#wasting taxpayer funds | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

muddypolitics · 3 months

Photo

(via Kyrsten Sinema Riding On A Private Jet Plane And You Paid For It!)

However, the Daily Beast reports that “since 2020, Sinema has spent roughly $210,000 of her U.S. Senate office budget on private charter flights for herself and her staff.” The U.S. Senate office budget comes from us, the American taxpayer, whom Sinema apparently considers suckers.

Lawmakers rarely if ever waste taxpayer money this way. For instance, Sinema’s fellow senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly, spends zero dollars on private jets because he’s an actual public servant. Senators don’t have unlimited operations budgets, so it would seem odd that Sinema would prioritize chartered air travel over more essential matters … well, unless you knew her.

From The Daily Beast:

The Arizona senator has booked at least 11 private plane trips since 2020, with five of them coming in 2023, when she spent $116,000 on chartered air travel. According to the reports, nearly all of the flights were charted for travel within Arizona, as the senator and several of her staffers hit several cities and towns around the state on one- or two-day trips.

By comparison, Sinema’s home-state colleague, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), appears to have never used his Senate budget for privately chartered flights, even though he regularly travels to the same places in the state that Sinema does.

#sinema is a horrible human #AZ #politics #wasting taxpayer funds

7 notes · View notes

news4dzhozhar · 11 days

Text

7 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

KY. SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST REPUBLICAN-BACKED SCHOOL CHOICE LAW

In a unanimous ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a controversial school choice law passed in 2021.

The bill, known as the Education Opportunity Account (EOA) Act, narrowly became law in 2021 with the support of a majority of Republicans in the state legislature. The act created a privately funded needs-based assistance program to cover educational expenses for families. The law also created a pilot program that would offer tuition assistance to help students attend pre K-12 non-public schools in counties with more than 90,000 people, which proponents of the law argued would help students to be able to choose the best school for them regardless of family income.

Those who donated to the accounts were to be eligible for potentially sizable tax credits, a provision that sparked some controversy. The tax credit portion of the program, among others, drew criticism for essentially funding private schools with public dollars in a roundabout way through the tax credit system. Under the law, Kentucky taxpayers who donated would have received “a nearly dollar-for-dollar tax credit against their income taxes” according to the ruling.

Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion affirming Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd’s ruling against the law, wrote that the program violated Section 184 of the Kentucky Constitution, which limits the raising or collecting of “sum[s]” for “education other than in common schools.”

“Applying the plain language of this section, the income tax credit raises money for nonpublic education and its characterization as a tax credit rather than an appropriation is immaterial,” Hughes wrote.

There were other challenges to the law aside from the one related to Section 184, but Hughes wrote that “the remaining constitutional challenges to the EOA Act are rendered moot” by the court siding with the initial challenge.

Shepherd had also ruled that the law violated the state constitution’s limitation of “special legislation” that only applies to certain communities in the state due to its provision singling out counties with populations over 90,000 at the time of the 2010 U.S. Census.

As a bill, the initiative was sponsored by Rep. Chad McCoy, R-Bardstown, who also pushed through a controversial education bill in 2022’s House Bill 9, which set up a funding mechanism for charter schools in Kentucky.

Though Republicans were the ones who helped push the bill over the finish line in Frankfort, support within the party was not unanimous. The bill made it through the House on a razor thin 48-47 margin, with many rural Republicans voting against it.

Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of the bill was overridden with a slim 51-member majority in the House.

In his veto message, Beshear said the bill would “harm public education in Kentucky by taking money away from public schools.” In a post to Twitter on Thursday, the Governor took his message a step further. He compared the EOA law to the newly passed law funding charter schools in Kentucky.

“Today’s ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court couldn’t be more clear: state funding for private or charter schools is unconstitutional – period. It’s time for the General Assembly to invest in our public schools, our teachers and our children,” Beshear wrote.

Fayette County Public Schools argued against the law, saying that it stripped resources away from its schools and students.

Republican House Speaker David Osborne said he was disappointed.

“Our priority with HB 563 was to ensure all Kentucky children have access to the educational opportunities they deserve and require to reach their potential, particularly in light of the learning loss and setbacks caused by shutdowns and limited access to necessary services,” Osborne said.

“While we are disappointed and respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision to strike down this section, we remain committed to this. We will continue our efforts to empower parents and families despite pushback from an education administration more interested in satisfying self-serving union interests,” he said.

