After decades of near-uninterrupted budget deficits and unprecedented spending during the COVID pandemic, the U.S. national debt is $31.5 trillion and growing.
Congress is currently embroiled in a fight over raising the debt ceiling — increasing the amount that the federal government is allowed to borrow. Republicans insist that the federal government must cut its spending in order for them to agree to raise the debt ceiling, but so far they have not <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/politics/republicans-spending-debt-ceiling.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">specified</a> which spending measures should be cut.
Without a deal, the government could run out of money by as early as this summer, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/business/economy/us-debt-limit.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to both Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and an analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Many have reported that the failure to raise the debt ceiling would mean a default on the nation&#8217;s debt, which even the most optimistic forecasts warn would cause extensive damage to the nation&#8217;s economy.
The regularity and indecisiveness of these debt battles highlight the fact that politicians from both major parties have chronically avoided concrete solutions to spending and the debt. The Tea Party made concerns about the national debt — which stood at a retrospectively quaint $13 trillion in 2010 — one of the pillars of their movement. Other than these periodic debt ceiling battles, however, the Republican Party has offered very few solid policy proposals for tackling the problem aside from vague calls to &#8220;cut spending&#8221; not unlike the GOP&#8217;s current demand in the debt ceiling fight.
While most elected officials are pretty short on answers in regard to the issue, solutions are indeed out there.
The two most notable plans to tackle the debt are the Simpson-Bowles Plan and the plan developed by the Domenici-Rivlin Task Force.
The Simpson-Bowles Plan was <a href="https://www.pgpf.org/finding-solutions/comprehensive-plans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">formulated</a> by former Republican Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles while the two sat on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
The plan called for raising federal revenue to 21% of GDP, which was only 14.6% of GDP in 2010, while simultaneously reducing spending to 21% of GDP, which was 23.4% that year. In 2019, before the fiscal chaos of the coronavirus pandemic, federal expenditure was 21% of GDP, but federal revenue was only 16.3%, <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55824" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to the Congressional Budget Office. To get the 2019 revenue up to 21% of GDP, it would have <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-11/55824-CBO-MBR-FY19.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">required</a> an increase of over $1 trillion.
Additionally, the plan called for reducing the overall tax rate for Americans but eliminating almost all deductions and tax credits. The plan also recommended strict caps on future spending and a reform of Social Security.
The Domenici-Rivlin Task Force was <a href="https://www.pgpf.org/finding-solutions/comprehensive-plans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">created</a> by the Bipartisan Policy Center in 2010 and also included a former Republican senator and former Clinton administration official — Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Alice Rivlin, respectively. Its plan shared several measures with Simpson-Bowles, but it recommended a reduction in spending to 23% of GDP instead of 21%, a full freeze on all spending after that reduction, and a thorough reform of entitlements.
In 2019, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation <a href="https://www.pgpf.org/Solutions-Initiative-2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hosted</a> the Fiscal Summit, which brought together prestigious think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, and the Center for American Progress to present potential solutions to the national debt. The overall impact that each plan would have on the national debt varied widely, but all seven proposals followed the same basic structure of the two plans from 2010: reduce spending, increase revenue, reform the tax code, and make adjustments to entitlements.
Almost every realistic plan to appreciably reduce or eliminate the national debt will include some combination of those measures. However, there are some actions that could help put a dent.
A drastic increase in legal immigration could help increase federal revenue. In theory, the more people there are in the country, the higher the demand for goods and services, thereby <a href="https://fiscalpolicy.org/immigrants-are-part-of-our-economic-growth-blame-congress-not-immigrants-if-americas-taxes-dont-pay-for-our-expenses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">growing</a> the economy and the tax revenue gleaned from it, and these new taxpayers would help bolster entitlement programs like Social Security. Immigrants also <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0611/june-20-5-ways-the-u.s.-can-get-out-of-debt.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">start</a> businesses at twice the rate of natural-born American citizens, and accepting highly skilled immigrants who would most likely pay higher taxes could be an effective method of increasing revenue.
The labor force participation rate is still <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/02/23/men-leaving-workforce-economy-fed-interest-rates/11326201002/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">low</a> after the shock of the pandemic, and there is an acute shortage in highly skilled job applicants, so filling those positions with immigrants who would then pay taxes could be an effective strategy.
The U.S. government could also sell federal land to quickly raise revenue. The Bureau of Economic Analysis <a href="https://www.bea.gov/research/papers/2015/new-estimates-value-land-united-states#:~:text=New%20Estimates%20of%20Value%20of%20Land%20of%20the%20United%20States%20(PDF)&amp;text=Estimates%20suggest%20that%20this%201.89,held%20by%20the%20federal%20government." target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimated</a> in 2015 that all federally owned land in the contiguous United States was worth around $1.8 trillion. Barring the sale of federal land used for military installations and national parks, the remaining value of federal land would most likely <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/can-federal-assets-cover-national-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stand</a> at less than $1 trillion, but that would be $1 trillion the federal government would not have to acquire through cutting important social programs or raising taxes.
The starkest solution would be to simply default on the debt, wherein the federal government would declare that it is unable to repay its obligations to its debtors.
The economic consequences of a full-fledged default would be <a href="https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/what-is-the-debt-limit-and-what-happens-if-the-us-defaults/3257735/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20never%20defaulted,backdrop%20of%20slowing%20economic%20growth." target="_blank" rel="noopener">severe</a>. The country&#8217;s credit rating would almost certainly be downgraded. The stock market would most likely take a severe hit, the U.S. dollar would weaken, interest rates would rise, and most Americans&#8217; retirement savings would be impacted.
“Nobody knows for sure what will happen, because it’s never happened before,&#8221; Eric Swanson, an economics professor at UC Irvine, <a href="https://time.com/6248656/what-debt-ceiling-means-for-you/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> TIME back in January.
Some commentators have argued that the short-term consequences of a default might be agonizing, but in the long run, it may not be as catastrophic as many warn.
In 2011, as a consequence of another debt ceiling standoff between House Republicans and then-President Barack Obama, the United States&#8217; credit rating was <a href="https://www.ai-cio.com/news/what-happens-if-us-debt-defaults-just-short-term-pain-sages-say/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">downgraded</a> from AAA to AA+. That caused some turbulence in the market at the time, but it has not significantly impacted the nation&#8217;s ability to borrow, and the stock market recovered fairly quickly.
Even if we default and short-term economic disruptions ensue, the United States is so prosperous and such an integral part of the world economy that both foreign and domestic investors will still be enticed to purchase any future debt in the form of bonds. Additionally, if the nation enacts strict fiscal measures in some variation of the Simpson-Bowles Plan along with a default, it could prove that it is dedicated to a more responsible path and quickly regain the confidence of investors.
The U.S. could also selectively default. It could choose to just default on the portion of the debt <a href="https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/09/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">owned</a> by foreign entities, roughly 33% of the public debt; the portion owned by government agencies, <a href="https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124" target="_blank" rel="noopener">around</a> $7 trillion; or that which is owned by individuals in the top 1% of income or wealth. That could eliminate large portions of the debt while possibly avoiding the worst outcomes of a full-on default.
However, a recent opinion piece <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/default-on-u-s-debt-is-impossible-deficit-treasury-cbo-janet-yellen-supreme-court-constitution-public-debt-clause-federal-reserve-328dafe5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> in The Wall Street Journal argued that a default is unconstitutional. According to the piece, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment stipulates, &#8220;The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law &#8230; shall not be questioned.&#8221; It&#8217;s unclear if that includes the debt held by intra-governmental agencies, which is roughly 20% of the total.
So, barring a Supreme Court case re-interpreting that section of the amendment or a new constitutional amendment to change that section, the nation is stuck with the vast majority of its debt.
Besides the nuclear option of default, most comprehensive plans to fix the national debt rely on simple premises. Get spending under control, increase federal revenues, reform the tax code, etc. Politicians, especially those in the GOP, have been advocating for similar measures for decades, but whenever they are in power, the opportunity to take action seems to pass them by. They are well aware that spending cuts and tax increases are deeply unpopular with the constituents of both parties, and election season is always just around the corner.
The biggest obstacle to fixing the debt doesn&#8217;t seem to be the lack of a plan, but the lack of will to enact it.

