A few days ago President Trump signed an emergency proclamation regarding border security (first image is from PBS and it also contains the text of the proclamation).
During his campaign, then candidate Trump criticized then President Obama for excess use of executive orders (second image is from a tweet by NBC news).
Is this (the EP after criticizing EOs) hypocrisy as opposed to doing EOs after criticizing EOs.
No.
Obama had similar changes of heart about how to work the government. I addressed this a few years ago here regarding signing statements. Basically I think Obama didn't understand the issue; I think Trump didn't understand the issue either.
I worked to implement several EOs and several EPs* during my 30+ years in the federal government; sometimes this seemed to me to be 'good' and sometimes 'bad'.
Executive Orders (EO) and Emergency Proclamations (EP) are different. An EO is supposed to be used to direct the Executive Branch on the priorities and methods of executing statute. Sometimes they even do this, sometimes they are mostly empty feel good puff pieces and sometimes they actually contradict statute and are illegal.
Unlike the EO, the EP may suspend statute. An EP is authorized by 50 USC 34. Current statute has evolved over time since a major change was made in 1976. The most recent major amendment was made in 2009 (when the Democratic party controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency). Here are two things to remember about an EP,
1. Congress can, by joint resolution, cancel an EP.
2. The statute does not define 'emergency'.
While on this general subject, I think the danger of federal government excess is great. However, it is not just EOs and EPs that are a problem. In the Obama administration, changes to the execution of Obamacare were announced once in a blogpost by HHS and another time via a 'dear colleague letter' written to Governors regarding school discipline policy (both without any notice and comment period). I don't know if something similar has been done in the Trump Administration but it wouldn't surprise me if it has.
* about a month ago was the 25th anniversary of the disaster proclamations subsequent to the Northridge earthquake (both California and the US Govt issued disaster proclamations). The highway damage was severe but the proclamations allowed work to begin without going through various planning, environmental, contracting and administrative procedures (my part in this was documenting various steps and recommending data to collect). The repairs were finished on time and under budget and have held up relatively well as I understand it.
I, Martin Weiss, think that hypocrisy is sometimes necessary to get through the day, sometimes dangerous and sometimes in between. I have also found that there are special cases where what should be or seems to be hypocrisy isn't. If I had a dime for every... that why its called "Incorporated".
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Senator Warren and a Hypocrisy Not About Native Americans
To the left (pun intended) is an image of Senator Elizabeth Warren from her event announcing her candidacy for President (from Rolling Stone).
Although she is famous for other things, this is about her statement and actions on dark money.
In April 2018 Warren made an impassioned speech praising teachers and criticising corporate money in politics and warning of a new threat 'dark money'. This dark money are contributions to organizations that do some minimal non partisan work (and don't declare their donors) but then also do some partisan work (complicated rules - I don't pretend to understand them).
Well, it turns out that also in 2018, the organization "Elizabeth for MA, Inc." sent a $10k check to Fair Fight, a dark money fund (a non profit non partisan and a PAC both named Fair Fight had USPS post boxes at an identical UPS store in Atlanta) whose executive director was Stacy Abrams, a candidate for Governor of Georgia.
Of course, Warren could say, "I'm against it but since they exist I have to use them" as a defense. However, as of this date she hasn't taken that defense.
As a bonus, the group that Warren was praising, teachers, are a major lobbying force and, though various other means, e.g., PTA, teachers probably are one of the most powerful political groups in the country at the local level.
Warren's April 2018 speech is here.
Disbursements of Elizabeth for MA are here.
Although she is famous for other things, this is about her statement and actions on dark money.
In April 2018 Warren made an impassioned speech praising teachers and criticising corporate money in politics and warning of a new threat 'dark money'. This dark money are contributions to organizations that do some minimal non partisan work (and don't declare their donors) but then also do some partisan work (complicated rules - I don't pretend to understand them).
Well, it turns out that also in 2018, the organization "Elizabeth for MA, Inc." sent a $10k check to Fair Fight, a dark money fund (a non profit non partisan and a PAC both named Fair Fight had USPS post boxes at an identical UPS store in Atlanta) whose executive director was Stacy Abrams, a candidate for Governor of Georgia.
Of course, Warren could say, "I'm against it but since they exist I have to use them" as a defense. However, as of this date she hasn't taken that defense.
As a bonus, the group that Warren was praising, teachers, are a major lobbying force and, though various other means, e.g., PTA, teachers probably are one of the most powerful political groups in the country at the local level.
Warren's April 2018 speech is here.
Disbursements of Elizabeth for MA are here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)