The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a libertarian-leaning think, was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the law. It released a statement expressing disappointment at the court’s ruling.

“Contrary to the court’s ruling, Kentucky’s Constitution doesn’t prohibit educational alternatives for parents; it simply requires that the commonwealth 'provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the State,'” a statement from the organization said.

The Kentucky Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, celebrated the ruling.

“This decision protects the power of the people to decide important questions of public education policy and holds the legislature to account to uphold their oath to support and defend the Kentucky Constitution... We simply can’t afford to support two different education systems — one private and one public — on the taxpayers’ dime, and this ruling supports that concern. This decision is proof that the courts continue to serve as an important check against legislative overreach,” KEA President Eddie Campbell wrote.

10 notes · View notes

filosofablogger · 7 months

Text

Forget About It!!! Focus On What Matters!

Forget, for the moment, about the 2024 election – it’s 411 days away. Forget about what Senator Fetterman chooses to wear to work – it’s completely irrelevant to the business of Congress. Forget about Representative Lauren Boebert’s lewd & disgusting behaviour last weekend and Governor Kristi Noem’s long-running extramarital affair – they show a lack of values, but for the moment are completely…

View On WordPress

#essential workers #government funding #government shutdown #Kevin McCarthy #lack of integrity #Republican Party aka GOP #U.S. House of Representatives #wasted taxpayer dollars

0 notes

homunculus-argument · 10 months

Text

The thing about health care systems is that you literally cannot save health care costs by cutting the funds.

My medication ran out a week ago. From me, personally. The pharmacies ran out a month ago. Nationally. There is, however, an alternative option with the same function that I could switch to at any time with no problem, and all it takes to do that is one quick two-minute phone call to a doctor.

So I called the hospital on monday. Their call systems are packed and overcrowded because they're apparently understaffed because some dipshit figured that doing so would save taxpayer funds. So I made a call back request, they'd call me back as soon as they can, which used to be sometime later the same day.

No fucking answer by thursday. So I call the goddamn emergency phone, which is overcrowded as well, get a call-back, which does get answered within the same day. And they tell me to go to the fucking urgent care. So I get my ass to the freaking hospital and sit in urgent care waiting room for two hours, wasting EVERYONE'S time and resources, for a problem that could have been solved

THREE DAYS AGO

WITH A TWO MINUTE PHONE CALL

453 notes · View notes

saintmeghanmarkle · 11 days

Text

Comment in the Standard: How dare Montecito millionaire Prince Harry demand our tax money to cover his legal costs

This subject matter cannot be covered too much for my taste.

Emphasis and comments by me:

Prince Harry’s latest court defeat in his rightly unsuccessful bid to overturn the decision to refuse him guaranteed Met police protection after he pulled out of royal duties might seem like a trivial battle over legal fees.

But in fact the duke’s failed attempt to pass 50 to 60 per cent of the costs incurred by the Home Office in fighting his unmerited claim tells us much about the preening prince and his selfish disregard for virtually anyone other than himself, his equally self-obsessed wife, Meghan Markle, and his children. [No one else matters of course. It is all about them.]

That’s because when the Duke of Sussex, as he still wants to be called despite ditching his royal role, wasted yet more of the High Court’s time in arguing for the taxpayer to fund at least half of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that the Home Office was forced to spend on the case, what he was really doing was trying to pass on a large chunk of the bill to ordinary taxpayers. [Sponging off others is quite on brand.

That’s right: instead of having the decency to accept that he’d have to pay up when he lost, the Montecito multimillionaire, for whom the legal expenses will be loose change, wanted taxes paid by everyone ranging from people on the minimum wage to bus drivers, cleaners and pensioners to cover his costs. It’s frankly contemptible. [Does he think it is his birthright to have the peasants pay for his temper tantrums?]

It's notable too that yesterday’s costs order by the High Court judge, Sir Peter Lane, reveals that Harry, who is so protective of his own privacy (when it suits him), managed to breach a confidentiality agreement made as part of the litigation by emailing “certain information” that was meant to be secret to one his lawyers and the MP Johnny Mercer. The prince might have apologised for the error, but the costs order refers to the “seriousness of the breach” and it was at best a sloppy mistake that added to the Home Office costs that he was trying to avoid. [What were you up to Harold?]

Harry’s whole case was, of course, misconceived from the start and it’s worth recapping why.

