<Earlier this week, President Donald Trump's administration sent an email to federal workers asking them to quit in exchange for several months' pay. But many federal employees are wary of the offer.

That's according to a recent CNN article, which reported that workers throughout several federal agencies are hesitant to take the president at his word. After Trump's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offered millions of federal employees pay through September if they voluntarily left their positions, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warned that the Trump administration is legally unable to follow through on its promise given that Congress has only appropriated enough funding to keep federal agencies funded through mid-March.

"Employees should not take the Program at face value," the AFGE cautioned, adding that the OPM's email offered no guarantee that workers who quit "will receive the benefits that the Program purports to offer."

Stephen Miller, who is Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, said without offering any evidence that "a significant number of federal workers have accepted the buyout offer." But several workers told CNN that they have no plan to accept the offer, which expires on Thursday, February 6.

“They’re trying to change everything overnight. They’re trying to reinvent the government, and I don’t think they can do it," one unnamed U.S. Department of Agriculture employee told the network. "I retire by 60. I have my 25 years. I’m vested. I’m not going anywhere."

Outside of the AFGE, other unions representing federal workers are also skeptical of the buyout offer. Doreen Greenwald, who is the national president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said the OPM's letter was "written in a very negative tone, in a threatening manner," and that the administration "provided no clarity on what was being offered."

"There were no answers provided in that document, and so we had to provide that information to our members to protect them," she said.

Randy Erwin, who is the national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, also warned his members against accepting the offer. He called it "a scare tactic designed to pressure federal workers into quitting" and that the proposal to pay them through the fall was "illegal and unenforceable."

"Unlike structured programs that the federal government offered in the past to decrease the number of federal employees, this maneuver is intended to panic civil servants into accepting what seems like a sweet deal but is probably a scam," Erwin said.

Firing federal workers en masse will likely be easier said than done. Despite Trump and billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk — who Trump has made his government efficiency czar — promising to hollow out the federal workforce, President Joe Biden's OPM implemented new protections for the civil service last spring. The rule was explicitly designed to "safeguard federal employees from political firings" and could not be easily rolled back.

“An executive order would not have impact with this regulation in place,” a senior Biden official told CNN in April. “A future administration would have to go through a new regulatory process, which would also entail like explaining specifically through that rulemaking process why a different rule is better than the existing regulations that OPM (the Office of Personnel Management) finalized and are announced... and how that new approach was consistent with the law.”>

<President Donald Trump is now aiming to purge the FBI of hundreds of agents who helped investigate him and participants in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. But the man Trump temporarily put in charge of the FBI reportedly isn't going along with his plan.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Trump's proposed mass firings ran into a roadblock in the form of Brian Driscoll, who "refused to endorse the effort," according to the Post's sources. The initiative to identify and fire the agents in question is reportedly being headed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House, though Trump is apparently distancing himself from the effort.

When asked during a recent Oval Office press gaggle if he ordered the firings, Trump said: "No, but we have some very bad people there... I wasn’t involved in that. But if they want to fire some people, it is fine with me."

Firing FBI agents is a lengthy process, as the bureau allows agents the ability to appeal any termination in two different stages, and entitles them to have a written justification outlining what rules or standards they've been accused of violating. Replacing those agents will also be difficult, as FBI agents have to undergo an intense 18-week training program before being deployed in the field. And any investigations the fired agents were working on will be sidelined until their replacements can be trained and briefed.

Mark Zaid, who is an attorney specializing in federal employment law, told the Post that the proposed mass firings at the FBI — along with his threats to career DOJ prosecutors — could create a legal headache for the Trump administration.

“What this administration is doing is they are acting so recklessly and with disregard to any laws or norms, they are making a ton of errors in order to satisfy their outspoken base that seek retribution,” he said. “And they are creating a lot of legal claims.”

Driscoll's elevation to acting director of the bureau came as a surprise to both Driscoll and Robert Kissane, who was initially tapped for the job. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump transition team told Kissane he would be acting director and Driscoll — who reportedly signs his name "Drizz" — would serve as acting deputy director. However, a mixup led to Driscoll being listed on the FBI's website as acting director with Kissane as deputy. Rather than correct the error, the two agreed to swap roles until FBI Director-designate Kash Patel is confirmed by the full Senate.>

<Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been slammed for his 'absurd political attacks' on the Black Hawk pilot and handling of the Washington DC crash aftermath.

Three soldiers aboard the Black Hawk died instantly when the helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 as it descended toward Ronald Reagan National Airport on Wednesday night.

