8 months of pay
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in 8 months of pay:
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
Gotta give credit for big ideas.
No, you actually fucking don't. Some folks with Medicaid are getting screwed over as of today due to this nonsense. My wife's office had to turn people away and if this doesn't get fixed soon, my sister-in-law and her daughter are SOL.
This is about the RTO order, not the spending freeze. But on that issue, this is sounding quite a lot like the “malicious enforcement” thing like when somebody removed the Tuskagee Airmen from the website.
I’m sure that @Jolly @George-K and @Mik will know more than me, but it’s my understanding that the Federal Government does not fund the portal on a daily or even weekly basis, the funds set aside for Medicaid are already set aside and do not count as new funding. Somebody in the government (probably somebody not considering the resignation offer) proceeded to shut down the already funded portal. The portal was restored yesterday, but is now acting buggy. It’s worth noting that the administration as well as many state officials were on the record yesterday stating that the freeze would not affect Medicaid or Head Start.
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
It’s worth noting that the administration as well as many state officials were on the record yesterday stating that the freeze would not affect Medicaid or Head Start.
Not originally, that was part of the midday walkback.
-
@NobodySock said in 8 months of pay:
i just dawned on me that if this new EO is all I think it is, I can take my trip to Sardinia and not use 1 single hour of leave. Boy, this is sounding better by the minute.
Sounds like it got rescinded.
@Aqua-Letifer said in 8 months of pay:
@NobodySock said in 8 months of pay:
i just dawned on me that if this new EO is all I think it is, I can take my trip to Sardinia and not use 1 single hour of leave. Boy, this is sounding better by the minute.
Sounds like it got rescinded.
The spending freeze was rescinded, but this was a separate thing, I believe.
-
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/how-to-push-back
I can concur with Vance's article. I am on a Federal Employees group page on FB and this has been the theme from all. "how dare he, we will show them" attitude. Of course, these are mostly folks who still have a ways to go before the siren call of the new life with sandy beaches and pina coladas. A second email came out yesterday with FAQ's from the same author, hq@opm.gov, answering some of the very questions I immediately had, and it appears they would treat me during these 8 months of not working , exactly the same as if I were. 8 months of time served, accumulating vacation and sick leave, etc. Two big issues for me both occur near the end of April. If they did not honor these 2 issues for me then it would be a definite no go. I turn 62 in April which is a magic number for federal retirement. I am also due for my next Step in pay as a GS14 step 6 to step 7 at the same time.
The retirement pension formula works like this,- take the average salary from your highest paid 3 consecutive years worked, usually this is your last 3 years obviously and multiply it by 1% (unless one is at least 62 years of age with at least 20 years of service, in which you multiply that average salary by 1.1%). Believe me, the extra 10 percent is nothing to sneeze at. You then take that number and multiply it by the number of years served and there is your annual pension for us FERS (federal employees retirement system) employees. There is another older kind of federal worker that may still have a smattering of active workers called CSRS, which has a totally different formula for retirement but that system was retired in 19878 and the new FERS replaced it. They didn't pay into Social Security and thus do not receive its benefits, nor did the government match the first 5 percent of contributions to their Thrift Savings Plan, (govt 401k). But, they make up for it in a much nicer percentage of the pension portion. Many say it was the better retirement system but I am not so sure. My pension portion with this formula is approximately 45% of my current salary whereas the CSRS folks I believe are getting 75% or so. Again, no SS, and not much focus on their own TSP as there was no incentive to contribute with govt not matching their first 5% contributions like us. So most of my retired CSRS friends really had no TSP to speak of.
I still await more information, namely from my own agency and something more official looking from OPM than an Elon Musk authored email that looks like spam at first. But, if those offers actually become valid over the next week, how can I not accept in my position of life? This next week will be very interesting. I can see them pulling this offer back just like the spending freeze as well , so I am in sit and hold mode for now.
- take the average salary from your highest paid 3 consecutive years worked, usually this is your last 3 years obviously and multiply it by 1% (unless one is at least 62 years of age with at least 20 years of service, in which you multiply that average salary by 1.1%). Believe me, the extra 10 percent is nothing to sneeze at. You then take that number and multiply it by the number of years served and there is your annual pension for us FERS (federal employees retirement system) employees. There is another older kind of federal worker that may still have a smattering of active workers called CSRS, which has a totally different formula for retirement but that system was retired in 19878 and the new FERS replaced it. They didn't pay into Social Security and thus do not receive its benefits, nor did the government match the first 5 percent of contributions to their Thrift Savings Plan, (govt 401k). But, they make up for it in a much nicer percentage of the pension portion. Many say it was the better retirement system but I am not so sure. My pension portion with this formula is approximately 45% of my current salary whereas the CSRS folks I believe are getting 75% or so. Again, no SS, and not much focus on their own TSP as there was no incentive to contribute with govt not matching their first 5% contributions like us. So most of my retired CSRS friends really had no TSP to speak of.