He asserted that the decision in 2020 by security experts on the Government’s Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, that he should no longer receive publicly-funded police protection in Britain because of his move abroad should be overturned.

The supposed reasons were that the committee had allegedly failed to take into account the impact of a successful attack on the prince and had also acted unreasonably, unfairly and with a lack of transparency.

It was nonsense for the prince to think that he knew better than a panel of experts informed by the latest security advice from the police and intelligence agencies. [This man has a very high opinion of himself.] The High Court unsurprisingly dismissed Harry’s claim on all grounds, finding that there was no reason to overturn the Ravec panel’s decision. It had in fact left open the possibility of occasional police protection for the prince when in Britain, if there was evidence in future of a sufficient threat to his safety.

An attempt by the prince to persuade the courts that a later offer by him to pay for police protection should have been accepted was also rebuffed. Yet another judge dragged into Harry’s interminable litigation ruled it would be wrong to allow the wealthy to receive a service from the limited pool of specialist Met protection officers that a less affluent person could not afford.

That too was the correct and inevitable decision. Police protection officers are highly skilled specialists, trained at significant public expense, who exist only in restricted numbers and who are required to safeguard those facing the highest risks such as working royals, Cabinet ministers and prime ministers current and former, not others like Harry wanting the comfort blanket of protection they don’t need.

In short, every argument put forward by Harry was flawed and rejected by the courts. It’s a sign of his delusion that even the succession of earlier rebuffs from the judiciary didn’t stop him basing his attempt to get off a big chunk of the Home Office’s costs in fighting the litigation on the fantasy claim that he’d achieved “partial success” in his legal action. [He learns nothing from his experiences.]

Maybe that was how Harry viewed it. After he all, he told the world in his biography Spare that “there's just as much truth in what I remember and how I remember it as there is in so-called objective facts”.

But it simply wasn’t true, as yesterday’s High Court costs order reminded him.

It pointed out that Harry had “comprehensively lost” and that there was “no merit” in his claim of partial victory with his judicial review argument failing “on all of the pleaded grounds.” [Harold is a big loser.]

It was the obvious outcome from the start and the claim should never have been brought. His inevitable defeat was deserved and now it’s time for the penny-pinching prince to pay up.

👉 How dare Montecito millionaire Prince Harry demand our tax money to cover his legal costs | Evening Standard (archive.ph)

post link

author: Von_und_zu_

submitted: April 17, 2024 at 10:53AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

77 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 6 months

Text

Do you need more proof that Republicans are becoming even more homophobic by the week?

Whenever you hear somebody thinking of sitting out the election or ruminating about wasting a vote on some automatic loser third party, remind them of the insidious evil which the Republican Party has become.

MAGA Mike Johnson is now the highest ranking Republican in the US. He received every single vote of GOP House members, including the alleged moderates, to become House Speaker.

15 Not-Fun Facts About Speaker Mike Johnson

1. He masterminded Trump’s election coup. 2. He's the least-experienced House Speaker in 140 years. 3. He worked for the conservative legal group behind the case that ended Roe v. Wade. 4. He wants to ban abortion nationwide. 5. He blamed abortion for school shootings. 6. He also blamed abortion for Social Security and Medicare cuts. 7. He blamed mass shootings on the teaching of evolution. 8. He fought to make taxpayers fund a Noah’s Ark theme park. 9. He fought to ban same-sex marriage in Louisiana. 10. He led an anti-gay campus movement. 11. He wrote a lot of homophobic op-eds. 12. He introduced a national version of Florida's "Don’t Say Gay" bill. 13. He was an advocate for "covenant marriage," which makes it harder to divorce. 14. He blamed post-Katrina looting on America turning away from God. 15. He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

^^^ click the link to New York Magazine just above the list for details.

The 2024 election pits the 17th century against the 21st century. Republicans don't accept any of that newfangled thinking from The Enlightenment.

#maga mike johnson #speaker of the house #us house of representatives #republicans #the gop #extremism #the far right #trump's attempted coup #creationism #christian nationalism #theocracy #lgbtq+#homophobia #don't say gay #school shootings #abortion #roe v. wade #reproductive freedom #election 2024

58 notes · View notes

simply-ivanka · 3 months

Text

The bill would cost $118 billion and includes funding for Israel and Ukraine. Approximately $20 billion would be used for American border security.