US hits debt limit, taking ‘extraordinary measures’ to avoid default

Congress Continues To Ignore Plans To Fix The National Debt In Favor Of Endless Can-Kicking

Congress Continues To Ignore Plans To Fix The National Debt For Endless Can-Kicking

Economy

Federal Government

Janet Yellen

National Debt

Readers Pass

Treasury Department

U.S.

Last week, as Presidents Day weekend loomed, the Biden administration dropped a little-noticed executive order. That executive order happened to be one of the broadest, most transformative executive orders in modern American history; it turned the federal government into one giant machine designed for the propagation of woke principles. The so-called “Executive Order On Further Advancing Racial Equity And Support For Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government” – presumably titled in jargonistic gobbledygook in order to avoid scrutiny – set out the key guiding principle for the Biden administration. This principle, “equity,” will now be used to redirect the entirety of the federal government’s awesome powers.
What, pray tell, is “equity”? It certainly isn’t equality – the presumption that Americans ought to be treated equally under the law as individuals. Instead, equity presumes that any group disparities must be the result of perverse government policy, and that the only corrective is government interventionism. The new executive order suggests that “by advancing equity, the Federal Government can support and empower all Americans, including the many communities in America that have been underserved, discriminated against, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” Poverty, you see, is purely the outgrowth of discrimination and lack of service. Individuals must never be implicated in their own failures, nor can cultural differences justify group underperformance. As Ibram X. Kendi more bluntly puts it, “As an anti-racist, when I see racial disparities, I see racism.”
The solution, therefore, is that government must correct all policy that allows for the annoyingly eternal human conditions of poverty and inequality. Biden’s executive order dictates that equity be “embedded … into the fabric of Federal policymaking and service delivery.” This will not be a “one-time project”; it must instead be a “multi-general commitment, and it must remain the responsibility of agencies across the Federal Government.” To that end, virtually every agency of government must establish an “Agency Equity Team … to coordinate the implementation of equity initiatives.” Every aspect of government down to the design, development, and acquisition of artificial intelligence, must advance equity. 
Nothing gives the president of the United States the unilateral authority to reshape the entire executive branch into an agent of “equity.” That is a legislative function, and the legislature has given no such grant of power. But Biden is doing it anyway. And that means stacking – presumably for generations to come – a Deep State of “equity”-driven Left-wing bureaucrats throughout the federal government, systematizing the equity agenda throughout the unelected and unanswerable areas of the executive branch.
This is dangerous, and it must be stopped. It is violative of Constitutional principles, both in terms of separation of powers and under the equal protection clause – which is designed to prevent precisely the sort of group-driven resource allocation Biden favors. Stopping this executive order must become the first priority of the Republican House, and of future Republican presidential candidates. 
Biden is deliberately planting a poisonous seed in the fertile soil of the world’s most powerful executive branch. That seed will bear hideous fruit as the years roll by. The only answer is to uproot the seed before it begins to sprout.

Ben Shapiro 2 (1)

Joe Biden Turns The American Government Into Wokeness, Inc.