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
-
There was a day when conservatives used to complain very loudly about POTUS making off-the-cuff decisions and trying to force them through without involving any of the rest of the government.
But it wasn't this day.
-
There was a day when conservatives used to complain very loudly about POTUS making off-the-cuff decisions and trying to force them through without involving any of the rest of the government.
But it wasn't this day.
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
There was a day when conservatives used to complain very loudly about POTUS making off-the-cuff decisions and trying to force them through without involving any of the rest of the government.
But it wasn't this day.
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
The Brad
-
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
You've not reviewed the legal arguments oro and con for birthright citizenship?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in 8 months of pay:
There was a day when conservatives used to complain very loudly about POTUS making off-the-cuff decisions and trying to force them through without involving any of the rest of the government.
But it wasn't this day.
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
I wonder what would happen if a party actually focused on winning a supermajority in Congress instead of the Presidency? Put 80-90% of their funding and groundwork on congressional races and pulled waaaayyy back on the Presidential race?
The Brad
-
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@jon-nyc said in 8 months of pay:
Money quote: “sought legislation”
Is Trump's proposal illegal?
There doesn’t seem to be any legal basis for unilaterally deciding to give them 8 months pay. We’ll see how far the current scotus takes the unitary executive doctrine.
-
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
I wonder what would happen if a party actually focused on winning a supermajority in Congress instead of the Presidency? Put 80-90% of their funding and groundwork on congressional races and pulled waaaayyy back on the Presidential race?
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
@George-K said in 8 months of pay:
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
I’m actually finding this to be quite brilliant (even if accidentally)…
Both parties have been trying to govern through EO rather than actual legislation for decades. Maybe this will actually push Congress into action…
Exactly. Congress needs to grow a spine and do congress-ey things.
I wonder what would happen if a party actually focused on winning a supermajority in Congress instead of the Presidency? Put 80-90% of their funding and groundwork on congressional races and pulled waaaayyy back on the Presidential race?
Which is more expensive? To win the Presidency or to win a Congressional supermajority (presumably in both chambers)? Which one gets you bigger bang for the buck?
-
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
You've not reviewed the legal arguments oro and con for birthright citizenship?
@Jolly said in 8 months of pay:
@89th said in 8 months of pay:
As with many of the EOs, the actual legality of them is under review. For example, he's making a process of payment using a budget that hasn't been passed yet by the legislature. (Insert jokes here about all the debts he has never paid over his career) Case in point, he says birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, when it is literally in the constitution. I'm not disagreeing with all of his big moves, but I think we can all agree he's throwing pasta orders against the wall and waiting to see what sticks.
You've not reviewed the legal arguments oro and con for birthright citizenship?
Yes, Trump is trying to find nuance in the 14th amendment that isn't there. This is actually quite the opposite of the Scalia-esque originalist approach to the constitution, as Scalia has said in the past that some things "are constitutional, but stupid". If Congress wants to amend the 14th amendment to clarify it, they can do so anytime they want.
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
The Brad
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
Agreed. And my point is let congress amend the amendment. To find such 18th century nuance in it, and not the 2nd amendment, is hypocritical.
-
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
If the amendment was written today, “subject to” could imply what @jon-nyc says. They are still subject to the laws and rules of the US, even if they are violating them and not facing repercussions for the violation.
With the amendment being written when it was, I tend to lean towards the Trump interpretation. Citizens of nations were often still called subjects. In the case of the Chinese guy, both parents were here legally and the guy had lived his entire life here and was an adult. I fail to see how that provides precedent for people to cross the border illegally and have kids that are automatically citizens. Still, as that has been the implicit law of the land until now, I would suggest that all Children born in the US before the EO be considered citizens. However, that doesn’t mean the parents are protected from deportation. They can have a choice of taking the children back with them (dual citizenship), or can leave the children here in the adoption system. I know that sounds cruel, but this is a nation of laws. You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
@LuFins-Dad said in 8 months of pay:
If the amendment was written with the exact same language in 1780, I would say that “subject to” would clearly mean that birthright citizenship would not apply to children of illegal immigrants. They were subject to/of Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever country they were citizens of.
You want to argue that a "subject of" Mexico/Colombia/Honduras/Whatever when in the US is not "subject to" US jurisdiction? That makes no sense. If an "illegal immigrant" is not "subject to" US jurisdiction, then s/he would not be "illegal" in the first place because s/he's not "subject to" whatever law s/he's accused of violating.
Think about it: a foreign national, just by coming into the US without proper registration at a port of entry, becomes exempt from US laws (not "subject to" US jurisdiction). You think that makes sense?
You can’t ignotrr those laws because of the way it feels.
Similarly you should not ignore those laws because of the way it feels to you.