The identity of Captain Rebecca Lobach, 28, from Durham, North Carolina, was initially withheld following last week's disaster, which claimed 67 lives, making it the worst US aviation accident in nearly 25 years.

Hegseth supported Donald Trump's claim that DEI hiring was to blame for the tragedy, stating: "The environment around which we choose pilots or air traffic controllers, as the president pointed out correctly yesterday, better be highest possible standard."

Kelly Magsamen, former chief of staff to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, has criticized Hegseth for 'implying that Lobach was not qualified due to her gender.'

Magsamen told Fox News: "Secretary Hegseth has a lot to learn. When you speak as the Secretary of Defense, the entire force and their families are listening.

"They are looking to him for leadership and support, not suspicion. For him to imply that this pilot was not qualified because of her gender is absurd.

"He should be supporting a thorough unbiased investigation and supporting all three of these Army families. To add a layer of stress to this one family in their time of grief is shocking.

"Imagine having to worry about political attacks on your daughter while grieving. The Secretary should be showing leadership and consoling the families and overseeing an unbiased investigation.

"This is the first crisis he has had to manage and so far it's not a good sign."

Hegseth backed Trump's accusations that DEI programs in the federal government could have caused the disaster.

He said: "I don't care what background they come from, what their race is, what their gender is, if they are rich or poor. I just need them to be good at their job because I need my flight to land safely."

Attacking Biden, he added: "For too long under Biden cared [sic] about this things [sic], emphasize those things, pushed real or perceived quotes at the Defense Department.

"We are ending all of that, it's been made very clear across all of our services and commands, is it merit only and this means we will get the best of the best."

Beyond her military service, Capt Lobach had served as a White House military social aide during the Biden administration, assisting at official events hosted by the president and first lady.

Her family described her as both a fierce warrior and an elegant diplomat, balancing military duty with a high-profile ceremonial role.

"She was as graceful as she was fierce," her family said.

She was pictured earlier this year with President Joe Biden and designer Ralph Lauren, during the fashion icon's Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony.

Capt Lobach's former army colleague, now journalist Davis Winkie, called her "brilliant and fearless.">

<President Donald Trump early Sunday morning responded to a scathing rebuke from the conservative leaning Wall Street Journal over the MAGA leader's decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

Criticizing the president's move, the newspaper's editorial board on Friday, January 31, published an op-ed titled, "The Dumbest Trade War in History."

Trump took to social media to shoot back at the board, suggesting that the result of the tariffs will inflict "pain" on Americans.

"The 'Tariff Lobby,' headed by the Globalist, and always wrong, Wall Street Journal, is working hard to justify Countries like Canada, Mexico, China, and too many others to name, continue the decades long RIPOFF OF AMERICA, both with regard to TRADE, CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA," the president began. "THOSE DAYS ARE OVER! The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and we’re not going to be the 'Stupid Country' any longer."

Trump continued, "MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS! Why should the United States lose TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIZING OTHER COUNTRIES, and why should these other countries pay a small fraction of the cost of what USA citizens pay for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, as an example? THIS WILL BE THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA! WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID. WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!"

Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch replied, "Congratulations, America!"

Former Trump White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci commented: "This of course is nonsense. Not grounded in fact. Trump wants to isolate us even if it causes economic destruction. He doesn’t like how much America has helped the world after WW2 and he wants to reverse our course. Bad outcomes ahead without a course reversal."

Cato Institute Vice President of General Economics Scott Lincicome added: "But wait I thought this was about fentanyl">

WTG, moron!

<The Trump administration is mounting an aggressive push this weekend to secure Senate support for Tulsi Gabbard's nomination as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), according to Axios. With the Senate Intelligence Committee vote looming, officials are scrambling to ensure Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and military veteran, clears the crucial first hurdle in her confirmation process.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has transformed the conference's official X account into a makeshift Gabbard "war room," underscoring the urgency of the administration's efforts. To advance her nomination to the full Senate, Gabbard needs to secure every Republican vote on the Intelligence Committee, though skepticism among some GOP senators threatens to derail her path. The committee includes nine Republicans and eight Democrats.

The administration's lobbying efforts are reportedly focused on persuading Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who, along with other senators, pressed Gabbard during her confirmation hearing over her reluctance to label whistleblower Edward Snowden a "traitor."

It seems no one has forgotten that Gabbard co-sponsored a resolution in 2020 calling for the U.S. to dismiss all charges against Snowden, who has been living in Russia since 2013 after he leaked of classified documents from the National Security Agency.

