DOGE is just not an acronym; it's an idea long overdue

Posted for wider dissemination.  

November 19, 2024

Why the DOGE initiative makes sense

By Ronald Beaty

In an era marked by federal fiscal irresponsibility, the announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under President-elect Trump's upcoming administration, is not just a policy proposal; it's a clarion call for a revolution in governance. 

The United States, once the beacon of economic freedom, is now staggering under a debt load that threatens to crush the very foundations of our prosperity. The DOGE, while not a traditional department but an advisory council, represents more than a mere attempt at cost-cutting; it is a profound statement about reclaiming the ethos of limited government, accountability, and economic prudence.

 

Conservatives have long argued for a government that does less but does it better. DOGE would audit, streamline, and optimize federal operations. This endeavor isn't about dismantling the government but about excising the inefficiencies that have crept into its operations like an administrative cancer.

 

Here's why this initiative should resonate with every conservative:

We are looking at spending like this:

As a reminder, excess government spending is what causes inflation https://t.co/J9wdaHwV9h

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

Note typographical error in chart below: $26,679 should be $27,679 

 

Leading to national debt like this:

 

 

Immediate action is needed to stop the de facto bankruptcy of America https://t.co/DqyhxY2YZp

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

Kevin O’Leary on Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at @DOGE: “I don’t see any reason why these two can’t just release the hounds and go nuts…This is fantastic… we haven’t had anything quite like this and I absolutely love it.” pic.twitter.com/IQiZ75RfDM

— America (@america) November 18, 2024

2. Reducing Bureaucratic Overreach: The initiative aims to cut through the red tape that strangles innovation and productivity. By simplifying regulations, DOGE could unleash the private sector's potential, which thrives under less governmental interference.

 

There are so many regulators that it’s like a sports game with more refs than players on the field! https://t.co/0YCoJMQwLS

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

 

3. Accountability and Transparency: Musk's commitment to transparency aligns with conservative values of government being a servant to the people, not a secretive entity. Public accountability of DOGE's operations could set a new standard for government transparency.

 

4. Empowering the Private Sector: By potentially reducing the government's footprint, DOGE would foster an environment where the private sector can innovate, grow, and solve problems more efficiently than any government program could.

 

While the initiative has its detractors, their arguments demand scrutiny:

 

- Legal Concerns: Critics argue about potential conflicts of interest with Musk's involvement. However, the beauty of DOGE lies in its advisory nature, not in direct governance. This structure allows for external expertise to guide without the entanglements of formal government service.

 

- Job Losses: Fears of widespread layoffs are exaggerated. Musk has stated that excess workers are likely to take home gargantuan pay packages to tide them over into productive work in the private sector, bringing up two years' wages. Efficiency often leads to reallocation, not elimination of jobs. Moreover, a leaner government could lead to tax reductions, stimulating private sector growth, which historically creates jobs.

 

- Service Cuts: There's a knee-jerk reaction that efficiency equals cuts in essential services. Yet, the real question should be efficiency in what? DOGE could focus on cutting waste, not services, by improving how services are delivered.

If successful, DOGE could:

 

- Set a Precedent: Future administrations might be more inclined to seek private sector expertise, fostering a culture of innovation and pragmatism in governance.

 

- Influence Policy: By demonstrating that government can be run with business acumen, DOGE could shift the political narrative from how much to spend to how efficiently to spend.

 

- Global Example: With the U.S. leading, other nations might follow suit, creating a global movement towards government efficiency, potentially leading to a leaner, more effective international governance model.

 

The establishment of DOGE should not be viewed merely through the lens of immediate political gain but as a long-term redefinition of government's role. Conservatives must rally behind this initiative, not just for the potential savings but for the philosophical realignment it represents. Here's how we can support:

 

- Educate: Explain to fellow citizens and legislators that efficiency in government does not equate to neglect but to better service through smarter resource allocation.

 

- Advocate: Push for legislative support to implement DOGE's recommendations, ensuring they have legal backing and are not stymied by bureaucratic inertia.