Ben Shapiro

Equity

Joe Biden

While each president has had his own approach to the office and has tested the boundaries of his authority in different ways, the tenure of the founding generation was comparatively subdued. Each had their own strengths and weaknesses, but from Washington to Adams to Jefferson to Madison to Monroe and to an Adams again, there was a broad consensus on what the President could and could not do.
That consensus, however, would be challenged by a consummate outsider.
Andrew Jackson was a local high-water mark of presidential power. A rough and tumble man who loathed most of the established political players, Jackson carved a path all his own. Ignoring Washington’s example, Jackson vetoed more legislation than <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/vetoCounts.htm">all of his predecessors put together</a>. 
In the case of Worcester v. Georgia, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee nation had a right to their land under federal treaty and could not be removed, Jackson completely ignored them, <a href="https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html">supposedly saying</a> of the chief justice, &#8220;John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.&#8221; A move which neatly embodies the watchmen problem — if the man tasked with enforcing the law simply refuses to enforce it, then who enforces the law upon that enforcer?
Few of his successors would match Jackson’s influence until Abraham Lincoln was elected. Often listed first in the pantheon of American legends, few men have been as revered by history and as reviled by their contemporaries as the man who saw the country through the Civil War. 
Lincoln steered the country through an unprecedented crisis and rightly deserves credit for the extraordinary achievement of abolishing slavery, which his predecessors, despite their best efforts, could not match. To do so, however, he became indisputably the most powerful American president up until that point.
Lincoln <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-is-challenged" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suspended habeas corpus</a> — he had <a href="https://time.com/5896683/lincoln-civil-war-misinformation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dissident newspaper editors jailed</a>, he instituted the nation’s <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/historical-highlights-of-the-irs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first income tax</a> (which was not constitutional at the time) and an incredibly unpopular draft. And while the Emancipation Proclamation was undoubtedly a great achievement it was also a massive exercise in executive power that would not have been legally tenable at the time outside the exigencies of war. 
For these reasons, Lincoln was painted by his enemies as a tyrant, and while history remembers him as a liberator this was the reason that “sic semper tyrannis” was cited to defend his murder.
Few of his immediate successors matched Lincoln&#8217;s gravitas or historical impact. His vice president, Andrew Johnson, would scuttle many Republican ambitions for Reconstruction. In retaliation, Congress would take the comparatively rare step of infringing on the president’s powers by passing a law demanding that he could not fire any members of his cabinet without their approval — and then impeaching him when he went ahead and did it anyway. 
The law wouldn’t stand up in court, but Johnson avoided removal from office by a <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-man-whose-impeachment-vote-saved-andrew-johnson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">single vote</a> in the Senate.
For the sake of brevity, I will gloss over the presidents of the late 19th century, who, compared to the heights of Lincoln and Jackson, were relatively weak executives during a period where Congress was largely ascendant.
However, by the 20th century, the presidential trend came back with a vengeance — this was the era of the <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Imperial_Presidency/ZkxlY4S2iWYC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;printsec=frontcover" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Imperial Presidency</a>. While there were comparatively subdued executives such as Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding, there were many more activist executives such as William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson — each of whom vastly expanded the power of the federal government with military interventions abroad (The Spanish American War, The Roosevelt Corollary, WW1, WW2, Vietnam) and greater economic intervention at home, from trust busting to the New Deal to The Great Society. 
The advent of the permanent income tax and the Federal Reserve at the start of the century gave the federal government far more resources.  And since the day-to-day operation of the federal government is primarily carried out by the executive branch, which the president has unilateral authority over, this naturally multiplied the power of presidency.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" class="alignnone wp-image-504627 size-full" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/us-spending-1.png.webp" alt="" width="607" height="416" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/us-spending-1.png.webp 607w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/us-spending-1.png-300x206.webp 300w" sizes="(max-width: 607px) 100vw, 607px" /></div>
To illustrate this point visually — when the White House complex was first constructed, every cabinet department could fit within it — the Treasury building was directly to the mansion’s east, while the State Department, War Department and the Department of the Navy were headquartered directly to its west. By the 1870s, the west side of the complex was remodeled and transformed into what was the largest office building in the world at the time in order to house those same three departments.
That building still stands as the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-grounds/eisenhower-executive-office-building/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Eisenhower Executive Office Building</a>, and as of now it houses some of the president’s office staff.
<div id="attachment_504626" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-504626" loading="lazy" class="size-large wp-image-504626" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/GettyImages-908745176-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Getty Images</div>
The advent of mass media also contributed to the president’s powerful bully pulpit and ability to shape national policy discussions — when communications were slow and congressional districts were smaller and more isolated it was almost impossible for the president to communicate with the entire nation in any timely fashion. 
Improved infrastructure, and later the radio and television, allowed presidents to broadcast their agendas and ideas <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/fireside-chats" target="_blank" rel="noopener">directly into the homes of everyday Americans</a>. As the principal figure in the expanding national government, the president naturally received a massive share of media attention.
Increasing American militarism has also increased the relative importance of the presidency — a commander-in-chief is far more consequential in wartime than in peacetime. With American forces deployed in multiple theaters around the globe and with American nuclear assets easily capable of leveling human civilization, the man who controls all that awesome military might is very powerful indeed.
But the expansion of executive power is not merely a consequence of the growth of government as a whole, or the ease of mass communication, or American adventurism overseas; there is another process at work.
Because as mentioned previously, Congress has the exclusive constitutional authority to declare war, and to ratify treaties. The president can execute that war as he sees fit, and negotiate terms for their consideration. The president has broad authority to make snap defensive decisions but by historical logic, most of these overseas operations would require a congressional declaration.
Yet Congress has not formally declared war since <a href="https://www.history.com/news/united-states-official-declarations-war" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1942</a>. It has “authorized military action” since then, but in many circumstances, it has also authorized the president to take such actions without seeking congressional approval — according to the <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/war-powers-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">War Powers Act of 1973</a> the president can deploy military forces for up to 60 days without bothering to ask Congress. And even with that broad window, they sometimes have <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42201792" target="_blank" rel="noopener">neglected to follow up</a> and have continued to deploy forces with zero consequences.
What is going on here?
Well, as the federal government has grown in size and scope the minutiae of day-to-day affairs has expanded well beyond what Congress can manage — regulations formulated by bureaucrats often carry the force of law, as do executive orders from the president. Part of this is practical — rather than working out every legislative detail Congress can give broad authority to an expert regulatory body and allow them general autonomy over how they wield that authority. In other words, the executive branch has become more powerful because the legislature has increasingly delegated legislative powers.
But beyond the pragmatic justification of expediency and expertise, why has Congress given up so much power — when the presumption behind checks and balances is that every constitutional actor would jealously guard their powers against the infringement of the others?
Because institutions do not have incentives — individuals do. Voting one way or the other on any specific regulation might cost a representative support in the next election, lowering their chances for re-election. Foisting the pesky details off to another body may weaken Congress’ relative power, but it serves the ambition of the individual officeholder. On the other hand, executive power is unified — the power of the legislator and the legislature may not be one and the same, but the power of the executive largely is.
While lifelong employees may remain as administrations come and go, and the byzantine nature of our own bureaucracy may make it too difficult for any one man to practically control, in theory, every member of this massive apparatus operates at the pleasure of the president — the amount of power that has been accrued is staggering.
It is difficult to condense centuries of political development in any reasonable time frame without losing some nuance or detail, but the broad strokes are fairly clear.
The president has become the most powerful man in the world. But that was not what the office was intended to be.
And as we commemorate the men who held that office and made it what it is today, we should ponder this: Is the presidency what it should be?

Abraham Lincoln Statue At Lincoln Memorial

A Brief History Of The American Presidency, Part 3: The Expansion Of Executive Power