President Donald Trump is apparently considering direct outreach to the committee's Republicans to reassure them he has no intention of pardoning Snowden.

"The president isn’t really talking about pardoning Snowden, but if that’s a guarantee they want to get Tulsi confirmed, the president will have those conversations,” an anonymous senior White House official told Axios.

A member of the Hawaii Army National Guard who deployed to Iraq with a medical unit, Gabbard also supports federal legalization of marijuana. Her outspoken stances over the years, including opposing mainstream intelligence views on Russia, are now raising questions about how she would oversee the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies with a combined budget of approximately $70 billion.

Meanwhile, MAGA-aligned activists are warning of primary challenges against any Republican senator who opposes Gabbard. "We are 100% serious," Turning Point Action spokesperson Andrew Kolvet said in a statement reported by Axios. "GOP senators in red states will open themselves up to well-funded, well-organized primary challenges if they stand in the way of confirming the Cabinet the president wants and the American people voted for.">

<It’s entirely possible that the Republican-led Senate won’t reject any of Donald Trump’s controversial Cabinet nominees, but two of the president’s most outlandish personnel choices are clearly facing headwinds.

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, for example, is Trump’s choice to serve as the director of national intelligence, which is utterly bonkers for a great many reasons. This has apparently not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill, where even Republican senators have been unimpressed with the former Hawaii congresswoman.

Gabbard’s confirmation was an opportunity for her to turn things around, and by accounts, she fell far short. In the aftermath of her Senate committee flop, The Washington Post made matters considerably worse for the controversial DNI nominee.

During her sworn testimony last week, Gabbard was asked about her trip to Syria in 2017, which has become highly controversial given her interactions with then-President Bashar al-Assad. But she also met with a cleric named Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, who threatened the United States with suicide bombers.

Asked if she was aware of the threats made by Hassoun, Gabbard said under oath, “I was not and had not heard that until today.” It was against this backdrop that the Post reported:

While the Post’s reporting hasn’t been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, Gabbard’s nomination was already struggling. If she lied about her knowledge of a guy with a network of suicide bombers, whom she personally interacted with in Syria, that probably won’t help tip on-the-fence senators in her favor.

As for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the conspiracy theorist’s nomination has faced fierce pushback from literally thousands of physicians, scientists and Nobel laureates. Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, however, tried to help even the scales at one of his confirmation hearings, introducing into the record of nearly 800 doctors who support Kennedy’s confirmation.

There was, however, a problem: Johnson didn’t do his homework. The Associated Press reported that many of the doctors on the list aren’t actual doctors. There were some physicians on the list, but many of them “have had their licenses revoked, suspended or faced other discipline.”

While that was no doubt embarrassing for RFK Jr. — and Johnson — The New York Times reported on an even more dramatic development: In response to written questions from senators, Kennedy “disclosed he had reached at least one settlement agreement with a company or individual that had accused him of ‘misconduct or inappropriate behavior.’”

According to Mother Jones’ reporting, senators asked two specific questions: “Yes or no, have you ever reached a settlement agreement with an individual or organization that accused you of misconduct or inappropriate behavior?” and “Yes or no, have you ever agreed to or been subject to a non-disclosure agreement with any individual or organization?”

Kennedy answered yes both [sic] questions. He did not, however, elaborate, and no one on Capitol Hill — or the public at large — knows what the misconduct is.

JD Vance appeared on Fox News over the weekend and said, in a message to his fellow Republicans, “You don’t have to agree with everything Bobby Kennedy has ever said. You don’t have to agree with everything that Tulsi Gabbard has ever said. You are meant to ask, do they have the qualifications and the character to do this job?”

Honestly, it’s the first thing the vice president has said in a long while that I agree with.>

<In laying out the checks and balances of democracy, authors of the U.S. Constitution imagined that the president and Congress would wrestle for power when their authority conflicted, each fighting for influence. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” James Madison wrote.

President Trump’s ambition has been sweeping and muscular in the first days of his new term, producing less of a transition in government than a takeover. Congress, by contrast, has all but forfeited the match.

The result, if Trump’s assertions of power survive the courts, would significantly rebalance power in Washington, centralizing unprecedented authority over federal spending, executive-branch personnel and a range of policy subjects in the Oval Office at the expense of Congress—the branch that the nation’s founders envisioned would have the more direct connection with voters and their interests.

