© Getty Images.
House Republicans this week reinstated a procedural rule created in 1876 that allows lawmakers to cut the pay of individual federal workers down to $1, The Washington Post reported Thursday.
The Holman Rule allows members of Congress to propose amendments to appropriations bills that target specific government employees or programs in an effort to cut spending.
Under the rule passed this week in larger rules package, any such amendment that would target an employee or program would have to be passed by a majority of the House and Senate. That makes it unlikely, albeit possible, for lawmakers to reduce a federal worker’s pay.
Democrats and federal employees who worry about how President-elect Donald Trump could use it blasted the rule.
Resurrecting a very old rule is never good news, you know people are planning to do very bad things, and this has one hell of a chill factor:
“This is a big rule change inside there that allows people to get at places they hadn’t before,” he told reporters.
The new rule follows requests by the Trump transition team for lists of the names of employees involved in specific programs, such as Energy Department scientists who have worked on climate change.
The ability to legally reduce someone’s salary to a dollar is a good way to get rid of people, isn’t it? Or just using it as a threat, fall in line, or…
Via The Hill.
That seems like it would have to be illegal in some way, rather than just morally reprehensible.
Gotta purge the reality-based employees to spin a new national mythos.
My thinking, too, johnson, but I would not be surprised if there is some law, by-law, subclause or forgotten paragraph that let’s congress off the hook for violating, for example, minimum wage laws.
The new rule follows requests by the Trump transition team for lists of the names of employees involved in specific programs, such as Energy Department scientists who have worked on climate change.
[sarcasm] And it’s not like the Republicans cancelled any science programs, no sir. The incoming administration is very keen on science and pays its employees very competitive salaries. [/sarcasm]
Competitive in the sense that no corporate employer could ever pay as little, though they might dream….
US science is about to be bludgeoned to death. Trump and Co. don’t strike me as the sort who rely on a light touch. And I suppose this, too, could affect the former ethics watchdog (now on a tight leash). Beside ignoring and supressing the concerns raised they could also axe salaries, just to add insult to injury. Or vice versa, as the case may be. Yes, this sounds like the perfect tool for an absolutist regime. Either you are his majesty’s loyal servant and agree with him on all matters of state or you shall have no place at his court.
Nothing but assholes all the way down. Rotten fucking, whiney, little three year-old brats.
There’s a principle — cannot recall what it’s called now, presumably some (faux-)Latin name — to the effect that laws cannot target individuals. However, I think it’s naming the individuals which is forbidden, and I have no idea if it is just a convention, or is codified, and if codified, what exceptions there may be…
Of course, if what I am attempting (poorly) to recall prohibits laws for / against named individuals, then what the thugs have done presumably doesn’t violate the principle. However, a subsequent “law” naming someone whose pay is to be reduced would seem like it would violate the principle, regardless of this recent typically unethical immoral thuggery.
The usual way around this principle is to write the description of the targeted people so tightly that only one person — the intended target — qualifies. As an aside, this dubious obfuscation is also used in some industries to write job descriptions so the already-selected person is the only one who qualifies for the job; as far as I know, this practice is mostly only used to obtain appropriate visas.
It’s just that the employees decided to work elsewhere…
Which is another way in wich this reminds of 1930’s Germany: We were the leading science nation back then…
Oh, I’m sure it won’t be used to perpetrate Injustice!
*eye-roll with deep sarcasm*
--
They have got to realize by now that they are the baddies, right?
@5, blf:
Bills of attainder.
They’re explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, but something being unconstitutional rarely stops it from happening. Most recently, the Democrats passed a bill of attainder specifically targeting ACORN, thus forcing the group to shut down.
blf @5:
The term you’re looking for is “bill of attainder”. Historically, these were bills that decreed that specific individuals were to be punished as criminals (without trial). There have been several court cases in the US over these, many of them relating to attempts to bar suspected Communists from union posts. The most relevant case seems to be US v. Lovett in 1946, which specifically held that a bill blocking the payment of salary to a named government employee was a bill of attainder.
Crimson Clupeidae
The probably revel in that knowledge, actually. I can’t see them being disappointed by that.
As others have said, bills of attainder,
What was unsaid? They are covered in Article III, section 3 (I believe, could be the very end of section 2 but I don’t think so). Still, the language there is really insufficient to understand the topic, you’re much better off just googling “bills of attainder” and reading some of the actual cases.