Abraham Lincoln

Andrew Jackson

Presidency

A fight is brewing once again over feral cattle living in the wilderness of New Mexico’s Gila National Forest.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is planning to kill potentially dozens of wild cattle in the <a href="https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5039821" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sprawling</a> Gila Wilderness of over half a million acres. The USFS <a href="https://apnews.com/article/deer-new-mexico-business-climate-and-environment-animals-da88efdc900cda817d7a3c206ada4f8b" target="_blank" rel="noopener">closed</a> the Gila to visitors on Monday, and beginning Thursday, it plans to hunt cattle in the rugged Gila terrain by helicopter for four days.
The USFS has conducted an operation like this before; last year the federal government sent a team to hunt cattle via helicopter. The operation killed 65 wild cattle, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/feral-cattle-gila-national-forest.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">riling</a> local landowners, ranching interests, and state lawmakers. The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, which represents ranchers across the state, unsuccessfully sued last year to stop the culling before it took place. In December, the New Mexico Livestock Board denounced the operation as an act of animal cruelty.
“We know that those animals don’t need to be in there,” NMCGA President Loren Patterson <a href="https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/officials-announce-plan-to-kill-feral-cows-in-gila-national-forest/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last month. “We also believe that this aerial gunning program, just like last year, will just be a population control, but doesn’t solve the problems associated with those feral cattle. We want those animals removed in a humane way.”
Cattle carcasses found after last year’s operation were sometimes found with broken limbs, or their entrails hanging out. A few carcasses were found in the national forest’s rivers, raising concerns about water quality. The government removed the carcasses from the river after they were reported.
<div id="attachment_503862" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-503862" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-503862 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/Dead-in-river-back-side-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Photo courtesy Rachel Gabel, The Fence Post Magazine.</div>
The Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are under pressure from environmental groups to remove the cattle from the Gila National Forest. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other activist groups say the livestock damage habitats of animals protected under the Endangered Species Act. The environmentalists have pushed the federal government through legal challenges to adopt more aggressive plans to remove the feral cattle.
Over more than two decades, the federal government held nine roundups and removed a total of 211 cattle from the Gila. The USFS estimates that 50 to 150 feral cattle remain in the wilderness area, and ranching interests maintain that the remaining cattle should be removed through herding, not bullets.
The gathering operations are dangerous and pose a risk to the people and animals involved, according to the Forest Service. The difficulty and ineffectiveness in herding cattle in the Gila in part prompted the government to opt for aerial shoots after a 2020 <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-trump-administrations-failure-to-protect-endangered-species-from-livestock-on-arizona-new-mexico-waterways-2020-01-13/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> by the CBD.
“The remote location, the steep, difficult terrain, vast territory, and access restricted to foot or horse due to the designated Wilderness status are limiting factors, along with the wild, uncooperative nature of the feral cattle themselves,” USFS spokesman Ivan Knudsen told The Daily Wire in an email.
“The Gila Wilderness feral cattle do not behave like domesticated cattle, but tend to scatter more like deer; and when captured, tend to thrash and flail, which makes roundup and capture difficult and dangerous for the contracted cowboys, their horses and dogs. Approximately half of the cattle captured using ground-based roundups die or must be euthanized due to stress or self-inflicted injury during capture,” Knudsen said.
Sarah Falen, who runs Wild West Advocacy and has been working with opponents of the USFS shooting operations, said that much of the government’s problem in herding the cattle is its choice of contractors. Falen told The Daily Wire that the government hired contractors who specialized in gathering feral horses, not cattle. In addition, the roundups were held sporadically, allowing the feral cattle to breed and replace much of their numbers lost to herding.
While the roundups are time intensive, ranchers and critics say the operations are preferable to sniping cattle from a helicopter – for the welfare of the livestock and a host of other reasons that concern ranchers in the surrounding area.
One of the foremost concerns is habituating the Mexican gray wolves that hunt and scavenge the Gila to the taste of cattle. In a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/627074358/USFS-Decision-Memo">decision memo</a> posted last week, the USFS recognized such concerns but said it “does not have any evidence that wolf scavenging on the cattle carcasses has any known effect on the wolf depredation rates on livestock.”
Falen pointed to a USFWS finding that said two Mexican gray wolves were seen last year feeding on the carcasses of the dead cattle. The Forest Service cited the USFWS in its memo: “Last year, after the Forest Service lethally removed feral cattle in the Gila Wilderness Area, two wolves were attracted to the carcasses, stayed in the area for several months, then moved back into their normal areas without preying on live cattle.”
Mexican gray wolves, a species protected under the Endangered Species Act, threaten livestock in some areas the wolves’ territory runs across ranch land, and ranchers’ concerns about the predators are increasing as the federal government rebuilds wolf populations. In Arizona, the state is <a href="https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-ranchers-to-be-paid-for-removing-livestock-carcasses">paying</a> ranchers to remove carcasses of dead livestock beyond the reach of wolves in the Gila to limit the potential for conflict. In 2018, the USFS <a href="https://www.wlj.net/top_headlines/rancher-loses-grazing-permit-after-wolf-kill/article_14f6c60c-9ec3-11eb-a473-d384807b89b9.html">revoked</a> the grazing permit from a New Mexico rancher who killed a Mexican gray wolf in the Apache National Forest, located northwest of the Gila.
Ranchers “have problems with [wolves] all the time,” Falen told The Daily Wire. “I actually work on a Mexican wolf project and some of the ranchers in that area say that in some years, they think that almost as much as 50% of their calf crop is killed by wolves.”
The deaths can be difficult to tally, she said. The government often contests ranchers’ claims that wolves killed a calf. Officials assume that a calf found eaten by wolves may have died by other causes, and the wolves’ feeding took place later.
Ranchers are also concerned that a sniper may shoot a stray animal that belongs to a nearby ranch by mistake. The USFS has <a href="https://www.abqjournal.com/2562702/comment-period-closing-on-plan-to-get-rid-of-feral-cattle-in-the-gila.html">dismissed</a> those concerns, saying that only one branded cow has been removed from the Gila since removal operations began.
The feral cattle that now inhabit the Gila are the descendants of a herd once legally run on federal land under a grazing permit. Environmentalists have continued to emphasize the threat the agricultural industry poses to sensitive habitats where endangered species congregate and live.
The federal government has emphasized the dangers the feral cattle pose to endangered species, as well. In its decision memo, the USFS posted several pictures of what it said was sensitive habitat destroyed by feral cattle.
“The presence of feral cattle within the Gila Wilderness has resulted in resource damage, especially to riparian areas where cattle congregate during warmer drier months,” the USFS memo says. “In recent years, Forest staff have documented occurrences of resource impacts from feral cattle, such as severe over grazing.”
<div id="attachment_503865" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-503865" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-503865 size-large" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/USFS-overgrazing-1024x515.png" alt="" width="1024" height="515" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/USFS-overgrazing-1024x515.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/USFS-overgrazing-300x151.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/USFS-overgrazing-768x386.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/02/USFS-overgrazing.png 1218w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Photo courtesy U.S. Forest Service.</div>
Falen said the photos showed damage that could have been from cattle, but also could have been from elk or deer. The government, by blaming at most 150 animals for habitat damage in a 560,000-acre wilderness, is exaggerating the toll the wild cattle are taking on the area, she said.

New Mexico Sign

Federal Helicopter Teams Set To Gun Down Wild Cattle In New Mexico. Ranchers Are Furious.

