Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Chuck Schumer is a horrible human being

You go, Chuck! Paste 'em one for me!

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

is all I can say and the bloodlust continues do to support by Amerikas so-called elected class.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

It's funny (no) how if Upchuck were a brown person saying "No Justice No Peace" at a rally in front of a NYC courthouse he would be arrested as a domestic terrorist and thrown in Rikers faster than you could say "Ceasfire."

Instead, he's firing up a lynchmob, inciting more violence against Palestinians, and it's all applause.

Chuck Schumer is indeed a horrible human being and a disgrace. But, boy, does he deliver for his handlers - Banks and Israel.

I'll repeat myself and say, too, that when I tried calling his office as Just a Shmoe Citizen and Resident of NYC (to ask that he support the original Bank-Shrinking legislation) I only got as far as an entitled young woman with the "uptilt" mannerism who snootily said she'd "take a message." All I could think was - the number I found on the internet is obviously not the one that his handlers have. Not very democratic.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

Hard to explain in words but it's where the voice at the end of an utterance ends on a higher note than the lead-up. I'm sure you've heard it ... or not, since its probably not so prevalent in your part of Maine. A short example is the "As if?" from the great movie HEATHERS.

Unfortunately it is a speech mannerism that has infiltrated at least 2 generations behind us and I always cringe when I hear thirty-somethings and even early forty-somethings (highly educated, generally) speaking that way. I have a feeling it must have been modeled in a lot of Tebee shows that you and I missed.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

being added after every one or two words for no reason at all - basically a speech tic, though I'm sure there's a book out there legitimating it as an organically evolved modern idiom.

My inner school marm is speaking up - yikes!

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

run to replace Reid.

And from what I've read, he would be a shoe-in.

(I "believe" Durbin will resign, and go to a cushy FIRE lobbyist position as soon as he helps usher in the "Grand Bargain."

With Senator Wyden all but guaranteeing a "tax overhaul" bill within (now) 14 months, I expect to see more Committee activity geared to cutting "entitlements."

Oh, guess a bill has been negotiated regarding "VA Fixes," and destroying what's left of the federal Civil Service Merit System.

What I predicted about a final VA Bill encompassing more than the SES schedule employees has happened--it was put in the Senate bill.

Sigh . . .

Submitted by lambert on

Gee, it can always get worse! On this:

What I predicted about a final VA Bill encompassing more than the SES schedule employees has happened--it was put in the Senate bill.

Can you link to where you made the prediction, what it was, and the Senate Bill? I can't even see your dust on this.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

and I don't have time to search for what I've said at other blogs, right now.

But weeks ago, I opined that even allowing this process for "SES" schedule employees would probably be "the nose under the Camel's tent" (I feared).

So from a comment here:

Can't elaborate without more research, but heard AP News state that Senator Sanders has proposed legislation--much like that which was passed by the House about a week ago--that will eliminate "due process," as related to firings of Veterans Administration SES (Senior Exexcutive Schedule) employees.

I've seen news releases "claim" that he will furnish some protections from "political firings." [See link below.]

But that's a joke, since his legislation states:

It would give the VA authority to immediately remove senior executives based on poor job performance while preventing wholesale political firings.

A blatant "nose under the camel's tent" move to eviscerate federal employee MPSB protections, IMHO.

When I referred to "eviscerating federal employee MSPB (corrected) protections--that's my reference to the likelihood that they are just starting out with the SES Schedule employees--because the federal employees with MSPB "protections" are the GS, GM, and WG employees. (Doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you were in the system, like I was, LOL!)

Here's excerpt from militarytimes.com, in which they reference the Senate, "The measure would give the VA secretary broader authority to fire senior executives for poor performance or mismanagement.

Both the White House and VA have expressed concerns over the legality of the measure, but said they will work on it with Congress."

I am concerned that they did not specify the SES Schedule employees (the same that the House bill specifically targeted, although that could be who they meant).

GM employees are also considered executive level at many military installations.

So your guess is as good as mine, as to whether this broadens the new policy (downward).

The bottom line is:

It is unreasonable to expect that they will apply new stringent measures to the very highest level employees, and not extend it downward.

When have any of us last seen "lower level" employees getting breaks (over their superiors)? That just doesn't happen, in my experience.

;-)

If you have an interest in this, I'll try to start commenting on it again (as things develop).

(Please excuse typos, etc.)

Submitted by lambert on

Army Times.

Objections to the bill raised at the time, WaPo (May 20):

Although firing VA officials may quell the recent outrage over reported coverups, the Senior Executives Association has raised concerns about the House bill. Below is a summary of the measure’s drawbacks, as outlined in recent statements from the group:

* Due process: Senior executives can appeal firings and demotions to an administrative panel known as the Merit Systems Protection Board, which determines whether the personnel actions were warranted. However, the hearings are informal and the decisions are non-binding for agency executives, unlike with rank-and-file employees.

The SEA said the House bill would rob employees of the right to recourse when department chiefs wrongly punish their workers. They also noted that accountability processes already exist for senior executives.

Agencies must provide a 30-day written notice when they decide to remove senior executives. The officials can then argue against removal, choose to resign, or return back to work at a lower position. They may also be eligible for immediate retirement.

