heritage Foundation and allied conservative groups, billed as a roadmap for the next Republican president. Heritage calls it a plan to “take back our government from the deep state,” while critics describe it as a bid to, in the words of the National Federation of Federal Employees, “destroy the administrative state” and replace it with loyalists.At the heart of the project is a personnel revolution. The blueprint urges reinstating and vastly expanding “Schedule F,” a Trump‑era job category that would let presidents reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as at‑will employees. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, one architect of the original order, James Sherk, projected roughly 50,000 positions could lose civil service protections. Advocates argue this would “ensure the President's policies are faithfully executed.” Opponents warn it would allow mass firings based on ideology, undermining neutral expertise in law enforcement, public health, and regulation.The document does not stop at staffing. It zeroes in on independent agencies that Congress designed to be insulated from day‑to‑day political pressure. In Project 2025's own terms, these are “so‑called independent agencies.” Chapters urge giving the president power to remove commissioners at will and subject their rules to aggressive White House review. Analysts at the Center for American Progress note that this could let a future president pressure the Federal Communications Commission on media licenses or keep the Federal Trade Commission from issuing rules like its recent ban on most noncompete clauses.Concrete agency changes are spelled out in vivid detail. A chapter on the Department of Energy recommends outsourcing core analytical work of the Energy Information Administration to private contractors, a move Boston Review warns could turn basic energy data into an ideological battleground. At the Environmental Protection Agency, Project 2025 proposes ending the role of career staff in awarding hundreds of millions in grants and handing that power to a single political appointee. The Health and Human Services chapter calls for steering teen pregnancy prevention funds toward abstinence‑only programs, reversing a decade of evidence‑based grantmaking.Running through the plan is a view of presidential power sometimes called the “unitary executive theory.” According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Project 2025 would concentrate control of the Justice Department in the White House, prioritizing an attorney general “above all loyal to the President” and easing the removal of officials who resist politically driven investigations.Supporters frame these ideas as a long‑overdue correction to an unaccountable bureaucracy. Critics, including nonpartisan legal scholars, warn that neutral guardrails like Senate confirmation, independent data, and protected civil servants are what keep any president from becoming an “imperial” figure.With the next election cycle underway, Project 2025 now functions as both a governing manual and a political litmus test. Candidates are being pressed to endorse, amend, or reject its proposals. The real test, though, will come if a future administration tries to turn this blueprint into executive orders, agency reorganizations, and real‑world firings.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and install loyalists across federal agencies.Its ambitions hit hard and fast. The plan calls for dismantling the Department of Education, shifting programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, while empowering states with school choice and parental rights to combat what it labels “woke propaganda” in public schools, according to the Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership. Picture the Department of Homeland Security vanishing, replaced by a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and more, with active-duty military aiding border enforcement.Federal staffing faces a seismic shift via reinstating Schedule F, reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as at-will political appointees. “The new Administration must fill its ranks with political appointees,” urges the Mandate, aiming for 20,000 vetted resumes by late 2024. Agencies like the DOJ and FBI would bow to direct White House oversight, curbing their independence under unitary executive theory.Policy goals slash corporate taxes, impose a flat income tax, and gut Medicaid with per-capita caps and work requirements. The FTC might dissolve, antitrust enforcement weakened, while environmental regs fade to boost nuclear innovation.By February 2026, the Trump administration has enacted or started 53 percent of its domestic agenda, per the Center for Progressive Reform's tracker, including a February 2025 executive order launching the Department of Government Efficiency for mass reductions in force and agency reorganizations by March and September.Experts warn of risks: the ACLU calls it a radical restructuring threatening rights, while unions like AFGE decry up to a million job losses and politicized bureaucracy. Yet proponents, via Heritage, promise efficiency, declaring it a “collective effort of hundreds of volunteers” for positive change.As milestones loom—like Phase 2 reorganization plans—this blueprint tests America's governance, balancing bold reform against democratic guardrails.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint so ambitious it aims to remake the entire U.S. federal government from the inside out. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. According to its 900-page Mandate for Leadership, the plan seeks to consolidate executive power under a conservative president, replacing civil service workers with loyalists and dismantling agencies seen as bloated or ideologically misaligned.At its core, Project 2025 pushes a bold reinterpretation of unitary executive theory, placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. "All federal employees should answer to the president," Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts declared, echoing the document's call to reclassify tens of thousands of civil servants via Schedule F, stripping their protections to install Trump-aligned personnel. The Heritage Foundation aimed for a 20,000-person database by late 2024 to staff this overhaul.Concrete changes target key agencies. It proposes abolishing the Department of Education, shifting programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services and elevating school choice over federal oversight. "The federal government should be no more than a statistics-keeping organization" in education, the Mandate states, criticizing "woke propaganda" in schools. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security would dissolve into a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection and ICE. The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau face elimination, while the DOJ and FBI would fall under White House oversight to combat what the plan calls a "radical liberal agenda."Tax cuts for corporations, a flat income tax, Medicaid caps, and repealing Biden's Inflation Reduction Act round out economic reforms, aiming to slash regulations and boost nuclear energy. Critics like the ACLU warn this centralizes power, eroding checks and balances, while the Brennan Center highlights risks to criminal justice independence, such as charging local prosecutors for lenient policies.Fast-forward to 2026: The Center for Progressive Reform reports the Trump administration has implemented or initiated 53 percent of Project 2025's domestic agenda, including a February 2025 executive order launching the Department of Government Efficiency to shrink the workforce through attrition and hiring freezes. White House documents detail plans to prioritize reductions in diversity initiatives and non-statutory offices.This sweeping vision connects efficiency dreams to partisan control, illustrated by proposals to merge economic bureaus under conservative principles. As implementation accelerates, upcoming congressional battles over union rights—demanded by labor leaders in July 2025—could decide its fate.