Agriculture

New Mexico

The President, more than any other figure, has become emblematic of the American experiment. From humble beginnings, the office has become synonymous with august power itself.
The Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military force in human history. The ‘Leader of the Free World’ and America’s representative on the world stage. The de facto leader of whatever party he belongs to. The Chief Executive of the largest employer in the country, who can mold and bend countless federal policies with a stroke of his pen.
Their faces dominate our currency, their figures tower over our most famous national monuments. They loom large in our imagination — they dominate casual discussions of our politics. The average American <a href="https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/political-communication/civics-knowledge-survey/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">may not be able to name the three branches of government</a>, but even the most politically illiterate citizen can usually name the sitting president.
But for all that pomp and circumstance, I’d wager that almost no one would be able to tell me the name of America’s first president.
Don’t believe me? Well, if you say it’s George Washington, you are mistaken.
The United States declared its independence on July 4, 1776, yet Washington did not take office until April 30, 1789. The Continental Congress that would declare independence was formed on September 5th, 1774.
Washington would serve as America’s first Commander-in-Chief for the duration of the Revolutionary War, but during those formative years <a href="https://history.house.gov/People/Continental-Congress/Presidents/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14 men</a> would preside over the fledgling government as it stumbled, fled, and failed to supply Washington and his army, leaving the nation’s soldiers frozen and half-starved at Valley Forge. Yet, for all its dysfunction, this was the government that would best the British, win the critical favor of the French and Dutch, and emerge victorious over the greatest empire the world had ever seen.
So, on this Presidents&#8217; Day, I would like to take a moment to salute the valiant efforts of the forgotten Presidents, whose existence has largely been confined to the realm of trivia.
Peyton Randolph, Henry Middleton, John Hancock, Henry Laurens, John Jay, Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKeen, John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Richard Henry Lee, Nathaniel Gorham, Arthur St. Clair and Cyrus Griffin.
Why, then, have the memories of these men been confined to the pedantic ramblings of overeducated columnists?
Well, the President of the Continental Congress was not anything like the modern office of the President.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the President was not the head of a separate branch of government — he was selected by the Congress from among the Congress, and his role was largely ceremonial. He presided over the Congress, and moderated debate, and seldom served for more than a year at a time. He did not set the agenda, he had no control over committees assignments, and he certainly was not given control of the troops.
The members of the founding generation were extremely skeptical of strong executive authority — after all, weren’t they rebelling against a corrupt and tyrannical king, and a system that concentrated far too much power in the hands of a single man? These were people who deeply feared the dangers posed to liberty by the <a href="https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671">mere existence</a> of a standing army, the last thing they were going to do was vest the entire federal bureaucracy in one person.
The Articles, to be fair, didn’t have many powers to vest. It had no power to tax, and relied on the voluntary contributions of its member states. It had virtually no power to regulate the internal affairs of the states, no power to regulate commerce between them, no power to amend its basic bylaws without the unanimous consent of all states. It could raise armies would sometimes finance, take on debt which the states may deign to repay, and negotiate treaties with any foreign government that would take them seriously. Barring some existential crisis, the first federal government couldn’t do much of anything.
The Presidency was a do nothing job in a do nothing organization.
And in fairness, for a while it sort of worked. But, as the fledgling republic came of age in a time of peace, the wartime pressures that had held to ramshackle structure together faded away and the hollow edifice threatened to crumble. America couldn’t pay back its debts, America couldn’t provide benefits to its former troops, America couldn’t prevent legal disputes between rival states.
 Economic dislocation and open rebellion threatened to bring the whole thing down.
So, in the summer of 1787, the beleaguered Continental Congress authorized a Constitutional Convention to iron out some reforms and see if the Articles of Confederation could be salvaged.
The Convention was a mess. One state, Rhode Island, refused to send any delegates at all. About a third of the delegates who were appointed didn’t show up. The 55 men who did show up, however, were among the most highly educated, politically seasoned, materially successful men in the country: most of them had served in Congress, several had been state governors, and many had been in government since the Revolutionary days.
Described by their contemporary, Thomas Jefferson, as a ‘Council of Demigods’, these titans of law, commerce, finance and industry crowded together in a small assembly hall in Philadelphia, with the windows closed so that eavesdroppers couldn’t listen, and over the course of an <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/hot-hot-hot-summer-1787-101008791.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMWEt9VGTANmrFJbvQwQbpicQblq43Cc2TR4Dl2-t5GsM6f8Ar3QStzhWGS5rz_xpEBuhy8r9mDdPx8K2PWdVjbbQ6NtA6mr7dJnerlufqqIbiuWDMhcJCNyPnv8dXWYwBXmYpWvs-hTAf_n07fqKf4fo-Hwr4R-oIw_-3uQlR5u" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agonizing hot and muggy summer</a> with no air conditioning, tried to see if they could salvage this thing.
Tensions were high. One of the first conclusions drawn by the convention was that the Articles were broken beyond salvation and the only way forward was to start over from scratch. To be clear, these men who had spent years of their blood, sweat and tears to create this nation looked at the first draft of the American Republic and said ‘we can keep the name.’
There were many controversial issues debated at the convention — the structure of Congress, the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and that ever fatal issue of slavery. 
But the nature of the executive, and what would become the Presidency, was among the most loaded issues of all.

Statue of George Washington Stands by Columns

A Brief History Of The American Presidency, Part 1: Humble Beginnings

Founding Fathers

George Washington

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/florida" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Florida</a> Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ron-desantis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ron DeSantis</a> is advocating for breaking up the federal government&#8217;s heavy presence in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/washington-d-c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Washington, D.C.</a>, by moving agencies across the country.
The Republican, who is widely considered a GOP primary frontrunner should he enter the 2024 presidential contest, provided a glimpse of his vision for the country in an interview with <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/02/18/ron-desantis-takes-the-post-on-tour-of-his-florida-hometown/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the New York Post&#8217;s Salena Zito</a>.
“Too much power has accumulated in D.C. and the result is a detached administrative state that rules over us and imposes its will on us,” DeSantis said. “While there are a host of things that need to be done to re-constitutionalize government, parceling out federal agencies to other parts of the country could help reduce the negative effects of this accumulation of power.”
DeSantis, a former U.S. congressman who handily won re-election as Florida governor last year, has not formally declared a campaign for the White House, but he is increasingly taking on the mantle of being a national leader within the Republican Party.
“I don’t promise things I can’t deliver,” DeSantis said, which the publication noted was in reference to his efforts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/larry-hogan-claims-school-curriculum-fight-reeks-of-big-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">keep woke topics out of schools</a>.
“Virtually every major institution in our country is attempting to impose a ‘progressive’ agenda on society,” DeSantis said. “Florida strives to protect the ability of its citizens to live their lives free from this agenda being shoved down their throats.&#8221;
At the beginning of February, DeSantis announced a &#8220;Framework for Freedom Budget&#8221; proposal that he said would serve as a model for the rest of the country. A statement from the governor&#8217;s office said the proposal &#8220;builds on Florida’s successes&#8221; on issues ranging from the economy, parents&#8217; and teachers&#8217; rights, protecting the environment, and national disaster preparedness.
“Florida’s focus on freedom has led us to outpace the nation on all fronts,” DeSantis <a href="https://www.flgov.com/2023/02/01/governor-ron-desantis-announces-framework-for-freedom-budget/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Through the Framework for Freedom Budget, we are establishing freedom first policies to benefit Florida workers and families and to provide a framework for future prosperity. Florida will fight against federal headwinds by putting forth sound fiscal policies that keep more money in the pockets of Floridians. Our budget proposal not only builds on the successes of the past four years, but ensures that Florida will continue to thrive.”
In another move hinting at the governor&#8217;s future ambitions, DeSantis has a book, titled, “The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Survival,&#8221; due for release on February 28.
&#8220;The Florida Blueprint is a simple formula: be willing to lead, have the courage of your convictions, deliver for your constituents, and reap the political rewards,&#8221; he wrote, according to an excerpt <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/02/18/desantis-book-how-florida-blueprint-can-work-for-the-whole-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published by the New York Post.</a> &#8220;This is a blueprint for America’s revival. We’ve shown it can be done.&#8221;
The governor&#8217;s talk about shaking up the power dynamic in the nation&#8217;s capital comes after former President Donald Trump, who won the presidency in 2016 on his pledge to be the <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/06/donald-trump-final-visit-to-iowa/93388830/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">people&#8217;s &#8220;outsider</a>&#8221; and &#8220;drain the swamp&#8221; in D.C., ramps up his 2024 campaign for re-election. Trump has taken some early jabs at DeSantis, including <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/19/donald-trump-ron-desantis-meatball-ron-colbert" target="_blank" rel="noopener">testing out some mocking nicknames</a>, as polling shows a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-conservative-polling-firm-desantis-now-more-popular-with-trump-voters-than-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">competitive matchup</a> if DeSantis were to enter the competition.

Ron DeSantis

Ron DeSantis Takes Aim At D.C.’s ‘Accumulation Of Power’

Ron DeSantis Takes Aim At D.C.'s 'Accumulation Of Power'

2024 Election

General

Washington D.C.