"The Senate immigration bill ... fails in every policy area needed to secure our border and would actually incentivize more illegal immigration," the statement reads. "Among its many flaws, the bill expands work authorizations for illegal aliens while failing to include critical asylum reforms. Even worse, its language allowing illegals to be ‘released from physical custody’ would effectively endorse the Biden ‘catch and release’ policy."

The lawmakers claim the proposed legislation offers "too much discretionary authority" to embattled DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the subject of an impeachment attempt by House Republicans.

"The bill also fails to adequately stop the President’s abuse of parole authority and provides for taxpayer funds to fly and house illegal immigrants in hotels through the FEMA Shelter and Services Program," the statement continues before urging the Senate to pass the House's Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2) "immediately."

"America’s sovereignty is at stake," the Republicans concluded. "Any consideration of this Senate bill in its current form is a waste of time. It is DEAD on arrival in the House. We encourage the U.S. Senate to reject it."

#corrupt Biden #Biden #border #FJB #trump #president trump #trump 2024 #Take Back America #USA #america first #americans first #america #repost #Say NO to Democrats #Vote them out #Americans must come first

31 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 7 months

Text

By Jesse O’Neill

Published Sep. 20, 2023,

A Tanzanian fashion designer has finally been reunited with clothes that were allegedly swiped from her in 2018 by Sam Brinton, the ex-Department of Energy official with a penchant for stealing women’s suitcases from airports.

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department on Wednesday confirmed the development, which was first reported by Fox News.

“The MWAA Police Department can confirm we returned the victim’s property and police retained photos of the evidence for prosecution. The case is still under adjudication and we cannot release more detailed information,” a spokesperson said.

One-time nuclear official Brinton was charged with grand larceny in February for allegedly taking designer Asya Khamsin’s luggage from Arlington, Va.’s Ronald Reagan National Airport, after pictures emerged showing them wearing a brightly colored, one-of-a-kind frock that had been in the case.

Khamsin, who spoke to The Post about the luggage heist earlier this year, did not immediately return a request for comment, but her lawyer issued a scathing statement that noted the returned clothes were not “immediately either wearable or saleable, as the result of his use of them.”

Attorneys Peter Hansen and Ben Akech noted that his client last week filed a lawsuit against Brinton, who is non-binary and uses “they/them” pronouns, to be reimbursed for “the stolen items, the larger business harm done to her by the theft, and the public subordination of her business brand to Mr. Brinton’s personal brand,” he continued.

“Mr. Brinton’s theft wrongfully put Asyakhamsin [sic] in a bind. She could watch her stolen designs be used and celebrated without attribution to her, or she could call out the wrongful taking, but then watch both her and her work be publicly linked to Mr. Brinton without her consent,” the lawyers continued, repeatedly referring to Brinton as a man.

Sam Brinton seen wearing a dress allegedly stolen from Asya Khamsin at the UNA-USAs 2019 Global Engagement Summit at UN headquarters.Europa Newswire/Shutterstock

Brinton was fired last year after being caught red-handed in a string of other luggage thefts.

They were also jailed in Virginia for about two weeks in relation to the Khamsin theft before being bonded out ahead of a December preliminary hearing.

The former deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste at the Office of Nuclear Energy allegedly snatched another woman’s suitcase while on a taxpayer-funded trip to Las Vegas last July, according to documents reviewed by The Post.

Asya Khamsin had shamed the suspect by posting a picture of herself in the one-of-a-kind dress.Asya Khamsin

Brinton eventually pleaded no contest in that incident and was sentenced to a 180-day suspended jail sentence and made to undergo a mental health evaluation and pay $3,670.74 in restitution.

Two months later, the ex-Biden administration official allegedly stole a $2,325 designer suitcase from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport baggage claim and was then seen using it on two different occasions.

To resolve that case, Brinton agreed to participate in an adult diversion program for first-time, nonviolent offenders and undergo a mental health evaluation, write a letter of apology to the victim, return any stolen property and perform three days of community service.

In February, Khamsin revealed how she had to cancel a fashion show after her bag of 30 original custom-made pieces was swiped from the airport, only to see the dresses be worn by Brinton at public events.

“I was thinking, ‘Who took my bag, where is it?’ for a long time. Then I see images of the outfits [being worn by Brinton] and I was so confused and upset,” said Khamsin, who splits her time between Houston and Tanzania.