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint so ambitious it aims to rewire America's government from the ground up. That's Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's 900-page Mandate for Leadership, published in April 2023, which outlines a radical overhaul to consolidate executive power and install conservative priorities across federal agencies, according to the project's own documentation.At its core, the plan calls for dismantling the Department of Education, shifting its duties like funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, while curtailing federal civil rights enforcement in schools. "The federal government should be no more than a statistics-keeping organization when it comes to education," the Mandate states, prioritizing school choice and parental rights over what it deems "woke propaganda." Similarly, it proposes abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, replacing it with a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection and ICE.Key to this vision is replacing tens of thousands of civil servants with loyalists via Schedule F, reclassifying apolitical experts as at-will political appointees. The Heritage Foundation aimed for a 20,000-person personnel database by late 2024 to vet Trump-aligned staff. It seeks direct presidential control over the DOJ and FBI, which the plan blasts as a "bloated bureaucracy... infatuated with a radical liberal agenda," per the Mandate.Fast forward to 2026: President Trump's February executive order, implementing the Department of Government Efficiency, echoes these ideas. It mandates agency reorganization plans by March 13, 2025, large-scale reductions in force, and a hiring ratio of one new employee for every four departures, exempting national security roles, as detailed in White House fact sheets and OPM guidance. By February 2026, the Center for Progressive Reform reports 53 percent of Project 2025's domestic agenda initiated or completed.Experts warn of risks: the ACLU highlights threats to reproductive, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights, while unions like AFGE decry up to a million job losses, eroding nonpartisan expertise. Yet proponents argue it slims bloat, boosts efficiency, and reverses Biden-era policies like environmental regs.As agencies submit Phase 2 plans by April 2025 for full rollout by September, the real test looms—will these reforms streamline governance or politicize it? Watch for congressional pushback and court battles ahead.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 with its 900-page Mandate for Leadership, aiming to consolidate power in the president's hands through the unitary executive theory. According to the Heritage Foundation's own document, it unites hundreds of volunteers to advance "positive change for America" by replacing civil servants with loyalists and dismantling agencies.Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. The plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education, shifting programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, and limiting federal civil rights enforcement in schools to courtroom battles only. "The federal government should be no more than a statistics-keeping organization when it comes to education," the Mandate states, prioritizing school choice over what it deems "woke propaganda." Similarly, it seeks to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, folding immigration functions into a new agency, while shrinking the FBI and DOJ under direct White House oversight. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns this Schedule F scheme would reclassify tens of thousands of apolitical workers as at-will political appointees, stripping protections against abuse.Tax cuts for corporations, a flat income tax, Medicaid caps, and repealing Biden's Inflation Reduction Act round out economic reforms. Experts like the ACLU highlight risks: centralizing control could weaponize agencies against reproductive rights, immigrants, and racial equity.By February 2026, as the Center for Progressive Reform's tracker reports, the Trump administration has enacted 53 percent of these domestic policies, with over 213,000 civil servants exiting via buyouts and firings, per the Partnership for Public Service. This illustrates Project 2025's ambition—to reverse decades of bureaucracy for agile, conservative governance—yet critics fear eroded checks and balances.Looking ahead, upcoming milestones hinge on congressional battles over funding and court challenges to Schedule F. Will this reshape American democracy, or spark backlash?Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Radell Lewis breaks down the biggest political stories shaping America right now on this week's Purple Political Breakdown. First, the global movement to ban children from social media is gaining serious momentum Australia has already removed millions of underage accounts, Spain is holding platform executives criminally liable, and France, Denmark, the UK, and others are following suit. Discord is rolling out teen-by-default settings in March 2026. Meanwhile in the U.S., the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) awaits Senate action as half of all states now have age verification mandates. Radell weighs the privacy debate against children's safety and explains why the "they'll just go somewhere worse" argument doesn't hold up.Then, the deep dive: Project 2025 is no longer a boogeyman talking point it's policy. Trackers show the Trump administration has initiated roughly 53% of Project 2025's domestic proposals, with key authors like Russell Vought, Peter Navarro, and Brendan Carr now occupying the exact roles they wrote about in the Heritage Foundation's blueprint. Radell walks through Schedule F and what it means for 50,000 federal employees losing civil service protections, the DOJ's weaponization against political adversaries like James Comey and Letitia James, the tariff trade war and the pending Supreme Court ruling that could trigger over $100 billion in refunds, the EPA's historic rescission of the endangerment finding on climate change, DEI rollbacks, school vouchers, Planned Parenthood funding cuts, and what's still on the agenda including the Comstock Act.Plus: the DHS government shutdown explained, Democrats' demands for ICE accountability after Operation Metro Surge, the DOJ dropping charges against two Venezuelan men after ICE agents were caught lying under oath, the explosive Pam Bondi hearing on the Epstein files, the Trump-Harvard standoff, Trump Rx and whether it actually helps anyone, America's dropping corruption ranking, and why Americans are feeling less optimistic than ever. Radell wraps with good news including a breakthrough gene therapy for eye disease and AI-assisted breast cancer detection saving lives.New episodes every Sunday. Rate five stars, share with friends and family, and download the Alive Podcast Network app to support the show.Keywords: Project 2025, social media ban children, Schedule F, government shutdown DHS, ICE accountability, Epstein files, Pam Bondi hearing, Trump tariffs Supreme Court, EPA climate change rollback, Heritage Foundation, KOSMA, age verification, DEI rollback, Planned Parenthood funding, Trump Rx, Harvard funding, Operation Metro Surge, SAVE Act, political podcast, nonpartisan news, purple politicsStandard Resource Links & RecommendationsThe following organizations and platforms represent valuable resources for balanced political discourse and democratic participation: PODCAST NETWORKALIVE Podcast Network - Check out the ALIVE Network where you can catch a lot of great podcasts like my own, led by amazing Black voices. Link: https://alivepodcastnetwork.com/ CONVERSATION PLATFORMSHeadOn - A platform for contentious yet productive conversations. It's a place for hosted and unguided conversations where you can grow a following and enhance your conversations with AI features. Link: https://app.headon.ai/Living Room Conversations - Building bridges through meaningful dialogue across political divides. Link: https://livingroomconversations.org/ UNITY MOVEMENTSUs United - A movement for unity that challenges Americans to step out of their bubbles and connect across differences. Take the Unity Pledge, join monthly "30 For US" conversation calls, wear purple (the color of unity), and participate in National Unity Day every second Saturday in December. Their programs include the Sheriff Unity Network and Unity Seats at sports events, proving that shared values are stronger than our differences. Link: https://www.us-united.org/ BALANCED NEWS & INFORMATIONOtherWeb - An AI-based platform that filters news without paywalls, clickbait, or junk, helping you access diverse, unbiased content. Link: https://otherweb.com/ VOTING REFORM & DEMOCRACYEqual Vote Coalition & STAR Voting - Advocating for voting methods that ensure every vote counts equally, eliminating wasted votes and strategic voting. Link: https://www.equal.vote/starFuture is Now Coalition (FiNC) - A grassroots movement working to restore democracy through transparency, accountability, and innovative technology while empowering citizens and transforming American political discourse. Link: https://futureis.org/ POLITICAL ENGAGEMENTIndependent Center - Resources for independent political thinking and civic engagement. Link: https://www.independentcenter.org/ GET DAILY NEWSText 844-406-INFO (844-406-4636) with code "purple" to receive quick, unbiased, factual news delivered to your phone every morning via Informed (https://informed.now) ALL LINKShttps://linktr.ee/purplepoliticalbreakdownThe Purple Political Breakdown is committed to fostering productive political dialogue that transcends partisan divides. We believe in the power of conversation, balanced information, and democratic participation to build a stronger society. Our mission: "Political solutions without political bias."Subscribe, rate, and share if you believe in purple politics - where we find common ground in the middle! Also if you want to be apart of the community and the conversation make sure to Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/ptPAsZtHC9

Imagine a blueprint so ambitious it aims to rewrite the rules of American governance from the top down. That's Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's 900-page Mandate for Leadership, published in April 2023, which outlines a radical overhaul of the federal government to consolidate power in the presidency and advance conservative priorities, according to the project's own documentation.At its core, the plan calls for replacing thousands of civil service workers with loyalists via Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order it seeks to revive. "The next conservative president needs a government staffed with people who support the conservative agenda," states the Heritage Foundation's Mandate. This would politicize agencies like the Department of Justice and FBI, placing them under direct White House control, as Wikipedia details in its overview of the initiative.Key proposals target dismantling agencies: abolish the Department of Education, handing education to states and prioritizing school choice to combat what it labels "woke propaganda," per the Mandate. The Department of Homeland Security would morph into a leaner immigration enforcer merging Customs and Border Protection with ICE. Environmental rules would shrink, corporate taxes drop, and a flat income tax replace the current system, while Medicare and Medicaid face caps and work requirements.Fast forward to 2026, and under President Trump's administration, the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency has turbocharged these ideas. Government Executive reports DOGE firing tens of thousands, eliminating diversity roles, and targeting agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—both Project 2025 hits. Health and Human Services plans 20,000 cuts, the IRS has gutted civil rights offices, and over 212,000 civil servants have exited, per the Federal Harms Tracker from ourpublicservice.org. Courts have reinstated some workers, like at Voice of America, amid lawsuits from unions and the ACLU, which warns of "radical restructuring" eroding civil liberties.Experts see peril: the ACLU notes threats to reproductive rights and racial equity, while unions decry politicized services hurting rural families and seniors. Yet proponents argue it slims a bloated bureaucracy.As the Federal Government Reform Act advances in Congress, per congress.gov, upcoming court battles and midterm elections loom as pivotal decision points. Will this reshape America for efficiency or entrench one-party rule?Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The Trump administration's newly finalized “Schedule F” policy is making big headlines. But there are also several other significant changes coming for the federal workforce. Three recent proposals look to give the Office of Personnel Management more authority, something that could bring significant changes for employees. Here with more, Federal News Network's Drew Friedman.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, the GovNavigators are joined by Mike Wetklow, former Chief Risk Officer at the IRS and longtime federal financial leader, to kick off a new series on the pod, introducing you all to the illustrious members of the GovNavigators Network. Mike reflects on his career across DHS, NSF, OMB, and IRS, his decision to return to school mid-career to study data analytics, and his current work preparing the next generation of public servants at George Mason University. The conversation explores how AI, data science, and emerging technologies are reshaping risk management and financial oversight, and why government's real challenge may be learning to oversee technology that increasingly does the work itself.In the news, Robert and Adam break down a brief partial shutdown, ongoing DHS funding uncertainty, and GAO's latest report on federal shared services. They unpack why progress remains slow, what leadership commitment is missing, and why agencies continue to struggle to stop paying for duplicative systems. The episode also covers the administration's move to reclassify parts of the federal workforce, revisiting the spirit of Schedule F, and a rare bipartisan moment out of the House Oversight Committee that raises cautious questions about the future of good-government reforms.Show Notes:Learn more about the GovNavigators NetworkGAO report on Federal Shared ServicesOPM Federal Workforce Reclassification RuleWhat's on the GovNavigators' Radar:Feb 10-12: AFCEA WestFeb 11: PSC Law Enforcement ConferenceFeb 18-19: AGA National Leadership TrainingMar 5: Government Efficiency Summit

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed playbook to consolidate executive power and install loyalists across federal agencies, according to the project's own documentation.Fast forward to 2026: under President Trump's second term, echoes of this vision pulse through Washington. The Heritage Foundation's plan called for reinstating Schedule F to strip civil service protections from up to a million policy-influencing federal workers, paving the way for partisan replacements. Trump's Executive Order on Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions reinstated it immediately, as Politico reports, aligning with Project 2025's push for “motivated and aligned leadership.”Concrete changes abound. The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has slashed tens of thousands of jobs, targeting “woke” initiatives. Health and Human Services plans to cut 20,000 positions—25 percent of its workforce—via buyouts and attrition, per Government Executive. USAID faced near-elimination, its staff fired then partially reinstated by courts, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which returned $21 billion to scam victims, teeters after similar assaults. The Agriculture Department is dismantling its D.C. headquarters, and IRS civil rights offices have been gutted by 75 percent.Policy ambitions run deep. Mandate for Leadership urges dismantling the Department of Education, placing the DOJ and FBI under direct White House control—“a bloated bureaucracy infatuated with a radical liberal agenda,” it declares—and merging economic bureaus into a conservative-aligned entity. Immigration reforms propose abolishing Homeland Security for a streamlined enforcement agency. Cuts target Medicaid via funding caps and work requirements, and Medicare faces reductions.Experts warn of peril. The ACLU describes it as a “radical restructuring” threatening rights, while unions like AFGE sue over union curbs, echoing Project 2025's disdain for public-sector bargaining. Proponents tout efficiency; critics see democratic erosion.As DOGE deadlines loom—agency RIF plans due April 14, USAID closure eyed by July—these moves test executive reach amid lawsuits. Will courts halt the frenzy, or will loyalty reshape governance for years?