Congress has passed laws governing asylum for immigrants, but Trump unilaterally suspended them for those coming from Mexico, saying the laws had become “ineffective” amid an “invasion” of illegal border-crossers. Congress set the length of service for commissioners on the nation’s labor watchdog board and a commission that polices workplace discrimination, but Trump last week fired several of them midterm.

Congress has mandated that a president give 30 days’ notice when removing inspectors general, the independent watchdogs at agencies, but Trump fired a number of them without warning. And Trump moved to pause spending for a range of programs approved by Congress, including those under the landmark infrastructure and renewable-energy laws signed by former President Joe Biden.

A law effectively banning TikTok as of Jan. 19 passed Congress with overwhelming House and Senate majorities. Trump has delayed enforcement for 75 days, saying in a December court filing that his status as “one of the most powerful, prolific and influential” social media personalities gives him unique abilities to evaluate the app.

Modern presidents have continually pushed to expand the contours of their power. But Trump is proving to be unique, say legal experts, in both the breadth of authority he is asserting and his claims that even if Congress has put its preferences into law, he has the power to chart a different course.

“This president appears to believe that even if there is a duly enacted law, he’s going to blow past it and see what happens in the courts,” said Jeh Johnson, a former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under Democratic President Barack Obama.

Most often, presidents cite authority granted by Congress when issuing an executive order or taking new action, Johnson said. Occasionally, a president will argue that the Constitution grants so much authority in an area that he can ignore a law passed by Congress.

Trump’s aides have long argued, however, that Article II of the Constitution, which outlines the president’s powers, has been read too narrowly. They say the president has exclusive powers over budget and personnel matters in the executive branch, as well as over foreign policy, and that he is right to use those powers expansively.

“He is the executive of the executive branch, and, therefore, he has the power to fire anyone within the executive branch that he wishes to,” said Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s press secretary, when pressed last week on the dismissal of staff in possible violation of civil-service protections.

Trevor Morrison, a law professor at New York University, said that Trump’s willingness to ignore laws passed by Congress across a range of policy and personnel areas marked him as distinct from prior presidents. “Trump is asserting a constitutional prerogative to ignore, disregard or even openly violate laws that are inconsistent with his policy,” he said.

Among the most blatant, Morrison said, was Trump’s effort to invalidate birthright citizenship—the constitutional provision that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen—which was one of the first executive orders he signed. In an article co-written with Adam Cox, another NYU law professor, Morrison said that Congress held authority under the Constitution to expand citizenship eligibility and had done so, for example by extending it to people born overseas to U.S.-citizen parents.

A federal judge quickly placed a temporary block on Trump’s citizenship directive....>

<....Many of Trump’s other actions are sure to draw legal challenges—some of which have been filed already—that could place central questions of presidential power before a conservative Supreme Court that includes three members Trump appointed in his first term. How the judiciary navigates those disputes could set new contours on the relative powers of three branches of government that, in theory, are coequal.

Congress so far has offered the barest protest in response to Trump’s various orders. In one of the few exceptions, a Republican and a Democratic senator jointly asked Trump to explain his justification for firing the inspectors general.

“The framers intended for the legislature to exert itself no matter who was on the Supreme Court or who was the executive,” said former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.). But Congress, he said, isn’t defending its prerogatives. “This is a slow creep to a diminished legislative branch,” he said.

Perhaps the biggest test for Congress is Trump’s bid to wrestle power over one of the legislature’s core functions: deciding what programs get funded, and at what cost. In an unprecedented action, the Trump administration offered 2 million federal employees a chance to resign now and receive eight months of pay, implying an expenditure of money not authorized by Congress. Further, Trump and his allies have said they would contest a Nixon-era law that requires him to spend money on programs as appropriated by Congress. Trump allies have said the law is unconstitutional and that the president can impound, or refuse to spend, money for programs he doesn’t like.

The tepid response so far offers the latest measure of how much Congress has ceded its authority since earlier eras in which powerful committee chairmen defended their constitutional turf no matter who was in the White House. Today, Trump dominates his party, and many GOP lawmakers fear that challenging him could cost them their jobs, as the president and his allies could back primary challenges against them.

One sign of Republican support for Trump’s boundary-pushing actions came last week, when a Senate panel voted 11-0 to back the confirmation of Russell Vought, a chief architect of Trump’s strategy for expanding executive-branch authority, for the powerful position of White House budget chief. All Republicans on the panel voted to send the nomination to the full Senate, while Democrats boycotted the vote to protest Trump’s efforts to freeze federal spending.