 

- Watchdog: Ensure that DOGE operates with the transparency promised, advocating for real accountability in how it achieves its objectives.

 

- Prepare for Resistance: Understand that any significant change will meet resistance from those comfortable with the status quo. Conservatives must be prepared to defend this initiative against such opposition.

 

The Department of Government Efficiency is more than an administrative tweak; it's a potential renaissance for American governance. It embodies the conservative principle that government should be a facilitator of prosperity, not its obstacle. As we stand on the precipice of this new era, conservatives must engage with this initiative not just as a fiscal policy but as a philosophical commitment to the founding principles of limited government and personal responsibility. If DOGE succeeds, it might not just save trillions; it might save our republic from the perils of unchecked governmental growth. 

 

It's a blueprint for a future where government serves rather than overshadows its citizens. Let us support, scrutinize, and ensure the success of DOGE, for in its success lies the resurgence of conservative governance ideals.

 

Lt. General Richard Clark "infects" the Department of the Air Force

 

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

REPOSTED HERE FOR WIDER DISSEMINATION

It is my opinion that Governor Maura Healy should be incarcerated for knowingly violating her oath of office.  Further, the State Police should not comply with any directives coming from the governor's office that of and in themselves are clearly unjustifiable (unjust laws are no laws).  I am a firm believer of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; without which there would be no confederation of the United States of America. ~ N.E. Hooben 

Neighbor News

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

Ronald Beaty

Posted Fri, Nov 15, 2024 

Massachusetts State House

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

In the politically charged arena of immigration policy, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey's recent declarations have sparked a significant debate on the balance between state autonomy and federal jurisdiction. While some laud her for standing up for sanctuary policies, a closer legal and ethical scrutiny reveals a tangled web of potential legal violations, challenging the very fabric of constitutional governance.

**The Sanctuary Conundrum**

Governor Healey's firm refusal to involve state police in what could be the largest deportation effort in American history, as proposed by President-elect Donald Trump, is emblematic of a broader pushback against federal immigration enforcement. This stance, while popular in certain circles, raises critical legal questions. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law trumps conflicting state actions. By choosing not to assist or even obstruct federal immigration enforcement, Healey might be skating on thin legal ice.

**Legal Violations: A Closer Look**


1. **Obstruction of Federal Law Enforcement:**
- Healey's directive to state police to not assist in federal deportation efforts could be interpreted as obstructing justice, specifically under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which penalizes the harboring or shielding of undocumented immigrants from detection. While not directly harboring, her policy stance aids in creating an environment where undocumented immigrants might feel shielded from federal action, potentially fitting the legal definition of obstruction.

2. **Interference with Federal Authority:**
- The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution ensures that federal law prevails over state law when there is a conflict. Healey's policies could be seen as an attempt to override federal immigration law by creating a state-sanctioned sanctuary environment, which directly conflicts with federal directives on immigration enforcement.

3. **Conspiracy to Violate Immigration Laws:**
- If there's coordinated action among state officials to systematically thwart federal immigration enforcement, this could elevate to a charge of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute doesn't require the act itself to be illegal but criminalizes an agreement to commit an offense against the United States. By aligning state policy with non-cooperation, there's a plausible case that state officials are in conspiracy to obstruct federal law enforcement.

4. **Misuse of State Resources:**

- Utilizing state resources to counteract federal immigration policies might veer into the territory of misappropriation of public funds. If state funds are being used to support or shelter undocumented immigrants in ways that explicitly or implicitly aim to bypass or resist federal law enforcement, this could be scrutinized under state laws concerning the use of public resources.


**Political and Ethical Considerations**

Healey's stance isn't merely a legal issue but also a deeply political and ethical one. Critics argue that by choosing a path of non-cooperation:

- **She undermines the rule of law** by allowing state policy to dictate how federal law is enforced within Massachusetts, potentially setting a precedent for further state-level defiance.

- **There's a risk to public safety**; while the focus is on non-violent immigrants, this policy could inadvertently shield those with criminal records from federal scrutiny, potentially endangering residents.