“I don’t know if I would like the clothes back,” she said at the time.

“The investigation is in good hands with the FBI. I’m waiting on them, they will do the right thing.”

#Sam Brinton steals #Asya Khamsin creates #He would have had the money to pay for women's clothes #He stole and wore what he stole in public for that sense of power over who he stole form #He didn't just steal her clothes #Asya Khamson had to cancel a show because too many pieces were missing #The Biden administration already knew he was a freak

70 notes · View notes

celticcrossanon · 2 months

Note

This is a great day, Celta! Harry dropped a lawsuit last December over a DM article saying Harry lied about offering to pay for MET security (which means he now owes the courts and the DM 3/4 of a million pounds) and now he's lost the lawsuit against the Home Office and RAVEC to reinstate his 24/7 security whenever he's in the UK! It's about time Harry started losing some of his lawsuits, which most were petty and ridiculous and a waste of the court's time to begin with!

Hi Nonny,

I am very pleased that Harry's petulant lawsuit has been turned down by the courts. It was a ridiculous suit to start with, and I am glad Harry has been told No about his desire to have taxpayer funded 24/7 security when he is in the UK. He is just not that important and it is about time he realised it.

25 notes · View notes

feministsforkatemiddleton · 2 months

Text

more sussex pr b.s.

Via Michelle Ruiz at Vogue.

As royal gossip swirls and Kate-related conspiracy theories bubble to fever pitch, as an inept Palace comms team scrambles to explain away a Photoshop fail and my text chains spiral into concerned chaos over Kate’s health and that of her marriage, a thought is crystallizing amid the noise: they should have never let Harry and Meghan go.

Harry and Meghan were never "let go." They choose to leave, because they didn't get their way of being "half in/out"--which you fundamentally cannot do as a taxpayer funder royal. You cannot take taxpayer money (and perks that come with it, like security) and use your royal status to also gain lucrative commercial deals. It's political corruption.

And referring to the Waleses' marriage is nasty gossip. I bet Michelle doesn't do that to the Sussexes.

The current imbroglio is exposing that the royal family isn’t half as savvy or strategic as people are led to believe, nor as singularly focused on preserving the Crown. If they were, they would have tried to keep Prince Harry and Meghan within the Firm at all costs—not only because they were stars, and she, in particular, could appeal to Commonwealth countries in a way the rest of the family never will—but also because the Firm has left itself weak and short-staffed.

"at all costs"?? You mean to let the Sussex continue to violate their personal boundaries and abuse them. For the rest of the family to laydown and take it...because?? Meghan press abuse was bad, so she can take it out on others? That's abuse. And they were never the stars or had the appeal supporters try to claim they were. And no, Meghan, as an American, doesn't really have any appeal to commonwealth countries. STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

King Charles has long advocated for a “slimmed-down” monarchy, according to reports. For the first time, I’m struck by the absurdity of this proposal: to push for the elevation of an even more elite cluster within arguably the most elite group of WASPs alive! Pretty savage, too: In the King’s case, it ostensibly meant symbolically demoting his own son, Prince Harry, to the back corner of the Buckingham Palace balcony during the Firm’s annual Trooping the Colour moment, as Prince William’s children moved him even further down the line of succession.

Oh no, poor Harry, his brother had kids, the horror!

During rosier times, though, the King’s vision was one of efficiency, an effort to scale back the number of distant relatives living for life in taxpayer-funded “apartments.” Image-wise, a streamlined monarchy also trains subjects’ focus on King Charles, and his direct heir Prince William, and his next-in-line George—a reminder, however unsubtle, that these people don’t intend to go anywhere, no matter how anachronistic they’re starting to feel in modern society.

This should still be the plan bc it is efficient and money-saving. And if Meghan and Harry had held their horses for a few years, then they would be a part of it--as was Charles's plans. It was supposed to be him and his sons and their wives over his three siblings and cousins. But...the Sussexes did not have any foresight, so here we are.

Be careful what you wish for: in light of recent events, the King’s slimmed-down monarchy is wasting away to nothing. If the royals are silent film stars, as British playwright Bonnie Greer once noted, their cast has been dramatically diminished after the deaths of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the defection of Prince Harry and Meghan to Montecito, plus the disgracing of Prince Andrew. With King Charles battling an unnamed cancer, Queen Camilla taking a break after holding it down in her husband’s stead, and Princess Kate (at least officially) recovering from unnamed abdominal surgery, only Prince William is wading back to work after an initial hiatus around Kate’s operation. The monarchy is so slender, it’s two illnesses away from being a one-man show.