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and dismantle what its authors call the bloated administrative state, according to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation.At its core, the plan targets federal agencies for radical overhaul. It calls for abolishing the Department of Education entirely, shifting programs like those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, while empowering states with school choice and parental rights to combat what it labels "woke propaganda" in public schools. The Department of Homeland Security would vanish too, replaced by a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and others, with proposals to end protections against migrant apprehensions near schools and churches, as outlined in the Mandate.Key reforms push the unitary executive theory, placing the DOJ, FBI, and independent bodies like the FTC under direct presidential control. "The DOJ has become a bloated bureaucracy... infatuated with a radical liberal agenda," the project states, advocating replacement of civil servants with loyalists via reinstating Schedule F, which strips job protections for up to a million workers. It also eyes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid through funding caps and work requirements, plus shrinking the National Labor Relations Board to hinder union organizing.Latest developments show momentum: By early 2025, President Trump's Executive Order on the Department of Government Efficiency directed agencies to prepare massive reductions in force and reorganization plans by March, per Office of Personnel Management guidance, echoing Project 2025's 180-day playbook of ready executive orders.Experts warn of risks. The ACLU describes it as a "radical restructuring" threatening civil liberties, while unions like the American Federation of Government Employees decry it as a bid to terminate workers and politicize expertise. Yet proponents argue it streamlines efficiency, as Heritage claims: a collective effort for "positive change."This ambition connects to broader themes of reclaiming power from unelected bureaucrats, illustrated by merging economic bureaus into one conservative-aligned entity.Looking ahead, Phase 2 agency plans due by September 2025 could accelerate these shifts, with midterm elections as a pivotal decision point.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint unfolding in Washington, one that could redraw the lines of American power. Project 2025, launched in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, is that plan—a 900-plus-page manifesto called Mandate for Leadership, crafted by former Trump officials and conservative allies to reshape the federal government for a potential Republican president in 2025.At its core, the project pushes the unitary executive theory, aiming to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. According to the Heritage Foundation's document, it calls for reclassifying tens of thousands of civil service workers as political appointees via Schedule F, stripping protections to replace them with loyalists. "The federal government should be no more than a statistics-keeping organization when it comes to education," it states, proposing to dismantle the Department of Education entirely, shifting programs like those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services.Concrete changes ripple across agencies. The Department of Justice and FBI would lose independence, with the FBI director accountable directly to the president, as the plan decries the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy... infatuated with a radical liberal agenda." Homeland Security would vanish, replaced by a streamlined immigration agency merging Customs and Border Protection and ICE. The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau face abolition, while Medicare and Medicaid could see funding caps, work requirements, and voucher options. Environmental rules would shrink, taxes on corporations would drop, and a flat income tax proposed.Experts warn of sweeping impacts. The ACLU describes it as a "radical restructuring" threatening reproductive, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights. The National Federation of Federal Employees calls it a scheme to "destroy the Administrative State," enabling unlimited political hires on day one via a 180-day playbook of executive orders.These ambitions connect a broader vision: dismantling what proponents see as bureaucratic overreach to empower conservative priorities like school choice and nuclear innovation, while critics fear an imperial presidency eroding checks and balances.As 2025's transition looms, key milestones like personnel vetting—aiming for 20,000 in the Heritage database—and potential executive actions will test this blueprint's reach.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 as the 900-page Mandate for Leadership, a detailed roadmap to consolidate executive power and install loyalists across federal agencies, according to the Heritage Foundation's own documentation.Its stated goal? Reshape the sprawling administrative state into a leaner machine aligned with right-wing priorities. Picture Day One of a new Republican presidency: a stack of executive orders ready to sign, firing tens of thousands of civil servants under the revived Schedule F category, reclassifying them as at-will political appointees. The Heritage Foundation's plan calls for replacing them with vetted personnel from its database, aiming for 20,000 recruits by late 2024. As Government Executive reports, by early 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, accelerated this—slashing diversity offices, issuing reduction-in-force plans for 70,000 jobs, and targeting agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which returned $21 billion to scam victims but now faces elimination.Concrete changes abound. The blueprint urges dismantling the Department of Education, shifting programs like those for disabled students to Health and Human Services and curbing federal civil rights enforcement in schools to prioritize “student safety over racial parity in discipline,” per Mandate for Leadership. It eyes abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, merging its immigration functions, and partisan control of the DOJ and FBI, making their leaders directly accountable to the president. Cuts loom for Medicaid via funding caps and work requirements, plus shrinking the NIH and reversing Biden-era environmental rules to boost nuclear energy and corporate tax breaks.Experts warn of risks. The ACLU describes it as a “radical restructuring” threatening reproductive, LGBTQ, and immigrant rights. Unions like AFGE decry the potential loss of up to a million federal workers' protections, echoing fears of politicized governance.By mid-2025, courts have reinstated some fired staff at Voice of America and CFPB, signaling legal battles ahead. As return-to-office mandates clash with office closures, the project's ambition tests America's checks and balances.Looking forward, key milestones like congressional action on Education cuts and union fights could define 2026 governance. Will efficiency triumph or chaos ensue?Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Project 2025 began not on a campaign stage, but in a Washington think tank conference room. The Heritage Foundation calls it “a conservative policy agenda” and a ready-made governing blueprint, anchored in a nearly 900-page manual titled Mandate for Leadership, meant to guide “the next conservative president” from day one, according to Heritage's own introduction to the project.At its core, Project 2025 aims to dramatically expand presidential control over the federal government. Heritage leaders have said the goal is to “deconstruct the administrative state” and ensure that “all federal employees should answer to the president,” a phrase echoed by Heritage president Kevin Roberts and summarized in reporting by PBS NewsHour and The New York Times. The project embraces the controversial “unitary executive” theory, under which agencies that have traditionally operated with some independence, like the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, would be firmly pulled into the White House orbit, as described by the Center for Progressive Reform and the ACLU.To make that vision real, the blueprint outlines sweeping changes to federal staffing. The National Federation of Federal Employees explains that Project 2025 leans heavily on reviving and expanding “Schedule F,” a Trump-era classification that would allow tens of thousands of career civil servants to be converted into political appointees and easily removed. Heritage's own materials describe building a database of 20,000 ideologically aligned personnel ready to step into government roles, while critics like Democracy Forward warn this would turn a nonpartisan civil service into a loyal political corps.The scope of the policy proposals is just as far-reaching. According to the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document and a summary by AFSCME, the plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education, shifting most education authority to the states, and cutting back federal civil rights enforcement in schools. The Heritage blueprint also urges dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and replacing it with a streamlined immigration-focused department that consolidates agencies such as Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation Security Administration, as summarized by Wikipedia's Project 2025 entry and labor analyses.Economic and regulatory policy would be reshaped as well. Heritage's Mandate argues for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act's climate investments, closing the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, and rolling back environmental and clean-energy mandates. It also backs major tax changes, including corporate tax cuts and a possible flat individual income tax, along with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, according to the Heritage document and summaries by AFSCME and the ACLU. The blueprint further recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and even the Federal Trade Commission, moves that groups like the Center for Progressive Reform say would weaken consumer and antitrust protections.Supporters portray these ideas as a restoration of constitutional government and traditional values. Critics, including the ACLU and multiple academic commentators, warn that centralizing so much power in the presidency, while purging the civil service, could erode checks and balances and politicize law enforcement, with PBS NewsHour noting concerns about expanded domestic use of the National Guard under a more aggressive Justice Department and FBI.The next key milestones will be how much of this agenda is embraced by Republican candidates, written into party platforms, or translated into concrete executive orders and legislation should conservatives control the White House and Congress. For now, Project 2025 remains a detailed playbook waiting for a willing administration.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Logan and Bobby Lee close out the year with one hell of a story, the track hoe buyer from hell. Logan finally sells his Deere 200 excavator, but not before dealing with one of the most relentless, nit-picking, deal-almost-killing buyers you've ever heard of. If you've ever sold farm equipment or negotiated machinery, this story will feel painfully familiar. We also hit listener questions, including: Made-in-USA company suggestions we were shocked we hadn't already featured A powerful message explaining how putting your farm in your wife's name could unlock major USDA and FSA advantages And a separate insight on how taking a year off from filing a Schedule F could potentially let you start over as a Beginning Farmer and regain access to key benefits Logan also shares why he wonders if his New York Times interview will ever see the light of day.  Our Made-in-America spotlight this week is Mossberg Firearms, one of the most iconic American gun manufacturers still building tough, reliable firearms right here in the USA. This is our final episode of the year; gritty, honest, and exactly how Talk Dirt To Me does it. Go check out Agzaga! It is the ultimate online farm store. American owned and operated. Go check out their site and get what you need. Be sure to use the code TalkDirt20 to get $20 off your order of $50 or more! Visit them at: https://agzaga.com 

Send us a textWhat do a disappointed office-seeker, a presidential assassination, a reform act from the 1880s, and an academic essay from Woodrow Wilson have to do with your life today? More than you think.In this episode, Alexis traces the surprising story of how the U.S. moved from a full-blown spoils system—“to the victor belong the spoils”—to a modern merit-based civil service. You'll hear how President James Garfield's assassination jolted the country into passing the Pendleton Act, how Woodrow Wilson helped launch public administration as its own field, and why all of this matters right now as Schedule F (now Schedule Policy/Career) reopens the debate over loyalty vs. expertise in federal jobs.This isn't about which party is “right.” It's about the kind of government we want: One run by professionals? One run by political loyalists? Or something in between?If you've ever wondered how civil servants actually got here—and whether we're drifting back toward a modern spoils system—this episode is your roadmap.Find Alexis on Instagram and JOIN in the conversation: https://www.instagram.com/the_idaho_lady/ JOIN the convo on Substack & STAY up-to-date with emails and posts https://substack.com/@theidaholady?r=5katbx&utm_campaign=profile&utm_medium=profile-page Send Alexis an email with guest requests, ideas, or potential collaboration.email@thealexismorgan.comFind great resources, info on school communities, and other current projects regarding public policy:https://www.thealexismorgan.com

We discuss how ungoverning is the equivalent of a bull in a china shop. We have already seen the destruction of many institutions and many functions of the administrative state, but we don't yet know how much there is still to come.   Nancy's civic action toolkit recommendations are:  1) Don't let unpredictability strip you of your agency 2) Vote in local, county, and state elections   Nancy Rosenblum is the Senator Joseph Clark Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government Emerita at Harvard University, and the co-author of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos.     Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Discover new ways to #BetheSpark:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Follow Nancy on X:  https://x.com/Nlrosenblum    Read Ungoverning:  https://bookshop.org/shop/futurehindsight    Sponsor:  Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Nancy Rosenblum Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Welcome to episode 201 of Growers Daily! We cover: starting a business from scratch, where asking if corn is a heavy feeder, and “to terrace or not to terrace…” that's a fun lineup.  We are a Non-Profit! 