- **This creates a patchwork of enforcement** across the country, where one's legal status might depend more on the state of residence than on federal law, leading to a fragmented national policy approach.

**A Call for Clarity and Compliance**


The essence of federalism is the balance between state innovation and national unity under the law. While states have the right to set priorities, they do not have carte blanche to ignore federal mandates. Here's where Governor Healey must tread carefully:

- **Legal Compliance**: Healey should ensure her policies align with federal law or face legal challenges that could drain state resources in court battles.

- **Transparency**: If state policies are designed to protect certain groups, this should be communicated transparently, not as a covert operation to circumvent federal enforcement.

- **Public Safety**: Any policy should consider the broader implications on public safety, ensuring that state actions do not inadvertently compromise the security of its citizens.

- **Federal Dialogue**: Engaging with federal authorities to discuss immigration enforcement in a manner that respects state concerns while upholding federal law could mitigate legal risks.


In conclusion, while Maura Healey's policies might resonate with those advocating for immigrant rights, they walk a fine line between state rights and legal obligations. Her actions, if unchecked or unaddressed legally, could set a precedent that challenges the very structure of federal law enforcement authority. For the integrity of our legal system, and for the sake of maintaining a coherent national policy, it's imperative that we address these issues head-on. The balance between state autonomy and federal supremacy must be maintained, or we risk a legal and political fragmentation that could undermine the constitutional framework we all hold dear.

Governor Healey's approach, while bold, invites a critical examination of where the limits of state action lie, prompting us to ask not just what is politically favorable, but what is legally tenable in our shared constitutional republic.

Ronald Beaty

Senator Schumer’s hypocritical rant.

If I may borrow a quote from Rush Limbaugh, I would sum up my opinion of Schumer with this: 

"What Chuck Schumer did on the floor of the Senate today is so unprofessional, “outrageous” doesn’t even cover it." Rush Limbaugh - Oct 5, 2017

11.12.2024

Majority Leader Schumer Floor Remarks On The Outcome Of 2024 Election And The Path Forward

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) today spoke on the Senate floor on the importance of bipartisan cooperation to get things done following the 2024 election. Below are Senator Schumer’s remarks, which can also be viewed here:

One week ago, a near-record number of Americans carried on the grand tradition of voting in a national election, and of passing the torch peacefully.

There are many things we can say about what happened last Tuesday. It was not the result many of us wanted.

But we live in a democracy, where the will of the people is respected and followed. And the American people have spoken.

I congratulate President-elect Trump on his victory, and I look forward to speaking with him soon.

And I congratulate Vice President Harris and Governor Walz for running a historic campaign. They can be proud of the incredible work their team has done over the last four months.

The values Vice President Harris ran on will live on: individual freedom, opportunity for all, and working together to build a safer, stronger nation.

And, for those of us who have been given the honor of representing the people of our states, we look forward to serving, to governing, to working in principled and bipartisan fashion, to reward the trust the American people have placed in us.

Now, to my fellow Democrats across America, it’s natural and appropriate to feel deep disappointment, grief, and even anger in this moment.

I understand those feelings. It never feels good to come up short, but when you do, you get up, you dust yourself off, you learn, and prepare to do better in the future.

You study what occurred. We will do that.

You listen to what voters are saying, and you find ways to make government responsive to those wants and desires, those dreams, those needs. And you also take the approval of the voters from the places we each represent, those voters who sent us back to the Senate, and carry forth the principles we campaigned on—and we won on. And you find ways to put those principles into practice as much as possible, while finding ways to work in a bipartisan fashion to get things done.

As I’ve told my caucus this week, we should regard this election not merely as a defeat but more importantly as a challenge. The American people have presented us with a challenge and we must answer the call. We have to look at what we did right, what we did wrong, and what we didn’t do but should have done.

First, we have to look at what we did right and continue to pursue those goals. Many of our Senate colleagues, after all, are returning to the Senate despite facing strong headwinds. I’ll say more about that in a moment.