Former Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), who once led the chamber’s budget committee, said he believed the country was better off for Trump shaking up what he said was an ineffective bureaucracy and personnel policies that protect unproductive workers. But ultimately, he said, Trump would need Congress to enact legislation to make the changes he is aiming for permanent.

He wasn’t hopeful of congressional action. “They’ve completely abandoned the field,” Gregg said. “When was the last time they had a hearing that wasn’t just a political show hearing but got into the nuts and bolts of how an agency was managing itself?”>

<It’s even worse than I’d imagined.

Trump's been “flooding the zone” with so many outrageous (and often illegal) initiatives that many people are overwhelmed, demoralized, and just plain freaked out.

That’s the intent.

This morning, a woman I didn’t know was about to pass me on the sidewalk and then stopped, turned toward me, and almost shouted, “It’s a f------ nightmare!”

Well, it is a “f------ nightmare” and unfortunately there’s nothing anyone can do right now to legally stop it (unless you’re a federal judge).

For now, we can and should do everything possible to protect people who are most vulnerable to the nightmare.

But allow me to take a longer-term view.

A “f------ nightmare” is not all bad if it awakens America.

Remember how Martin Luther King Jr. mobilized the nation against racial injustice? He let everyone see its horrors. On television. Night after night. Peaceful Black people getting clubbed and arrested for exercising their rights.

Were it not for that painful national exposure to racist brutality, we wouldn’t have gotten the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

Something similar happened in the first years of the twentieth century when muckraking journalists revealed the giant monopolies, corruption, and public harms of the robber barons.

Were it not for that painful national exposure, we wouldn’t have gotten the reforms of the Progressive Era.

I believe a similar dynamic will play out as Americans witness the nightmare of Trump’s neofascism.

When we see and absorb its horrors, there will be mass outrage, and we will mobilize against it. Not all of us, of course, but the great majority.

We had to come to this point. We couldn’t go on as we were, even under Democratic presidents. For forty years, a narrow economic elite has been siphoning ever more wealth and power for themselves.

I’m old enough to remember when America had the largest and fastest-growing middle class in the world. We adhered to the basic bargain that if someone worked hard and played by the rules, they’d do better than their parents had, and their children would do even better than they.

I remember when CEOs took home 20 times the pay of their workers, not 300 times. When members of Congress acted in the interests of their constituents rather than be bribed by campaign donations to do the bidding of big corporations and the super-wealthy.

I remember when our biggest domestic challenges were civil rights, women’s rights, and gay rights — not the very survival of democracy and the rule of law.

But over the last forty years, starting with Reagan, America went off the rails. Deregulation, privatization, free trade, wild gambling by Wall Street, union-busting, record levels of inequality, stagnant wages for most, staggering wealth for a few, big money taking over our politics,

Corporate profits became more important than good jobs and good wages for all. Stock buybacks and the well-being of investors became more important than the common good.

Democratic presidents were better than Republican, to be sure, but the underlying rot continued to worsen. It was undermining the foundations of America.

The Trump regime will harm many innocent people. It already has. Its lawless cruelty is sickening — as is the cowardice of so many CEOs, Wall Street bankers, leading lawyers, university presidents, publishers, social media titans, Republican politicians, some Democratic politicians, and other so-called “leaders” who are staying mum or obeying in advance or sucking up to Trump.

There will be a reckoning.

As bad as this “f------ nightmare” gets, it will awaken Americans to the truth about what has happened to this country — and what we must do to get it back on the track toward social justice, democracy, and widespread prosperity.

That’s what I believe. That’s my faith as we slide into deepening darkness.

Be well. Be safe. We will prevail.>

<Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said on Monday he is putting a "blanket hold" on all of President Donald Trump's nominees for State Department positions over the intended shutdown of USAID, which is being spearheaded by Elon Musk.

"Dismantling USAID is illegal and makes us less safe. USAID was created by federal law and is funded by Congress. Donald Trump and Elon Musk can't just wish it away with a stroke of a pen — they need to pass a law," Schatz said in a statement.

He added that "until and unless this brazenly authoritarian action is reversed and USAID is functional again," no nominees will be appointed to positions in the department. "This is self-inflicted chaos of epic proportions that will have dangerous consequences all around the world."

The "blanket hold" means Democrats will not agree to hold quick votes for nominees before the full Senate, delaying confirmations across the board. Since the GOP has a majority in the Upper House, all candidates can be confirmed in a party-line vote, but it will take more time than intended to do so.

"We will use every power that we have at our disposal in the US Senate. My colleagues will do the same thing in the House. This is a constitutional crisis that we are in today," said Sen. Chris Murphy, elaborating on Schatz's decision.