KATE IS RECOVERING FROM SURGERY. This is a fact. Stop nastily insinuating otherwise; your misogyny is showing.

Oh, and if you actually want to get you facts straight and call out something that is actually not good optics: Camilla was on a beach vacation, not with Charles. That's not a great look.

Whoever might have been helpful in this situation? Which two people—and their two cute children—could be shearing sheep and christening ships as we speak, providing a picturesque, PDA-filled distraction from the disaster-upon-disaster spilling forth from the Palace? The void left by Prince Harry and Meghan has never been more glaring. Neither has the Firm’s lack of foresight. Standing up for Meghan against a torrent of racist and sexist abuse—making it tenable for the Sussexes to stay part of this operation—was not only the decent thing to do, but the most prudent for the monarchy. Even if they didn’t care for Meghan (or Prince Harry), they should have been strategic enough to recognize that the Sussexes were an overall positive and diversifying force for the institution. They should have known that they couldn’t afford to lose two of their youngest, supplest stars, a couple with a global fanbase and tons of runway for the future.

The Sussexes didn't want to do bread-and-butter engagements like Anne and the Edinburghs. They wanted celebrity, and they brought the disaster. That's why we're here now. The Sussexes did not have the foresight, again--not the firm. And much of Meghan's "abuse" was fair criticism based on her actions and choices of abusing her position and power and not taking responsibility for it. And after this week, sorry--I never want to hear she had it "worse" again.

And the Sussexes are negative whiners; Harry's a prick and Meghan is an utter brat. Not dynamic. And Meghan is the older of the former , short-lived "fab four." Their ratings are in the trash too, so no, they hardly have a global fanbase.

-------

So sick of people like Michelle Ruiz--who otherwise had a solid career with good work--doing shit like this under the premise of good faith. It's not. This is mostly unfactual editorializing, with a good drop of misogyny thrown in.

Do better.

#princess catherine #british royal family #princess of wales #team wales #prince william #brf #sexism

25 notes · View notes

grison-in-space · 8 months

Text

Via a conversation on Metafilter about the state of Florida's decision to crush its public institutions, a person I think is particularly wise left a comment about the state of the legislature on higher education in Wisconsin.

The situation in Florida is atrocious, but it's important to be aware of how widespread this movement on the part of MAGA politicians to ban all academic and support programs related to gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality is. I'm a professor in the Wisconsin state university system, where, in addition to my regular fulltime work in my home department I direct the LGBTQ+ Studies Program (a more-than-halftime job I have done for many years in return for zero additional salary, or summer funds, or course buyout, or any other compensation...).

This summer, the Wisconsin state legislature, gerrymandered into permanent Republican control, voted to ban all DEI programs in the state university system, and cut $32 million from the university budget, which it stated was amount of "taxpayer money being wasted on divisive indoctrination efforts" (to paraphrase Assembly Speaker Robin Vos). This comes after years of successive budget cuts and a ten-year tuition freeze and years of faculty and staff taking pay cuts in the form of "furloughs" through which we were expected to just keep working. The situation is now somewhat improved in that Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, vetoed the DEI ban, but he cannot restore the funding. Anyway: a few days after the legislative vote to ban DEI , I was giving a talk about the range of state bills attacking trans youth and adults, and there was a Democratic state legislator on the panel. When we were introducing ourselves and I told her I directed the LGBTQ+ Studies Program, she said, "Oh, but that's no longer legal. Well, unless Evers vetoes the ban; we'll see."

After doing some blinking, I responded by explaining the difference between DEI programs and academic programs. DEI programs provide student support services, which is deemed administrative work, in contrast to academic programs. The LGBTQ+ Resource Center and the LGBTQ+ Studies Program at my university are both vital and important. But the resource center organizes support groups and social activities for students, while the academic program teaches classes and sponsors academic talks. Academic programs are not part of the DEI system--and the very same legislature that voted for the DEI ban had spent years prior threatening sanctions against students and faculty for supposedly not sufficiently respecting the absolute value of free speech in academia. Legislators presented instructors as censorious ideologues, students as snowflakes in love with a victim narrative, and the legislature as the champion of teaching and discussing all ideas freely.