Second, we have to understand the things we did wrong and how we must change.

Third, we have to look at what we didn’t do, but should have done.

We’ll have these important and necessary conversations in due course—and everyone must have a seat at the table. We must be honest. We must be practical. And we must never abandon our roots that have defined the Democratic Party for generations.

To Democrats who were around back in 2004, remember the grief we felt back then. It was also a tough election for sure. But what happened afterwards?

We got back to work to regain the trust of the American people. I was proud to be part of that process as chair of the DSCC. And just two years later, the tide turned in a dramatic way.

Finally, before I turn to the Senate, let me say this: I hope that after last week we can put to rest the fantasy of stolen elections and rigged outcomes.

Four years ago, the losing side refused to accept the will of the people, and it led to a violent insurrection at the US Capitol. This year, we will not go down that dark and violent path.

Now, let me go on to the Senate.

Last Tuesday brought a mix of success and disappointment for Senate Democrats. In the final analysis we hoped for a better result. As happens from time to time, control of this chamber will change from one party to the other.

To Senator Brown and Senator Tester: we could not be prouder of the races you ran. More importantly, we could not be prouder of the legacy you have built here in the United States Senate. You are some of the finest people I’ve ever worked with in this chamber. To both of you I say thank you. Job well done. Job well done.

I’ve spoken to both Senators Tester and Brown a couple of times this past week, and they’re not ones to get down on themselves.

They’re going to be just fine, and they’ll continue to do great things for their home states and for our country. But I feel for the people of Montana and Ohio, who will now lose two incredible leaders.

To Senators Rosen and Baldwin, we are thrilled you are coming back for another term, despite all the headwinds and obstacles you faced back home.

In fact, despite a difficult year for Democrats, four of our most contested seats will remain in the hands of Democrats. And in one other state, the votes are still being counted.

Let me repeat that: despite a difficult year for Democrats, which everyone predicted would be a place where we lost all of our seats almost, despite that, four of the most contested seats will remain in Democratic hands: Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin. And as I said, the votes in one more state are still being counted.

Donald Trump won all those states. But so did our Democratic colleagues and colleagues to-be.

Winning four Senate seats from the nation’s tightest swing states does not happen on its own. It’s a testament to the incredible work Senate Democrats have done in this chamber to benefit the American people.

With Democrats in the Majority, the United States Senate had its most successful and productive years in decades.

Under our watch, this chamber became a place where we got big things done.

We passed bold legislation that lifted America out of crisis, rebuilt our economy, and invested in good paying jobs.

We passed the American Rescue Plan. The bipartisan infrastructure bill. The Chips and Science Act. We took care of our veterans. We defended Ukraine. We protected marriage equality. We passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which has done more to improve the environment than any other act, and also lowered the cost of prescription drugs. And we did so much more.

These accomplishments will continue to pay off for years and decades to come.

And I’m proud that the vast majority of our accomplishments were done in a bipartisan fashion.

As a result, many of our incumbents are coming back despite a tough year, and multiple swing seats will remain with Democrats.

Now, to my newly elected Democratic colleagues from across the country, I extend a welcoming hand. I met with these new members just now in my office. We’re excited to get to work. We’re excited you’re joining our caucus.

Now, let me turn to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Another closely-contested election now comes to an end.


To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith: take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship.

After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it’s consistently backfired on the party in power.

So instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan.

If we want in the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation.

Democrats will be ready to do what we have consistently done: work with both sides when the opportunity arises.

Democrats will never abandon our values, but neither will we reject the opportunity to move the ball forward to make people’s lives better when we can.

The question is now whether or not Republicans are willing to do the same. To my colleagues on the other side, once again: do not abandon bipartisanship. It’s the best and most effective way to get things done.

It was true in the last four years, and will be true in the years to come.

Finally, let me end with this: for millions of Americans, particularly those on this side of the aisle, this is a difficult moment.

But as John F Kennedy once said, “let us not despair but act.”