"Let's not pull any punches about why this is happening. Elon Musk makes billions of dollars off of his business with China. And China is cheering at this action today. There is no question that the billionaire class trying to take over our government right now is doing it based on self interest."

The tool is not new nor infrequent, with Republicans using it several times during the Biden administration in protest of some measures.

USAID employees were told not to report to work on Monday after Elon Musk claimed that President Donald Trump agreed with him to shut down the agency.

At least 600 personnel said they were locked out of the USAID's database overnight while staffers with access received emails that said headquarters "will be closed to Agency personnel on Monday, Feb. 3," the Associated Press reported. The agency's website also went dark on Sunday as Trump froze U.S. foreign aid.

"It became apparent that it's not an apple with a worm in it," Musk said in a live session on X Spaces early Monday. "What we have is just a ball of worms. You've got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It's beyond repair," he said. "We're shutting it down," he added.>

<[Event "Boston Futurity"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1981.04.??"]
[EventDate "1981"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Johnson, Joel"]
[Black "Webb, Roger"]
[ECO "C46"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<House Republicans’ plan for a massive conservative policy overhaul via the budget reconciliation process is expected to miss a key deadline this week, throwing a wrench in the GOP’s ambitious schedule for swiftly enacting President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., previously told reporters that House Republicans were aiming to advance their bill out of committee this week.

But Republican hardliners on the House Budget Committee balked at GOP leaders’ initial proposal for spending cuts late last week, multiple people told Fox News Digital, pushing for a steeper starting point in negotiations with the Senate.

"The budget resolution is almost certainly not going to move through committee this week," one Budget Committee source told Fox News Digital. "Frankly, what was put forward by leadership at the retreat was so far off the mark – literally increasing deficits even further."

Meanwhile, the national debt continues to climb past the $36 trillion mark, with the U.S. deficit currently running over $710 billion for this fiscal year.

House Republicans huddled at Trump National Doral golf course and resort for three days last week, where committee chairs detailed possible avenues to pursue spending cuts.

Senate and House Republicans hope to use their majorities to pass a broad range of Trump’s agenda items through reconciliation. By lowering the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to 51, it will allow Republicans to bypass Democrats and enact sweeping policy changes – provided they are linked to the budget and other fiscal matters.

But to do that, the House Budget Committee will need to pass a budget resolution that will include specific instructions for various other committees under policies of their jurisdiction.

Conservatives have demanded that the final product of the process be deficit-neutral, if not deficit-reducing – something Johnson promised last week.

Johnson said the guidelines for spending cuts would be a "floor" rather than a "ceiling," giving lawmakers more flexibility to find more savings.

But Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a House Freedom Caucus member who sits on the budget panel, argued that those cuts likely will not extend much past their stated "floors."

"I guess they want to get the resolution out. I do, too. I want to get it out of committee, have an up or down vote. But if you set that floor too low, that's all that’s going to be achieved," Norman said. "I have no confidence that they would exceed whatever level we put in there."

Norman said leaders’ initial offer amounted to roughly $300 billion as a floor for spending cuts, but that it also included $325 billion in new spending, but "does not include interest."

The Budget Committee source who spoke with Fox News Digital said the offer was raised to roughly $900 billion in spending cuts with roughly $300 billion in new spending on border security and defense.

The source said it was "building in the right direction" but still "woefully inadequate."

Norman suggested he wanted the starting point raised to $2 to $3 trillion.

"Anything less than that is really sending the signal that we're just not serious about it," he said.

Norman is one of several Freedom Caucus members on the House Budget Committee who could potentially tank the bill, considering it’s virtually unlikely to get Democratic support.

But steeper spending cuts could also risk rankling Republicans in districts that depend on whatever funding goes on the chopping block.

Democrats have used Republicans’ pursuit of deep spending cuts as a cudgel, accusing them of wanting to gut Social Security and Medicare. GOP leaders have denied eyeing those benefits.

Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., another Freedom Caucus member on the budget panel, said he was optimistic but that there were "a lot of conversations about starting the process from the most conservative position possible."

"The Senate is not as interested in fiscal responsibility, so we recognize the need to set parameters for authorizing committees that encourage that… from the beginning," Cline said.

Johnson said he wanted the bill through committee this week for a goal of passing an initial House version by the end of February.

Congressional leaders hope to have passed a reconciliation bill by May.