The image of DEI programs presented by Republican legislators is some kind of kink fantasy, in which cis straight white men are forced to prostrate themselves, declare themselves to be bad and deserving of punishment, and lick the boots of students who are trans and queer, of color and feminist. The reality is that university DEI programs are providing mental health services and tutoring and social support to college students, at a time when their levels of mental health challenges are very high. They have zero to do with the kink humiliation fantasy, they really are about inclusion, and it is ludicrous and cruel to cut social support to marginalized college students.

But even if the state ban were not vetoed, a DEI ban does not dismantle programs like Gender Studies or African and African Diaspora Studies or LGBTQ+ Studies, because they are academic programs, I explained to the Democratic legislator. But from her response, it was clear that not only did Republican Wisconsin legislators think they'd banned all academic programs examining race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and who knows what else (disability studies? Jewish studies and Islamic studies?), but that the Democratic legislators seemed to believe so as well.

The flip from "we are the party of free speech!" to "we are the party that bans books and entire academic disciplines!" happened with dizzying speed. But take it from me as a trans person--these legislative attacks can burst across the country in the space of months, shifting the landscape radically. The thing about the MAGA movement is that it is made up of people who believe that the situation is desperate, the American project is on the verge of failure, and the time has come to destroy or be destroyed. Most Americans, including non-MAGA Republicans, want to see the culture war cool down and Americans get along, but MAGA-sorts want it to go hot. And I have to admit some despair about what to do about this, because of the unpersuadability of this group. Take a look at Question 39 from this CBS/YouGov poll of Iowa voters last week, and what percentage of Republican voters there believe they are being lied to by various parties. The percentage of MAGA voters who said they said they believed they were being told the truth by Trump was 71%, in comparison to 63% for friends and family, 56% for conservative news sources, and 42% for religious leaders. Only 32% of Iowa Republicans generally believed they were told the truth by medical scientists. (The figures for Joe Biden and "liberal media" were 10% and 8% respectively.)

It is hard to persuade people with facts and logic and calls for empathy when they think you are a liar attacking their great leader with whom 99% say they identify. What we have to do is persuade others to stand up. And I don't want to be doomy, but my experience with resisting transphobic legislation and action causes me a lot of concern. It's not just "the face-eating leopards won't eat my face" problem. The fact is, frankly, that a lot of institutions and people are craven. This past year I was in a working group with medical and social scientists advising the HHS about creating guidelines for research with intersex and transgender populations, and then Libs of TikTok spread lies about hospitals supposedly performing "sex changes" on little kids, and several children's hospitals received bomb threats--and suddenly most of the medical researchers working with trans youth were pulled from the working group by the hospitals they were affiliated with. Hospital administrators are shutting down research on trans youth and clinics serving trans youth, rather than having the backs of threatened doctors and patients, handing a victory to the face-eating leopards who growled at them.

My conclusion is that we need to focus energy on teaching people who have not dealt with serious bullying before how to stand up to bullies. For people like concerned parents considering attending school board meetings to oppose book bans, we could teach basic mutual aid strategies, like forming a supportive group to attend together. But what we are to do about people like college administrators and corporate executives who would like to do the right thing for students and employees, but not as much as they'd like to avoid offending a wealthy donor or receiving negative conservative media attention. . . that's a big question to me.

I have left my own longer comment in the wider thread.

(If you also like longform, thoughtful text conversation, this is my regular plug for Metafilter as a platform. If you DM me an email address, I can send you an invitation link for a free account.)

#metafilter #education #public education #colleges #legislators #cannot fucking believe the DEI thing #the thing is I have collaborated with this person in the past and he is a deeply sensible human being #so if he says this is what the legislators think #I believe him

90 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 10 months

Text

A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation Wednesday that would require the Pentagon to return a portion of its enormous and ever-growing budget to the Treasury Department if it fails another audit in the coming fiscal year.

The Audit the Pentagon Act, an updated version of legislation first introduced in 2021, comes amid mounting concerns over rampant price gouging by military contractors and other forms of waste and abuse at an agency that's set to receive at least $842 billion for fiscal year 2024.

"The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement as he unveiled the bill alongside Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

"If we are serious about spending taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively," said Sanders, "we have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only agency in the federal government that has never passed an independent audit."

In December, the Pentagon flunked its fifth consecutive audit, unable to account for more than 60% of its $3.5 trillion in total assets.