Contrary to what his critics may claim, President Joe Biden is moving at blazing speed in transforming the federal government into a tool for advancing the principles of Critical Race Theory — diversity, equity, and inclusion — across America. His <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/16/executive-order-on-further-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">latest executive order</a> will create an army of equity bureaucrats who will be difficult to fire while the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-white-racism-is-all-the-rage-amongst-big-business-banks-unions-and-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-white ideology</a> seeps into the U.S. government.
On his first day in office, Biden signed an E.O. ordering his administration to craft equity action plans and incorporate &#8220;racial justice&#8221; into their top priorities. Now, Biden is &#8220;redoubling&#8221; his administration&#8217;s efforts to create an &#8220;equitable nation&#8221; with a new E.O. creating government positions that could last well beyond his presidency.
&#8220;Achieving racial equity and support for underserved communities is not a one-time project,&#8221; the new order said Thursday. &#8220;It must be a multi-generational commitment, and it must remain the responsibility of agencies across the Federal Government.&#8221;
In turn, the order mandates that all secretaries in Biden&#8217;s cabinet create &#8220;agency equity teams&#8221; within 30 days. Those teams will be comprised of presidential appointees and also competitive service employees, also known as career officials. Career officials are very difficult to fire due to union protections and also because there must be cause for their termination, among other lengthy processes.
That means those individuals will likely be in the federal government long after Biden leaves office.
The agency equity teams are tasked with doing exactly what it sounds like — making sure each agency is implementing Biden&#8217;s goals of creating a diverse workforce that doles out taxpayer dollars based on race and other factors — excellence be damned.
&#8220;Each Agency Equity Team shall support continued equity training and equity leadership development for staff across all levels of the agency’s workforce,&#8221; the order says in part.
They will also assist the agency head with &#8220;staffing and data collection capacity&#8221; and will serve as an &#8220;advisory and coordination role on priority agency actions.&#8221; So, for example, if the racial makeup of the employees at the Department of Interior is too white, then this new office will make suggestions to hire more minorities.
Absent from the executive order is any mention of &#8220;merit&#8221; or &#8220;qualifications.&#8221; The goal isn&#8217;t to produce a federal workforce of the best and the brightest or subsidize projects that are high quality, but to redistribute the wealth to Americans of different demographics who have had ancestors discriminated against.
The goal, as with all Critical Race Theory-driven ideas, is to &#8220;remedy past discrimination with future discrimination,&#8221; as one of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/googles-anti-white-image-equity-fellowship-announces-winners" target="_blank" rel="noopener">most well-known CRT</a> advocates once infamously wrote.
Russel Vought, former Office of Management and Budget director under President Donald J. Trump and president of the Center for Renewing America, told The Daily Wire that the Biden administration has become a bit of an expert in that discrimination.
“‘Equity&#8217; policies are routinely used to justify making decisions based on race, gender, and other identity characteristics,&#8221; he said via email. &#8220;This Administration has turned government-funded racism into an art. This is dangerous and exactly the type of woke and weaponized government we are trying to defund.&#8221;
The full executive order is worth the read. As this author has previously opined, folks like Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg have already made ramming equity through his number priority. Safety has been placed on the back burner. One look at how transportation, supply chains, and train derailments have been handled under his watch let Americans know that it has been a total disaster.
Now, the entire federal government has been ordered to move full steam ahead and &#8220;prioritize&#8221; what 1776 Project PAC founder Ryan Girdusky has previously described to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-admin-unleashes-total-transformation-of-government-with-equity-action-plans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a> as &#8220;the first large-scale government-supported laws that discriminate against people based on their race since before Eisenhower was President.&#8221; In turn, the dilution of merit and lowering of standards will follow.
If you think dismantling the Leviathan that is the federal bureaucracy is already a hassle now, think of how difficult it will be after equity infects every single inch of it with entrenched career officials. It will be disastrous for the nation.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Biden Creates Army Of Equity Bureaucrats With Latest Executive Order

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Racism

Multiple <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/biden-administation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden administration</a> officials are in office in violation of federal law, according to the nation&#8217;s top government watchdog.
The Government Accountability Office issued five separate reports indicating that the officials, who are working in &#8220;acting&#8221; roles while the Executive Branch positions are vacant, have occupied their offices for too long, in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The positions include a member of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant Secretary of ICE, and a top official in the Department of Justice.
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 &#8220;establishes requirements for temporarily filling vacant positions in Executive Branch agencies that require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation,&#8221; the GAO reports on its <a href="https://www.gao.gov/legal/federal-vacancies-reform-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">website</a>. &#8220;This act identifies who may temporarily serve, for how long, and what happens when no one is serving under the act and the position is vacant.&#8221; The GAO, an agency of the legislative branch, issues letters to the president and Congress to report violations of the law.
The officials who have stayed in their position beyond the limits of federal law are:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/b-334690" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deidre Harrison</a>, the acting Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management within the White House Office of Management and Budget;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/b-334564" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Allison Randall</a>, the acting Director of the DOJ&#8217;s Office on Violence Against Women;</li>
<li><a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/b-334562" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tae D. Johnson</a>, the acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);</li>
<li><a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/b-334565" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Karen Freeman, Craig Hart, and Ann Marie Yastishock</a>, all of whom served as the Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Asia within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID);</li>
<li><a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/b-334563" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Charlotte A. Dye</a>, the acting General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority</li>
</ul>
Government positions that require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation are called PAS positions. When a new president is inaugurated or an official departs from his or her position during the presidency, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act allows those positions to be filled by an &#8220;acting&#8221; official for a period of 210 days. That time period can be extended for up to 90 days when a new president is inaugurated, for a total of 300 days. In each office, the direct subordinate of the official assumes the acting role. However, the president can nominate someone to fill the position — either &#8220;an individual serving in another PAS position; or a senior agency officer or employee who has served for a minimum period of time prior to the vacancy.&#8221;
Under the law, the vacancies can be filled by acting officers while the Senate considers these nominations. Once the Senate confirms a nominee, that person takes the office. However, once the time period of permissible service under the law has expired, the particular government office must remain vacant, and only the head of each particular agency can assume the duties of the vacant office.
According to the GAO, Harrison has served as acting Controller since March 2021. She was allowed to continue serving while a nominee was considered. But from August 2, 2022, she continued to serve in violation of the Act. Randall has served since May 26 in violation of the Act; Johnson has served since November 16, 2021; Dye has served since November 16, 2021. Freeman, Hart, and Yastishock combined served from November 16, 2021 until August 8, 2022, in violation of the law, the GAO found.