In this episode, Jeff and Becky sit down with Jim Hartman, the 2024 North Carolina Small Farmer of the Year and a dedicated honey producer. Jim shares his journey from military service and corporate life to becoming a full-time “honey farmer” and entrepreneur. His passion for beekeeping and veteran advocacy shines through as he discusses building a farm business from the ground up—debt-free and focused on sustainable growth. Jim offers practical insights into treating a beekeeping operation as a serious business rather than a hobby. He breaks down essential strategies like proper bookkeeping, the importance of filing a Schedule F, and setting clear business goals. Jim also highlights programs and resources available to veterans and new farmers, including the underutilized Veteran Small Business Enhancement Act and the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA). Whether you have 10 colonies or 200, Jim emphasizes the importance of mindset: stop thinking in terms of hobbyist or sideliner—if you're running your bees to make a profit, you're a farmer. His story and advice offer valuable lessons for any beekeeper looking to strengthen their operation and approach their bees with a business-first mentality. Websites from the episode and others we recommend: Secret Garden Bees (Jim's Website): https://secretgardenbees.com Kutik Queens: https://www.betterbee.com/instructions-and-resources/meet-your-kutik-queen.asp Veterans Small Business Enhancement Act: https://www.sba.gov/document/information-notice-veterans-small-business-enhancement-act-2018-faq USDA Farm Service Agency: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ USDA Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-raised Fish Program (ELAP): https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-assistance-livestock-honeybees-farm-raised-fish-elap   Honey Bee Health Coalition: https://honeybeehealthcoalition.org The National Honey Board: https://honey.com Honey Bee Obscura Podcast: https://honeybeeobscura.com   Copyright © 2025 by Growing Planet Media, LLC     ______________ Betterbee is the presenting sponsor of Beekeeping Today Podcast. Betterbee's mission is to support every beekeeper with excellent customer service, continued education and quality equipment. From their colorful and informative catalog to their support of beekeeper educational activities, including this podcast series, Betterbee truly is Beekeepers Serving Beekeepers. See for yourself at www.betterbee.com This episode is brought to you by Global Patties! Global offers a variety of standard and custom patties. Visit them today at http://globalpatties.com and let them know you appreciate them sponsoring this episode!  Thanks to Bee Smart Designs as a sponsor of this podcast! Bee Smart Designs is the creator of innovative, modular and interchangeable hive systems made in the USA using recycled and American sourced materials. Bee Smart Designs - Simply better beekeeping for the modern beekeeper.   Thanks to Dalan who is dedicated to providing transformative animal health solutions to support a more sustainable future. Dalan's vaccination against American Foulbrood (AFB) is a game changer. Vaccinated queens protect newly hatched honeybee larvae against AFB using the new Dalan vaccine. Created for queen producers and other beekeepers wanting to produce AFB free queens.  Retailers offering vaccinated queens and packages:  https://dalan.com/order-vaccinated-queens/   More information on the vaccine: https://dalan.com/media-publications/ Thanks to Strong Microbials for their support of Beekeeping Today Podcast. Find out more about their line of probiotics in our Season 3, Episode 12 episode and from their website: https://www.strongmicrobials.com Thanks for Northern Bee Books for their support. Northern Bee Books is the publisher of bee books available worldwide from their website or from Amazon and bookstores everywhere. They are also the publishers of The Beekeepers Quarterly and Natural Bee Husbandry. _______________ We hope you enjoy this podcast and welcome your questions and comments in the show notes of this episode or: questions@beekeepingtodaypodcast.com Thank you for listening!  Podcast music: Be Strong by Young Presidents; Epilogue by Musicalman; Faraday by BeGun; Walking in Paris by Studio Le Bus; A Fresh New Start by Pete Morse; Wedding Day by Boomer; Christmas Avenue by Immersive Music; Red Jack Blues by Daniel Hart; Original guitar background instrumental by Jeff Ott. Beekeeping Today Podcast is an audio production of Growing Planet Media, LLC Copyright © 2025 by Growing Planet Media, LLC

Thursday, May 22nd, 2025Today, the Pentagon has officially accepted the illegal $400M emolument plane from Qatar; a federal judge held a hearing on the men disappeared to South Sudan and found the government violated a court order; a federal judge has blocked Trump's firing of two Democratic members of a privacy oversight board; hundreds of rural hospitals are at risk of closing under Trump policies; Sean Duffy sold stocks right before Trump announced his tariffs; ICE is now dismissing pending immigration cases so they can re-arrest people and remove them faster; a CEO says Trump's IRS pick promised big benefits; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, PiqueLifeGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeansAG is hosting - NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San Diego - Sat June 14 10am – 12pm PDTDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovementMega Happy Hour Zoom Call - you can interact with not just me and Harry Dunn, Andy McCabe, and Dana Goldberg. They'll all be there this Friday at 7 PM ET 4 PM PT. Plus, you'll get these episodes ad free and early, and get pre-sale tickets and VIP access to our live events. You can join at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month.MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Adam KlasfeldAll Rise NewsAll Rise News - BlueskyAdam Klasfeld (@klasfeldreports.com) - BlueSkyAdam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) - TwitterStories:Immigrant Defenders Law CenterDemocratic senator says he has recordings of favors ‘promised' by Trump's IRS pick | The HillTransportation Secretary Sean Duffy Sold Stocks Two Days Before Trump Announced a Plan for Reciprocal Tariffs | ProPublicaHundreds of rural hospitals are at risk of closing, threatening critical care | CBS NewsPentagon accepts luxury jet from Qatar to use as Air Force One | ABC NewsFederal judge blocks Trump's firing of two Democratic members of privacy oversight board | AP NewsGood Trouble: Please leave a comment opposing Schedule F, which will convert many career federal servants to "at will" employees - easy to fire. Comments are due 5/23/25Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil ServiceFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsMadnessAmerica, Let Me In – Abrams BooksSolito by Javier Zamora | GoodreadsCarsie BlantonBenton County Health DepartmentAll You FascistsLucas (1986) - IMDbReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Mega Happy Hour Zoom Call - you can interact with not just me and Harry Dunn, Andy McCabe, and Dana Goldberg. They'll all be there this Friday 5/23/2025 at 7 PM ET 4 PM PT. Plus, you'll get these episodes ad free and early, and get pre-sale tickets and VIP access to our live events. You can join at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month. Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