* Politicizing senior leadership: Senior executives are supposed to be nonpartisan employees who are free from political influence and corruption. The House bill would remove the due process system that serves as a barrier to that type of pressure, according to the SEA.

“With fear of retribution by an agency head, the career [senior executive service] could well become a politicized corps that bends with the political winds, rather than serving the American people free from political influence,” the SEA said in a February statement.

* Trial by media: When scandals emerge, cabinet secretaries would be be prone to firing fire senior executives to dampen the ensuing firestorm. The SEA contends that optics, rather than the policy needs of the government and the American people, would drive such decisions under the House measure.

* The VA isn’t afraid to fire poor performers: The department last year removed more than 3,000 employees, including “several senior executives,” according to the SEA. “Just because it doesn’t make headlines doesn’t mean it did not occur,” the group said in an April statement.

* Many senior executives are veterans: The SEA said nearly one-third of career senior executives at the VA are veterans who “share a commitment to continued public service.”

And it sounds like the Republicans are broadening the principle:

The Senior Executive Service Accountability Act -- introduced by Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and cosponsored by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif. -- would bring sweeping changes to SES oversight. Issa’s committee will vote on the legislation Thursday.

The bill would make senior executives eligible for 14-day suspensions without pay, bringing them in line with most non-SES federal employees. Another provision would add a category for cause to fire an SES employee.

Currently, senior executives can be fired for three reasons: misfeasance, or poor performance; malfeasance, or misconduct; and nonfeasance, or the failure to complete assigned duties. The bill would add a fourth, more broad, reason, labeled as “such cause as would promote the efficiency of the service.” Employees receiving a negative personnel action would receive just 15 days’ notice, half of the 30 days they currently receive.

If what you're saying is that the VA is another example of "never let a good crisis go to waste," and that with the Republicans pushing and the Democrats enabling (as usual) the gutting of civil service protection is proceeding apace, yes, that's interesting.

Submitted by lambert on

Florida being Florida. "Human, all too human." I'll cut Grayson some slack on this; LBJ cut some horrible deals on the way to become the President who passed Medicare and Civil Rights legislation. If I see cheerleading or slavish following of the AIPAC line, as opposed to a throwaway vote, I'll reconsider, but I don't see that. I could be wrong!!

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

done with that and I hear what you are saying but it seems simple to me education of his voters would be money better spent. Yes. it's hits a hard crowd but the easy way out isn't the answer. Death is still Death

Submitted by lambert on

Maybe like you I am cherishing the hope that there's hope for one or two of 'em.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

the one that I meant to post this evening (but forgot to) was from Military Times. Here it is:

Senate joins effort to simplify firing VA executives

Just a day after the House passed new legislation making it easier for top VA executives to be fired, senators included mirror legislation in their annual VA appropriations proposal. . .

Now, that House bill language was specific to the SES Schedule (Senior Executive Schedule) employee.

But I've since seen "more lax language" in other news reports, which always make me nervous, since they could be referring to either high ranking GS, or of course, GM Schedule employees, as well.

And then, as I mentioned earlier--there's always the "setting of precedent," period. (that can come back and bite you)

But the piece you just posted, spells out some of the provisions really well--so thanks for posting it.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Note Issa/Walberg bill:

” Employees receiving a negative personnel action would receive just 15 days’ notice, half of the 30 days they currently receive."

Sanders and The White House have COMPLETELY deleted this protection.

The link here doesn't give any of the details of the accountability act that Sanders and the White House proposed in the Sanders/Miller bill--this is from Bernie's website--but it does acknowledge that he worked with the White House on this bill (that contains the provisions that we're discussing, and became part of Sanders/Miller proposed bill).

"Sanders (I-Vt.) is working with the White House on a VA accountability bill that will be filed as soon as Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The chairman also announced that a hearing will be held on June 5 to address that bill and other legislation."

You are fired "on the spot." The 30-day notice/informal grievance period will be no longer.

You now have only a "formal appeal" procedure. And, BTW, for SES employees, this is an "informal" proceeding--therefore, it is "non-binding."

(SES are not considered "competitive service" like GS, GM & WG employees, apparently.)

In a nutshell, Democrats and the White House went one better--there is are no "due process" protections for VA.

Only a "toothless" appeal to the MSPB--AFTER one is relieved from one's job.

Before, since you were given the period to informally "grieve" charges, you were obviously on payroll during this period, and still had health insurance coverage. Now you won't be.

Will be getting together--there are so many articles that I've got yet to wade through--a more coherent summary soon. (I'll throw in the links, too. Except to the audio that I reference, below).

Got a WaPo reporter on audio (and a transcript) saying just what I was talking about--that the Democrats/WH reform would apply "downward," not to just the SES employees.

The WaPo reporter was "gleeful" as he described the VA being able to fire not only the top people on the spot, but as he put it--technicians, and even receptionists!

I don't want to post the audio until I am ready to Tweet it, and prepared to write a serious diary on it.

The timing of getting this out, is everything. There are (I believe) a couple of million current and retired federal workers (or maybe that current--not sure) and no time to double-check right now. But there are more than a few, let's say.)

You know, just like Social Security--only a Democratic Party/Administration could manage to destroy the system.