But congressional appropriators appear largely unphased as they prepare to raise the agency's budget to record levels, with some working to increase it beyond the topline set by the recently approved debt ceiling agreement. Watchdogs have warned that the deal includes a loophole that hawkish lawmakers could use to further inflate the Pentagon budget under the guise of aiding Ukraine.

Late Wednesday, following a lengthy markup session, the House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which proposes a total military budget of $886 billion. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was the only committee member to vote no.

A huge chunk of the Pentagon's budget for next year is likely to go to profitable private contractors, which make a killing charging the federal government exorbitant sums for weapons and miscellaneous items, from toilet seats to ashtrays to coffee makers.

"Defense contractors are lining their pockets with taxpayer money while the Pentagon fails time and time again to pass an independent audit. It's a broken system," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of the new bill. "We need to compel the Department of Defense to take fraud and mismanagement seriously—and we need Congress to stop inflating our nation's near-trillion-dollar defense budget."

"Putting the wants of contractors over the needs of our communities," he added, "isn't going to make our country any safer."

If passed, the Audit the Pentagon Act of 2023 would force every component of the Defense Department that fails an audit in fiscal year 2024 to return 1% of its budget to the Treasury Department.

A fact sheet released by Sanders' office argues that "the need for this audit is clear," pointing to a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq report estimating that "$31-60 billion had been lost to fraud and waste."

"Separately, the special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects," the fact sheet notes. "A recent Ernst & Young audit of the Defense Logistics Agency found that it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects. CBS News recently reported that defense contractors were routinely overcharging the Pentagon—and the American taxpayer—by nearly 40-50%, and sometimes as high as 4,451%."

Further examples of the Pentagon's waste and accounting failures abound.

Last month, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the Pentagon can't account for F-35 parts worth millions of dollars.

Earlier this week, as The Washington Post reported, the Pentagon said it "uncovered a significant accounting error that led it to overvalue the amount of military equipment it sent to Ukraine since Russia's invasion last year—by $6.2 billion."

"The 'valuation errors,' as a Pentagon spokeswoman put it, will allow the Pentagon to send more weapons to Ukraine now before going to Congress to request more money," the Post noted.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a supporter of the Audit the Pentagon Act, said Wednesday that "taxpayers can't keep writing blank checks—they deserve long-overdue transparency from the Pentagon about wasteful defense spending."

"If the Department of Defense cannot conduct a clean audit, as required by law," said Wyden, "Congress should impose tough financial consequences to hold the Pentagon accountable for mismanaging taxpayer money."

67 notes · View notes

thefreethoughtprojectcom · 2 months

Text

Did you know that more than 150 countries around the world receive U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance? Whether or not that some of that foreign aid is used for legitimate purposes, the global welfare system itself is riddled with corruption and waste. It's time for it to end.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/deep-state/the-global-deep-state-a-fascist-world-order-funded-by-the-american-taxpayer

#TheFreeThoughtProject #TFTP

#the free thought project #tftp #deep state

16 notes · View notes

vomitdodger · 10 months

Text

The commies are gonna get anyone and everyone who ever talked to Trump. Never mind the obvious, multiple lies, corruption and reason some of them participated in. It’s all about the headlines and taking Trump out.

Too bad for the commies their every move makes Trump even more desired. Still…what a huge waste of time, money and energy. On both sides. Except taxpayers pay the prosecution bills. Private funding pays the defense, which includes donations. Trump is the most persecuted man to ever exist. Hope he gets an entry into Guinness World Records for it.

28 notes · View notes

violent-femmess · 11 months

Text

imagine if we put the kings coronation money towards fixing food poverty in the UK, the cost of the queens funeral + the coronation is enough to solve the child food poverty crisis in the UK but instead tax payers money was wasted on a dead woman and a dying princess in a golden fucking cart. the potholes in the road were temporarily filled with sand because they "didnt have the funds" because apparently £100 MILLION POUNDS of TAXPAYERS MONEY is better spent on a cunt in a cart than itd be if it was spent on fixing our roads for our safety or saving children in poverty from dying due to malnutrition, they wont get a fucking gold cart, they wont even get their gcses because the government DONT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE THEY CARE ABOUT THE PROFIT.

THEY DO NOT CARE IF WE DIE AS LONG AS THEY ARE LIVING IN LUXURY

47 notes · View notes