United States White House and South Lawn

Multiple Biden Admin Officials Held Their Positions In Violation Of Federal Law: Reports

Multiple Biden Admin Officials Held Their Positions In Violation Of Federal Law, Government Accountability Office Finds

Biden Administration

Executive

White House

Democrats are pushing a plan to give federal workers a massive pay raise because they claim that former President Donald Trump was &#8220;cruel&#8221; and because the coronavirus pandemic was hard.
The proposed 8.7% raise for nearly 2 million federal workers would happen next year and would come after President Joe Biden already gave them a 4.6% raise this year.
“For years now, federal employees have risked their health and safety working on the frontlines of this pandemic,” <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/01/29/democrats-offer-pay-hike-to-federal-workers-to-make-good-for-trump-covid/">said</a> Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA).
“They were subjected to the Trump Administration’s cruel personal attacks, unsafe work environments, pay freezes, government shutdowns, sequestration cuts, furloughs, and mindless across-the-board hiring freezes​,” Connolly said. “​Still, our federal workforce serves with dedication and distinction every day. Federal employees are our government’s single greatest asset, and they deserve better​.&#8221;
Connolly will attempt to get federal workers the big bump in pay by introducing the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates​ Act with Hawaiian Senator Brian Schatz (D).
Schatz said, “​Whether inspecting our food, conducting medical research, or caring for our veterans, federal workers play an important role in our everyday lives and deserve pay which reflects that.”
Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-propose-8-7-pay-raise-for-federal-workers-to-make-up-for-covid-trump">claimed</a> that the raise was the least that could be done.
&#8220;The 8.7% increase listed in the FAIR Act is not a pay raise,&#8221; Erwin said. &#8220;It is the minimum increase needed to offset the dwindling checking accounts of public servants, and it is critical to recruiting and retaining the best possible workforce.&#8221;

President Biden Meets With Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte At The White House

Democrats Push To Give Federal Workers Massive Pay Raise Because Of Trump: Reports

When <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-will-keep-fbi-director-christopher-wray-white-house-says/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FBI Director Christopher Wray</a> wants to use the bureau&#8217;s $60 million Gulfstream G550, he typically summons it to nearby Reagan National Airport instead of being driven 30 miles to the regional airport where it&#8217;s kept, a whistleblower told The Daily Wire, describing a costly habit paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Records obtained by The Daily Wire show the jet has made the roughly 15-minute flight between its base at Manassas Regional Airport in Virginia and Washington, D.C., area airports 140 times since 2020. The whistleblower and currently suspended FBI agent, who spoke to The Daily Wire, said the local trips are made to save Wray and possibly other bureau bigwigs from the 45-minute drive to and from Manassas on either end of their flights.
&#8220;The FBI jet is being used, I believe, in a grossly mismanaged way,&#8221; FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, who was suspended from the bureau last year, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Chris Wray has a jet fly from Manassas, Virginia, to Reagan National Airport, because he doesn&#8217;t want to sit in traffic.&#8221;
Security detail agents inside the bureau told Seraphin that the Gulfstream jet has been picking up Wray, who moves around D.C. in a motorcade of three black Chevrolet Suburbans, from Reagan National for years, possibly since Congressional members confirmed him as bureau director in 2017. 
Of the 140 trips between Manassas and larger regional airports, 124 were to or from Reagan National, the closest major airport to the bureau&#8217;s Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters. Nine were either to or from Dulles International Airport, some 26 miles from downtown Washington, and five flights involved Baltimore–Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport. Two other flights landed in specific locations in the nation&#8217;s capital.
&#8220;[Wray] does it simply because he doesn&#8217;t want to be inconvenienced by traffic on I-66,&#8221; Seraphin said.
Flight records obtained by The Daily Wire covered the period from April 2020 to the present and showed the trip from Manassas to Reagan National can take as little as six minutes. While the FBI declined to say how much the bureau spends on the short flights, The Daily Wire spoke to an aviation expert, who requested anonymity due to the nature of the story, about operational costs for a Gulfstream G550 in an effort to estimate how much it costs taxpayers to spare Wray from being driven back and forth.
The private sector cost to fly the jet ranges between $7,000 to $11,000 per hour, including fuel, landing fees, and other costs, the source said. Gulfstream G550 jet fuel tanks hold about 6,000 gallons and the aircraft burns roughly 500 gallons per hour, the source said, adding most fuel is burned at takeoff and landing. The shorter the flight, the less cost-effective, the aviation expert said.
A 15-minute flight of that duration by a Gulfstream 550 burns 223 gallons of fuel, the source estimated, noting flights of a half-hour or less can burn up to 70% more fuel on a per-hour basis than longer ones. Jet fuel prices fluctuate wildly, dipping as low as 61 cents per gallon in April 2020 and reaching $4.12 in June 2022. At the current market price of about $3.50 per gallon, the cost of fuel to fly from Manassas to Reagan works out to $780.
But there are substantial other costs. General aviation services at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport are handled by Signature Flight Support company, which told The Daily Wire that average landing fees vary per aircraft. However, representatives said those registered in a waiver program designed for government officials average around $2,500 per landing. How much the bureau spends on landing fees at Reagan National and surrounding D.C. airports, or if it must pay both when picking up and dropping off Wray or other officials was not immediately known.
The source cautioned that there are other costs and variables involved that cannot be estimated based on available information.
Officials at Manassas Regional Airport, where the FBI maintains a hangar, said the bureau does not pay landing fees there, apparently making it even more expensive for the jet to pick up and drop off Wray away from its home base.
It was not known how many of the short flights were made to facilitate travel for Wray. In a statement to The Daily Wire, the FBI denied that Wray uses the jet to avoid automobile traffic.
&#8220;The FBI is not going to comment on specific plane locations because of operational and security sensitivities,&#8221; the bureau statement said. &#8220;The FBI Director&#8217;s use of FBI aircraft is long-established and continues due to the mission needs of the FBI and the FBI Director&#8217;s security requirements.&#8221;
Wray&#8217;s use of the bureau&#8217;s jet came under heavy scrutiny last year when the New York Post <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://nypost.com/2022/10/16/director-christopher-wrays-use-of-fbi-jet-amounts-to-embezzlement-current-ex-agents-allege/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation</a> found the Gulfstream made eight trips in the four months to Atlanta, where Wray has a house in the exclusive Buckhead district.
Wray also cut short a Senate oversight hearing on August 4 to fly to a vacation getaway in New York&#8217;s Adirondacks after telling Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that he had to attend to &#8220;business.&#8221;
Following the hearing, House Republicans <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-stefanik-turner-conduct-oversight-on-fbi-director-wrays-use-of-government-aircraft-for-personal-travel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pressed</a> Wray on his use of government aircraft for personal travel as an &#8220;illegal abuse of taxpayer funds.&#8221;
FBI officials responded to members of Congress, verifying Wray&#8217;s testimony as &#8220;consistent with the prearranged format and timing,&#8221; noting the bureau works out hearing logistics with congressional committees in advance.
&#8220;The FBI Director travels by government aircraft due to the FBI&#8217;s national security mission, which necessitates specific communications capabilities and security considerations,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;Director Wray has adhered to the federal regulations governing the use of the aircraft to include reimbursement for personal use. The Bureau&#8217;s national security and law enforcement operations, including transporting investigators and critical evidence, has been and remains the first priority for all FBI aircraft.&#8221;
Seraphin, who spent six years in the bureau working in counterterrorism and counterintelligence, was officially suspended indefinitely and without pay in June 2022 after he complained of allegedly questionable activity within the bureau and refused to comply with its COVID vaccine mandate. 
Because he refuses to resign, Seraphin remains sidelined and unable to seek alternative employment without the bureau&#8217;s permission.
House Republican lawmakers approved the creation of a new select subcommittee earlier this month under the Judiciary Committee, led by that panel&#8217;s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). The subcommittee will investigate the weaponization of the federal government, including the FBI. 
Jordan <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://omny.fm/shows/the-sean-hannity-show/jim-jordan-january-18th-hour-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Sean Hannity last week that over two dozen whistleblowers from the bureau have come forward since lawmakers approved the GOP resolution.
Seraphin, according to Jordan, would be among the first to testify about the agency he once served.