This episode explores the dramatic changes in the US government following Elon Musk's departure and the appointment of Russ Vought. It delves into Vought's strategic moves to overhaul federal operations, emphasizing Schedule F, budget cuts, and policy reforms aimed at streamlining the government. Matt discusses the controversy surrounding these changes, their legal challenges, and the broader implications for government employees and services. He questions the balance between necessary reform and the potential for disruption, urging listeners to consider how much control the government should have over their lives. BUT BEFORE THAT, hear some news on a dollar reset date! About that thing we are doing in Vegas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsH9-05vQzgZf9MAGBpUahyTqBcu9VgVqQ8pcACMT8/edit?tab=t.0 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Newt’s guest is Vincent Vernuccio, president and co-founder of the Institute for the American Worker. They discuss the significant labor policy developments and legislative efforts aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in both public and private sectors. Their conversation covers the introduction of the Start Applying Labor Transparency (SALT) Act, which seeks to amend the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to ensure greater transparency in financial transactions between unions and labor consultants. Vernuccio also explains the implications of President Trump's executive action, Schedule F, which aims to make certain federal employees at-will to enhance accountability. They also discuss the challenges posed by public sector unions and the potential impact of Senator Josh Hawley's Faster Labor Contracts Act, which could impose arbitration on private sector union negotiations. Vernuccio emphasizes the need for modernizing union models to align with today's workforce demands for flexibility and merit-based advancement.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Friday, April 25th, 2025Today, Pete Hegseth downloaded Signal on his Pentagon desktop to circumvent classified spaces; President Volodimyr Zalensky rejects Trump's tired Ukraine peace deal; the Trump administration moved a Venezuelan man to Texas despite a federal judge's order; the Pentagon resumes medical care for transgender troops; Trump tells Pam Bondi to launch a criminal investigation into ActBlue; Leland Dudek calls for all SSA offices employees to be converted to Schedule F; Trump's approval rating is in the toilet; the DoJ accidentally files an internal document outlining how much their case against congestion pricing sucks; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, HomeChefFor a limited time, get  50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life!  HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.POLITICAL VOICES NETWORK PRESENTS:  Not The White House Correspondents' Dinner Live PPV April 26, 2025 9pm | MeetHook.live - Steph Miller, Alonzo Boden, Trea Crowder, JoJo from Jerz, Brooklyn Dad Defiant, Frank Coniff, John Fugelsang, Glenn Kirschner, Hal Sparks, Chuck Nice, Frangela, Brian Karem, Dean Obadallah and Elaine Boozler.Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything — John FugelsangThe John Fugelsang PodcastSiriusXM ProgressJohn Fugelsang (@johnfugelsang.bsky.social) — BlueskyPre-order Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person's Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds by John FugelsangStories:Hegseth had Signal messaging app installed on an office computer | The Washington PostNIH guts its first and largest study centered on women | Science | AAASTrump slams Zelenskyy for rejecting Ukraine-Russia negotiations, saying a deal was 'very close' | NBC NewsExclusive: Trump administration moved Venezuelan to Texas for possible deportation despite judge's order | ReutersTrump targets Democratic fundraising powerhouse ActBlue with DOJ probe | CNN PoliticsDudek calls for entire SSA offices to be converted to new Schedule F | Government ExecutiveDOJ accidentally files document outlining flaws with Trump administration's plan to kill NYC congestion pricing | ABC NewsTrump's Approval Rating Has Been Falling Steadily, Polling Average Shows | The New York TimesGood Trouble:ACTION ITEM  Implementation of Schedule F - Jeremy Berg | BlueskyFederal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil ServiceAlso, you can contact Noah Peters, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at employeeaccountability@opm.gov From The Good NewsSigns of Justice (@signsofjustice) | IG and MSW Media (@mswmediapods) | IG Toasted MallowShared Umbrellas - BlueSkyMaryland Sheep and Wool FestivalReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

President Donald Trump is moving to reclassify around 50,000 government employees from civil servants to political appointees under Schedule F. This would remove civil service protections from these positions, making it easier for these federal workers to be fired. In a public statement, Trump said this will help him “root out corruption,” and have the government “run like a business.”—Support independent journalism by giving us a 5-star rating.Views expressed on this podcast are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Today's Headlines: Senator Chris Van Hollen revealed new details about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's transfer to a better prison in El Salvador and criticized the Trump administration's misleading photo edits suggesting gang ties. Meanwhile, California sued the administration over sweeping tariffs, and immigration issues escalated—U.S. citizens and refugees are being wrongfully detained or ordered to leave the country, including a New Mexico teen and a Connecticut doctor. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, while also agreeing to hear a case on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Trump is also pushing to reclassify 50,000 federal workers under Schedule F, making them easier to fire, and is seizing control of Penn Station's $7B renovation. On trade, no deals have been finalized despite meetings with global partners, casting doubt on the administration's rushed timeline. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: CNN: Sen. Chris Van Hollen says Abrego Garcia described being ‘traumatized' at CECOT, has been moved to different detention center Yahoo: Trump Posts Photoshopped Image of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's Knuckle Tattoos With Disputed ‘MS-13' Interpretation Miami Herald: Despite refugee status in the U.S., young Venezuelan was deported to Salvadoran prison  AZPM: U.S. citizen in Arizona detained by immigration officials for 10 days - AZPM  NBC News: American doctor receives email from immigration officials telling her to leave the country immediately NY Times: Trump Administration Asks Justices to Reject A.C.L.U. Request to Pause Deportations SCOTUS Blog: Justices will hear arguments on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship AP News: Trump moves to invoke Schedule F to make it easier to fire some federal workers NBC News: Trump faces imposing timeline to broker 75 trade deals in less than 90 days CBS News: Trump administration taking control of Penn Station renovation  Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump advanced his plans to make it easier to fire tens of thousands of federal workers. He said he would move forward with a rule, previously known as Schedule F, allowing agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Thursday, January 30th, 2025Today, the White House has rescinded it's illegal impoundment order for federal spending; the AFGE and NTEU have recommended against federal employees accepting the deferred resignation sent out to all federal employees until they can gather additional information; Elon Musk lackeys have taken over the office of personnel management; the administration has been hit with yet another lawsuit this time over Schedule F implementation; Democrats have flipped a deep red Iowa state senate seat; the USDA Inspector General that was investigating Musk has been physically escorted out of her office; Trump has signed an executive order creating a concentration camp on Guantanamo; US Senator Bob Menendez has been sentenced to 11 years in prison; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You Helix SleepGo to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans for 20% Off Sitewide plus 2 Free Dream Pillows with mattress purchase.Guest: Leigh McGowanThe PoliticsGirl Podcast@politicsgirl.bsky.social - BlueskyPoliticsGirl (@IAmPoliticsGirl) - TwitterFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. The Breakdown - Allison Gill | SubstackStories:Trump White House rescinds order freezing federal spending, reversing course - Jeff Stein and Tony Romm | The Washington PostExclusive: USDA inspector general escorted out of her office after defying White House - Rachael Levy | ReutersElon Musk Lackeys Have Taken Over the Office of Personnel Management | WIREDTrump Administration Hit With Another Lawsuit Over Schedule F Order - Matt Cohen | Democracy DocketGood Trouble Call Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, and Bill Cassidy and tell them to vote NO NO NO on RFK Jr. Also, it might be a good idea to remind fetterman to vote no. Call all five of them, then please ask a friend to call all five of them. Contacting U.S. SenatorsStates in the SenateHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsZIMMER WINS Senate District-35Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