The speaker said on "Fox & Friends" Monday morning of reconciliation talks, "Republicans are working right now to negotiate what that looks like. We don't want to blow a hole in the deficit by extending the Trump-era tax cuts, for example, but we're definitely going to get that extended. So we got to find those savings.">

<As part of their continued efforts to downsize federal agencies, the Trump administration, along with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), are reportedly looking into dismantling the Department of Education next through executive actions.

Citing unnamed sources familiar with the discussions, The Wall Street Journal reports that officials have ruminated over a particular executive order that would shift some of the agency’s functions to other departments and shut down functions that aren’t specifically written into statute.

Moreover, the order would also request for a legislative proposal abolishing the department to be developed. WSJ’s sources add that President Donald Trump’s advisers are still brainstorming the details of the order and the timing of its release.

The White House and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not immediately respond to the Daily Beast’s request for comment.

Throughout his recent reelection campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to abolish the Education Department, opting to leave it to each state to decide its own protocol or program.

In his first day as president, Trump also signed an executive order dubbed “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” which vows to put an end to “radical, anti-American ideologies” infiltrating the schooling system.

The subject of Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon’s Senate confirmation hearing, however, has complicated the release of future potential executive orders, WSJ adds. Sources told the outlet that some officials think it best to wait until after McMahon’s hearing to release anything.

McMahon’s hearing has yet to be scheduled as the Senate awaits her ethics paperwork.

Additionally, the Education Department also joins a growing list of agencies Musk’s DOGE initiative is looking to eradicate in an effort to downsize the federal bureaucracy, WSJ’s sources noted.

An act of Congress is needed to fully dismantle the Education Department. During Trump’s first term, he unsuccessfully tried to merge the education and labor departments, foreshadowing a difficult road as he tries to finish the job with a razor-thin Republican Congressional majority.

Meanwhile, Musk has been targeting several federal agencies after reportedly gaining access to the federal payment system. His eyes are currently publicly set on the U.S. Agency for International Development, which he vowed to shut down over payments he tarred as fraudulent while offering little in the way of evidence.>

<Workers are returning to the office in greater numbers, and many may soon find that certain employer-provided benefits that go along with that commute are worth a lot less, or even disappear entirely.

House Republicans recently floated a list of potential measures to help compensate for lost revenue from trillions of dollars in tax cuts championed by President Donald Trump. Taxing employees for fringe benefits such as employer-provided transportation, free food and on-site gyms is up for discussion.

Currently, employer-provided transportation benefits, like transit passes and parking, up to $315 per month, are excluded from taxable income. Employer-provided meals and lodging are also generally excluded from taxable income if they are for the employer's convenience, and employer-provided on-site gym facilities for employees and their families are excluded from taxable income. Taxing employees for these perks could save around $157 billion over 10 years, according to Republican estimates.

To be sure, these proposals are still in the early stages and there's a lot of jockeying by lawmakers to accommodate Trump's $4 trillion extension of the 2017 tax cuts as well as make good on campaign promises for tax breaks on tips, overtime pay and Social Security benefits — in all, the tax cut promises made on the campaign trail by Trump could take the total to near $10 trillion. The situation is especially tenuous given the hefty $36 trillion federal deficit.

"I don't think it's going to be popular with employees, which potentially makes it hard to enact," said Dustin Stamper, tax legislative affairs practice leader at Grant Thornton's Washington National Tax Office. "There are some real political downsides to some of these [proposals]."

Taxing employees for fringe benefits such as free access to on-site facilities like gyms and certain employer-provided meals and lodging has been debated before, but it "has never made it very far," said Thomas Godwin, a professor at Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business. "It's something that, for Congress, your constituents really feel, even if it's just a little bit," he said.

This time around, however, it's anybody's guess how the situation will play out, given the magnitude of revenue needed to balance the cost of tax cuts.

Here's what workers might expect if these provisions are enacted:

If enacted, workers would likely have to pay income tax on the fair market value of the fringe benefits they are getting from their employer, said Jeff Martin, tax principal at Grant Thornton's Washington National Tax Office. This would make these benefits less valuable to employees when taxes are factored in.

Companies would wind up with many "potentially angry employees if they have to pay taxes on pretend income on the couple of StairMasters in the basement of their building," Stamper said.

Some companies might decide to cover the additional tax burden for employees in part or in full, but this could be an expensive undertaking, Godwin said....>

<....Some companies might stop offering certain or all affected fringe benefits altogether. "Administering this would be very difficult if they were to go forward with it," Martin said. Dropping benefits that workers have grown accustomed to, however, can cause other problems for employers.