FBI Director Wray Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee

FBI Director Christopher Wray Summons Bureau’s Jet To D.C.-Area Airport To Dodge Traffic: Whistleblower

FBI Director Christopher Wray Summons Bureau's Jet To D.C.-Area Airport To Dodge Traffic On Taxpayer's Dime: Whistleblower

Christopher Wray

Jets

Taxes

Whistleblowers

The federal government is looking to get more involved in your local news outlets, according to their latest proposal.
In a <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105405.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> released last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) proposed issuing public policy to help local journalism and combat misinformation. The GAO reported that local news’ lack of economic viability was the problem causing over 2,000 local newspapers to close since the early 2000s.
“[T]he market may not produce public interest content sufficient for a well-informed society,” stated the GAO. “Experts conveyed that the main goal of journalism is to have a well-informed society, and policies that aim to support this goal need to be innovation-friendly, forward-looking, and inclusive.”
The GAO proposed tax incentives or credits, direct government funding, government advertising, federal grants or loans, and even government intervention with respect to dominant internet platforms to bolster local nonprofit news. Their report also proposed that the government should establish policies to shield certain “public interest journalism” from market failure.
“According to literature and participants, direct government funding and tax incentives supporting nonprofit news organizations can be useful in addressing market failure if there are sufficient safeguards to ensure independence,” stated the report.
The GAO admitted that no universal definition of “public interest journalism” exists. However, they stated that they define “public interest journalism” as that which covers issues of “public significance to engage citizens and inform democratic decision-making,” which includes investigations on “civically important topics.”
The GAO added that “public interest journalism” serves a “public good” for all of society and “generates positive externalities.” The GAO defined that latter term as the ability to create benefits to society in a way that outweighs what local news media outlets or consumers “internalize.” As examples of this, the agency cited reports that mitigate COVID spread.
The GAO indicated that consumer desire for the government’s standard of “public interest journalism” may not exist because consumers don’t realize the extent of its benefits.
“[W]hen consumers do not perceive or internalize the benefit of this information to them, or when they expect to receive it for free, they are not willing to pay for this type of journalism,” stated the GAO.
The agency further warned that the internet’s decentralization of news production and distribution, mainly through social media, pose a risk to public interest journalism.
The GAO noted that local news outlets making the jump from private companies to nonprofits creates an opportunity for involvement in low-income communities’ news access.
“According to stakeholders, the nonprofit model, financed by a combination of federal funding and philanthropy, could be a viable strategy for targeting low-income communities that find paid access to news restrictive,” stated the GAO.
The GAO report was based on a year-long performance audit completed from September 2021 to last September.
The GAO issued the report to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), chaired by Jessica Rosenworcel — a Democrat who has served in the FCC since 2012, when she was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Though Rosenworcel’s term was set to expire in 2017 after the Senate failed to reconfirm her, former President Donald Trump nominated her for a second term. Rosenworcel was named acting chair in January 2021, then permanently appointed that October.
Rosenworcel was a vocal critic of Trump’s speech and attitude toward media — specifically, his rhetoric on “fake news.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I believe in the First Amendment.
I believe in journalism.
I believe pronouncements like this cross lines.
I hope and pray that my <a href="https://twitter.com/FCC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FCC</a> colleagues agree. <a href="https://t.co/K3hZ299KCj">https://t.co/K3hZ299KCj</a>
— Jessica Rosenworcel (@JRosenworcel) <a href="https://twitter.com/JRosenworcel/status/1006912362971107328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
It appears that Rosenworcel’s interest for the welfare and structure of local media began at the top of the COVID outbreak in March 2020.
“This crisis is going to change local journalism,” stated Rosenworcel.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We need local news to help us make decisions about our lives, our communities and our country. But this crisis is going to change local journalism.<a href="https://t.co/UpZpX6hiyX">https://t.co/UpZpX6hiyX</a>
— Jessica Rosenworcel (@JRosenworcel) <a href="https://twitter.com/JRosenworcel/status/1242433984359010310?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 24, 2020</a></blockquote>

Newspaper

Federal Government Proposes Greater Role In Local News

Media

Misinformation

News

Our government seeks more and more control.
Our government is not competent.
These two statements are both true, and together, amount to a nightmare for institutional credibility. A government that seeks more control must at the very least demonstrate credibility in implementing its goals; a government that is incompetent can only regain legitimacy by limiting its authority. And yet we have a government that presents the worst of both worlds: incapacity to perform its most basic functions, combined with an ever-expanding encroachment into daily life.
Thus, this week, the Federal Aviation Administration was forced to ground virtually all flights in the United States after an outage in the so-called Notice to Air Missions systems, designed to warn pilots of weather problems, runway issues, or other obstacles. The NOTAM system relies on a reportedly outmoded computer system that has not been updated for years. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is most famous for taking a two month paternity leave and then bragging about it repeatedly on national television, helpfully commented, “There was a systems issue overnight that led to a ground stop because of the way safety information was moving through the system.” He then reported this problem to President Biden, who helpfully commented that Buttigieg ought to “restore the system quickly and safely, and to determine causes.”
Job well done, gentlemen.
The air traffic control nightmare is but the latest example of a government well over its skis. Whether we are talking about the nation’s scattershot but brutal covid lockdown and mandate policies, its utter incapacity to handle a historically unprecedented flood of illegal immigration across our Southern border, railroad strikes barely averted by Congressional force, or the signal inability to recruit members of our military, our government seems to be failing repeatedly at issues that implicate core competency.
And yet at the same time our government proves itself shockingly unable to perform its most basic functions, it continues to expand its ambitions. Thus, this week, we found out that the Consumer Product Safety Commission may consider banning gas stoves in the home, supposedly thanks to the risk of childhood asthma caused. There are approximately 40 million households in the United States currently using gas stoves.
When governments promise much but deliver little – and when they seek to control much, but only succeed in controlling the most minute and irritating aspects of daily life – they lose their legitimacy. And that is precisely what has been occurring over the course of the last century in the United States. The growth of the regulatory state means that government now reaches into the nooks and crannies of the lives of its citizens – and yet government cannot actually do the most basic things required of it. The response of citizens, unsurprisingly, is distrust in government itself.
But that distrust does not manifest, unfortunately, in widespread calls by citizens to restrict the size, scope and intrusion of government. Instead, it manifests as a hue and cry to “elect the right people.” This is a category error. The problem with our government is not one of staffing, but one of incentives – and all the incentives are on the side of inefficiency, blundering, and encroachment. That is not likely to stop until the American people recognize that they can have competent government or intensely involved government, but not both. In a representative republic, the problems of government are, in the end, problems of the people who vote for them.

Ben Shapiro 1 (1)

Our Blundering, Intrusive Government

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Pete Buttigieg

Menu