I agree, a lot of government news these days is depressing. But at least activism made a real difference in one person's life. And people are paying attention and reacting when Pruitt spouts nonsense. I've heard it said that this is one silver lining of Trump - more people are engaged and aware. Not that it isn't tiring paying attention to politics.
It's definitely not my favorite thing to do - but Trump isn't a normal president.
btw, the Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the Republican healthcare plan:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/32 ... hcare-plan
CBO ignites firestorm with ObamaCare repeal score
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Monday projected that the number of people without health insurance would grow by 14 million in 2018 under the Republican ObamaCare replacement bill, with that number rising to 24 million in a decade.
The bombshell estimate was larger than even many analysts had predicted, stirring fresh doubts about whether the legislation can pass ahead of a possible vote in the House next week.
And Gingrich seems to be channeling Trump. Don't like what you hear? Shut down the office that gave you unwelcome news.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/32 ... -abolished
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) slammed the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) scoring of Republican health care legislation, calling it "disgustingly wrong" and recommending that the office be abolished.
"They should abolish the Congressional Budget Office. It is corrupt. It is dishonest. It was totally wrong on ObamaCare by huge, huge margins," Gingrich said to Fox's Martha MacCallum on "The First 100 Days.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/32380 ... kes-report
The CIA has reportedly been given the power by President Trump to launch drone strikes against suspected terrorists. The new authority is a change in drone policy from the Obama administration, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday citing U.S. officials.
Under the Obama administration, the CIA used drones to find suspected terrorists. But the military then launched the strikes. That policy lent itself to more transparency, because the Pentagon is required to publicly report most airstrikes.
http://thehill.com/policy/international ... ent-report
President Trump’s administration has told the State Department to cut more than 50 percent of U.S. funding to United Nations programs, Foreign Policy reported.
The push for the drastic reductions comes as the White House is scheduled to release its 2018 topline budget proposal Thursday, which is expected to include a 37 percent cut to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budgets.
...
The U.S. spends roughly $10 billion annually on the U.N., and the cuts could have the greatest impact on peacekeeping, the U.N. development program and UNICEF, which are funded by State's Bureau of International Organization Affairs.
The fate of other popular programs, like the World Food Programme and U.N. refugee operations, are less clear. The World Food Programme's funding comes from the Department of Agriculture.
...Administration officials said last month that Trump’s budget would contain $54 billion in domestic non-discretionary spending cuts to pay for an equal increase in defense spending.
More on the UN programs Trump wants to cut:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/wh ... d-nations/
State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50 percent in U.S. funding for U.N. programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trump’s administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen, according to three sources.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ment-waste
President Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at cutting waste in the federal government. ...
The order does not seek a set amount of cuts, but it could result in a push to eliminate entire federal agencies or dramatically cut the size of the federal workforce.
I'm guessing that the order itself might be largely symbolic. But it's clearly showing Trump's/ Bannon's intention of tearing down as many agencies as possible, other than the military. Let me guess - EPA enforcement would be one of the first to go. The State Dept and diplomacy are already facing big cuts. The Coast Guard. FEMA. And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dept. of Justice cut.
I'm betting Trump won't forego his weekend Mar-a-Lago trips on Air Force One, though.
Edit, to clarify: I'm sure there is waste to be found. At one time - before military spending became a sacred cow for the legislature - you regularly heard about inflated prices to procure ordinary items (hammers, toilets, etc.). But I don't have any faith that this is an exercise to actually reduce waste. If it was, Trump certainly wouldn't be spending money on feasibility studies for his new wall (as if no presidency before his would have considered it, if it was practical and useful) or implementing studies and rule-making for "new" vetting for immigrants, when there were already good vetting procedures in place. Or adding more layers of bureaucracy, with things like his offices to make sure departments are following his orders. He's looking for excuses to cut programs and items his business cronies don't like. And meanwhile Trump is living like a king at taxpayers' expense.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/air-force ... ?r=US&IR=T
It costs about $200,000 an hour to operate Air Force One — here's why it's so expensive
Over the past couple of weeks, the exorbitant cost of presidential travel has made its way into the spotlight.
In fact, President Donald Trump's travel itinerary cost US taxpayers more than $10 million during his first month in office, according to The Washington Post.
And I don't give this bill much chance of passing, given the Republicans' blind support for Trump, but it would be nice to be surprised.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... presidency
The presidency should not be a get-rich-quick scheme. No president or presidential family should be able to exploit the Oval Office to become wealthier.
... One step would be to stop Trump from profiting off taxpayer dollars. Donald Trump continues to summon White House staff, U.S. officials, and even foreign leaders to his Palm Beach club Mar-a-Lago – or as he calls it, the “Winter White House.” He is making money as these officials eat food (especially Trump water and steaks), stay overnight, or play rounds of golf at his properties.
That’s why I introduced the No TRUMP Act—the No Taxpayer Revenue Used to Monetize the Presidency Act. This legislation would prohibit the use of any taxpayer funds to pay for food, lodging, or other expenses at hotels owned or operated by a president or his or her relatives. In the interest of safety, the bill allows the Secret Service to continue guarding the residences of the First Family – Trump Tower in New York and Mar-a-Lago.
We need to make sure there is no personal financial incentive for Donald Trump or any future president and family to stay or hold official meetings or events at certain properties across the United States or abroad. There are several appropriate venues used by presidents-past to hold meetings that do not benefit the Trump Organization. (The actual White House or Camp David come to mind.)
With so many unresolved concerns about White House business conflicts, this is a responsible first step to make sure that the public doesn’t subsidize a president’s private interests.