Messing around with benefits employees have enjoyed for many years can be a recipe for disaster when it comes to morale and worker productivity. "If you start charging employees for parking when they've had free parking forever, that's going to be a lot of unhappy employees," Martin said. This could be especially impactful in urban areas where parking isn't typically free. "If all of a sudden you're being charged $250 a month for parking, that's a huge difference," he added.

These issues are especially tricky given that many companies are pushing workers to come into the office more often, Godwin said. Although many companies continue to operate on a hybrid basis, there's a growing expectation that workers will be in the office for more days. Some companies, including Amazon, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, are requiring workers to return to the office five days a week.

"The RTO culture is starting to percolate and this is going to make it that much harder for employees to want to come back to the office," Godwin said.

In addition to the potential impact on RTO initiatives, companies would have to consider the utilization of the benefits in question, costs, administrative burdens and the extent to which employees value those benefits, said John Jurik, national practice leader of retirement plan consulting at Gallagher, a provider of insurance, risk management and consulting services.

Some companies might decide to drop certain benefits and pivot to other types of offerings that might make a more meaningful impact on an employee's financial well-being such as financial education, coaching and planning, Jurik said.

Employer approaches may differ based on employee demand, location, demographics and other factors. "They have to evaluate their population and what's important to them," Jurik said.

Competition for talent will also factor in, said Norman Richter, adjunct lecturer at Babson College, who teaches classes on tax policy. Companies may continue to offer the perks, either at the employee's expense or on their own dime, depending on how their competitors approach these issues, he said.

To pay for tax cuts, lawmakers have to find ways to raise "big dollars," said Chester Spatt, professor of finance at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. He's doubtful Congress will decide to tax employees' fringe benefits because the expected savings is not that big compared to other potential options that are easier to implement. "There's a reason they haven't been taxed before," he said.

Still, the money to fund expensive tax cuts has to come from somewhere. "You have to find ways to offset that if you're going to keep all your Republican members of Congress on board," Richter said. Tariffs may not deliver the necessary savings, so other options, even unpopular ones, may remain on the table, he added. "They may be forced to be more aggressive than politically comfortable in order to keep all the votes together that they need. Unpopular stuff is going to have to get done.">

<President Donald Trump spoke to reporters from the Oval Office on Monday about his trade tariffs and his talk with Canadian and Mexican leadership — and signed an executive order establishing a sovereign wealth fund for the nation.

But his news conference was littered with comments that left onlookers wondering if he knew what was happening.

It started when he asked a staffer which executive order he was signing. Then he was bombarded with questions including what he thought of markets tanking after he announced tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China over the weekend, and about Elon Musk's closing of the office housing the U.S. Agency of International Development. He was also questioned over Musk's accessing the personal data of government employees.

Those who watched couldn't help but ridicule as the president struggled to answer — and they fact-checked his statements.

Journalist Aaron Rupar called out a Trump claim that 300,000 Americans die annually from fentanyl overdoses — even though Trump's own executive order on tariffs to China cites 75,000 deaths from the drug. "This is a lie," he wrote.

Epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding linked the sovereign wealth fund order to authoritarian regimes. "Kings and dictators have sovereign wealth funds," he wrote.

"Trump is again doing that weird thing where he signs executive orders that need to be explained to him just before he signs them," pointed out Rupar.

On tariffs, policy director Ned Resnikoff pointed out on BlueSky, "Neither the mainstream press nor our political system seem to have digested the fact that the U.S. president is trying to illegally annex a NATO ally using economic coercion."

And on Musk's activities, legal analyst Bradley Moss said it's clear: "He has no idea what Elon is doing. He let loose Elon to go wild."

Ex-conservative columnist Jen Rubin replied, "Musk is running the government. Trump is a feeble figurehead."

Radio show host Nicole Sandler summed up order signing event with, "Delay, whine, lie. Blather, wince, repeat."

"Donald Trump just criticized the existing trade deal, and asked, "Who the hell came up with some of these trade deals?" I'll just leave this here," wrote author and activist Majid M. Padellan, better known as BrooklynDad on X. The screen capture he posted showed Trump was the one who signed the "new NAFTA" trade deal during his first term.>

Not to worry, maggats: it only gets worse from here--for all of us. Once Hump's mental faculties go, it will be Couch Baby doing the deed.

<[Event "Boston Futurity"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1981.04.??"]
[EventDate "1981"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Stopa, John"]
[Black "Thibault, James"]
[ECO "C04"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]