Let us not despair but act. Let us not give up on the dream that is America.

Instead, let us do what those who came before us have always done. Let us persevere. Let us persist.

Let us get to work.

Senator Charles Schumer threatens
U.S. Supreme Court justices.

If you think that Chuck Schumer has your interest at heart, think again.  Here's where his interests are:

Top contributors

Contributor	Total	Individuals	PACs
Goldman Sachs	$707,228	$654,228	$53,000
Paul, Weiss et al	$686,868	$686,868	$0
Citigroup Inc	$576,369	$523,553	$52,816
Blackstone Group	$519,266	$496,266	$23,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$411,824	$346,824	$65,000
Deloitte LLP	$394,609	$336,610	$57,999
NextEra Energy	$383,775	$366,275	$17,500
Morgan Stanley	$383,451	$336,005	$47,446
Sullivan & Cromwell	$376,765	$376,765	$0
KKR & Co	$361,771	$345,771	$16,000
Lazard Ltd	$355,650	$355,650	$0
Ernst & Young	$348,580	$306,580	$42,000
PricewaterhouseCoopers	$315,575	$267,576	$47,999
Related Companies	$311,880	$311,880	$0
New York Life Insurance	$309,158	$262,158	$47,000
UBS AG	$306,188	$254,188	$52,000
Neuberger Berman LLC	$305,000	$305,000	$0
Credit Suisse Group	$299,443	$249,774	$49,669
Corning Inc	$290,181	$265,181	$25,000
Lockheed Martin	$285,763	$243,763	$42,000

Now would be a good time to do away with party politics.

Isn't it about time we started thinking like our Founding Fathers? 

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution" - President John Adams 

" However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. " - President George Washington   Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796

And bringing us up to date the following essay should be incorporated into every school's curriculum such that today's students would be prepared to fight the dangers of party politics.

Credit for the following ~ Stuart McClain 

There were no Republicans in Franklin’s day, so no. However let’s look at what Franklin believed in, and what Republicans believe in.

Smaller government yup, Franklin did not believe in big government, neither do Republicans.

Antislavery, check, both Franklin and the Republicans are anti slavery.

Views on federal government’s role, check, just like the Republicans Franklin believed that government’s role was to safe guard individual liberties, it does not grant them. He believed that the power ought to rest with the states. Though he did not think central government ought to be weak, it ought to be restrained.

Views on business. He was a federalist, which means he supported business and commerce, which were huge reasons behind the Revolutionary War.

Liberty. Although the Democrats are known here and now as liberals, in the 1700’s liberalism was understood to be something else entirely, something that fits Republican ideals to a “T”. In the rest of the world the Republicans would be seen as liberals, here in America though that term has become synonymous with Progressivism, which in reality is what the Democrats have become. And it is a very different thing than traditional liberalism. Franklin’s views as a Federalist would have fallen very much in line with the Republicans on liberty. He famously said something to the effect of those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

There are certain things Franklin would have more in common with Democrats, but over all I think he would have far more in common with Republicans.

Oftentimes the Republicans views are presented in a skewed manner by progressives. For instance Republicans were the first to support women’s suffrage, full citizenship, equal rights, and voting privileges for blacks. They were the first to promote environmental protections. It was under Republicans that women were first appointed to powerful positions, for instance Sandra Day O’Connor, and Jean Kirkpatrick. They commissioned the first audit of Congress to hold them accountable. And they accomplished the first clean up of Civil Service, something which really needs to happen again, if anything needs reforming it is Civil Service, it has way too much power for people who have never been elected to anything. They improved Medicare, planned balanced budgets.

They are portrayed as the opposite of who they are by the left. In fact if you asked most people that vote Democrat what they thought about or which party did something without telling them who said or did it most of the time they would find themselves in agreement with the Republicans.

______________

It has been said that we may have lost the battle for independence without the likes of Benjamin Franklin. So isn't it time we had the mindset of those that set us free. Washington, Adams, and Franklin; they fought so we wouldn't have to. ~ Storm'n Norm'n