It's Casual Friday! Sam and Emma speak with Krystal Ball, co-host of Krystal, Kyle, & Friends and Breaking Points, to round up the week in news. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on Trump's assault on civil servants, his attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, the arrival of federal troops to the southern border, Trump's dangerous empowerment of ICE, the likely confirmation of Pete Hegseth, more Trump pardons, Meta's anti-abortion actions, Mike Johnson's request of Casey Hutchinson, and Trump's halting of police reform agreements, before expanding on the role of Trump's “Schedule F” attack on civil servants, and watching Jeff Merkley come right at Russ Vought for his desire to trap sick people in poverty. Krystal Ball then joins, diving right into Trump's clear and active effort to exercise his plan of maximalist lawlessness, with blanket pardons to violent January 6th rioters, blatantly unconstitutional acts like overturning birthright citizenship, and the launching of a shady cryptocurrency to hide backroom dealings. Expanding on this, Ball explores the particular role the Big Tech oligarchy plays in backing the Trump regime, with mass amounts of wealth stored in and funding the world of AI and cryptocurrency – two institutions whose primary uses are in bolstering and protecting exploitation – and why this political move by the industry is a necessity in an era where they are becoming more and more representative of the massive, unproductive hoards of wealth tied up among elite capitalists. After tackling the particular role the Democratic Party played in making this era of Big Money and Big Tech a bipartisan one, and how that, alongside the corporate capture of the media, has created an environment with utterly weakened opposition to fascism – with Dems having capitulated to the Trump worldview in the hopes of bringing about a kinder, gentler fascism –  wrapping up with the need to stay clear about the anti-fascist and anti-oligarchy messaging, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts they create. Sam and Emma also touch on Trump's recent actions to overturn the federal pledge to not discriminate in federal contracts, and the snitch-order sent out over federal DEI practices. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma unpack the immediate impact of Trump's severe mass criminalization and threat of deportation of undocumented migrants, with farmers in the citrus and dairy industries seeing their workforce disappear overnight, before talking with Kieth from Chicago about Trump's NIH shutdown and the collective nature of science, and exploring Trump's crackdown on the administrative state with the perspective of USDA worker Leo from CA. Elon sycophants Ben Shapiro and PBD jump to his defense over the “did a literal Sieg Heil at the inauguration” allegations, and the MR Team reflects on videos from the Aldaghma family in the wake of a tentative ceasefire in Gaza, plus, your calls and IMs! Follow Krystal on Twitter here: https://x.com/krystalball Check out Krystal, Kyle & Friends: https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com/ Check out Breaking Points here: https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints Donate to the Gaza Bakery here: https://www.gofundme.com/f/gaza-bakery-feeding-displaced-families Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Ritual: Essential for Men is a quality multivitamin from a company you can actually trust. Get 25% off your first month for a limited time at https://ritual.com/MAJORITY. That's https://ritual.com/MAJORITY for 25% off your first month. Sunset Lake CBD: Head on over to https://SunsetLakeCBD.com and use code Tincture to save 35% on tinctures. See their site for terms and conditions. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Within hours of Donald Trump's inauguration, numerous executive actions were signed and over 1500 pardons were issued for nearly all of the January 6th defendants, despite his vice president and attorney general nominee suggesting a more refined approach. So, on this first full day of Trump's second term, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord review the blunt nature of these pardons, especially for those convicted of violent acts that day. Then they turn to pardons issued by President Biden in his final hours in office to shield those targeted by Trump for retribution- including members of Congress, those who testified in the J6 investigation, and members of his own family. And finally, Mary and Andrew dive into the myriad of executive actions signed by Trump as legal challenges begin to mount around things like getting rid of birthright citizenship, using the military domestically at our border, undoing the TikTok ban and the creation of DOGE.Further reading: Here is Mary's recent write up in the Atlantic: A Sweeping January 6 Pardon Is an Attack on the JudiciaryWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

This special series is a joint production by David Pepper and Resolute Square. The book, “Trump's Project 2025: Up Close And Personal” by David Pepper, is available for purchase at https://a.co/d/adWcJ4S. To start, special guest host Stuart Stevens weighs in on day one of the confirmation hearings and the abomination that is the slate of nominees Trump has put forward for some of the most important positions in the Executive Branch. In Chapter 3, the fact-based fictional story of Dr. Yvette Hardman and JJ Newsom depicts the dismantling of expertise and science-based decision making in the federal government under a possible second Trump administration guided by Project 2025. Dr. Hardman, an experienced infectious disease expert, is removed from her position at the CDC and replaced by JJ Newsom, an unqualified political loyalist with no relevant experience. This reflects Project 2025's plan to fill government positions with partisan appointees rather than nonpartisan experts. The new administration rejects science-based pandemic response recommendations from Dr. Hardman instead prioritizing political and economic considerations over public health. This aligns with Project 2025's directives to limit the CDC's ability to make public health recommendations. The story highlights the Trump administration's hostility towards science and the displacement of experienced civil servants, which Project 2025 seeks to accelerate through measures like the "Schedule F" executive order to reclassify and fire federal employees. Overall, the narrative illustrates how a second Trump term guided by Project 2025 would undermine the role of expertise and independent scientific advice in government, with potentially disastrous consequences for public health and safety. Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal is available on all the podcast apps and at 2025pod.com. We'd also like to thank all the artists who volunteered their time to make this episode: CCH Pounder, Richard Schiff and Jason Kravits who read the chapters and Omid Abtahi, Tom Nichols, Laurie Burke and Joanne Carducci who did the voices. Sound design by Marilys Ernst and Jon Moser. Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal was written by David Pepper and produced by Pepper, Melissa Jo Peltier and Jay Feldman and is a production of Ovington Avenue Productions and The Bill Press Pod. Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Dinesh reveals the significance of Schedule F, a mechanism for Trump, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to clean out the waste and excess in the federal bureaucracy.  Debbie and Dinesh discuss crime in New York, the backstory on presidential pardons, and Australia's new law banning social media access for young people under the age of 16, and a preview of a very special children's book by our friend Terrence Williams.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What are recess appointments? And with Republicans controlling the Senate, will President-elect Trump's nominees face any hurdles in their confirmation process? In an excerpt from a new episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss Trump's ongoing nominations of cabinet members and other high-profile positions. Despite Republicans controlling the Senate, Trump has called on candidates vying to replace Republican leader Mitch McConnell to permit his nominees to take office without confirmation votes using the recess appointments power. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss: – How Trump's return to the White House will likely mark the end of his criminal prosecutions, with the federal election interference case and sentencing in Manhattan already facing new delays;  – The expected reinstatement of Trump's “Schedule F” executive order, which would reclassify many federal staff members as at-will employees; and – The charges filed by the Department of Justice against an Iranian man for allegedly plotting to assassinate Trump. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices