BearGoggles said:
DiabloWags said:
BearGoggles said:
DiabloWags said:
BREAKING:
Democrats go right for Elon Musk's jugular and introduce a bill to ban special government employees from obtaining federal contracts directly threatening his lucrative government gravy train.
The best part is the name of the bill...
Representative Mark Pocan introduced the legislation which is titled "Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy (ELON MUSK)."
"Elon Musk gets more than $20 billion in contracts from the US government and bought his way into a new role in the government where he can direct even more money to himself. Enough," Pocan wrote on X.
"My new bill, the ELON MUSK Act, will end this grift!" he added.
Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has become a lightning rod for criticism as the billionaire's unelected minions work to gut the federal government by rummaging through the Treasury Department's systems.
"@ElonMusk is ripping us off and like millions of Americans across the country, I'm pissed," Pocan added in another post.
"I'm taking action by introducing the ELON MUSK Act, preventing grifters like him from getting richer while pillaging our tax dollars for himself," he wrote.
Pocan is absolutely right. Musk's increasing control over our government while making money off government contracts is the definition of a conflict of interest. He and Trump are transitioning us from a democracy into a full-blown oligarchy.
Enough is enough. Pass this bill immediately.
I wonder if they'll enact the bill before Space X rescues the stranded astronauts? And good luck to the US Space program w/o Space X.
Also, please provide a list of the $20B in US contracts. I suspect most is Space X.
Amazing how dems dislike only one side of the kleptocracy. The irony is that Musk has more money/net worth than he can ever spend and accumulated the vast majority of his holdings before he became a Trump supporter. The $20B in contracts (if that's the real number) is irrelevant to his financial situation. The entire argument is illogical.
Why am I not surprised that you're unable to see any kind of conflict of interest with Musk being a "special government employee" and in charge of DOGE and has the ability to steer federal spending to his own self-interest?
Here. I will DUMB IT DOWN FOR YOU.
The governing statute on financial conflicts of interest prohibits special employees from "participating in matters that affect (their) financial interests."
Representative Pocan's bill would be similar to bans from members of Congress and other federal employees.
By the way, can you show me where in the Constitution that it says that the President has the legal right to disregard budget decisions by Congress or the basic structure of government (as outlined by the Constitution), much less an unelected and clearly conflicted subordinate who has not been confirmed to any real government position by the Senate?
Where is the list of $20B in contracts? Still waiting on that. Until you provide that list and an explanation of the alleged conflict, you're dodging the actual issue.
As usual, your partisan presentation doesn't mention that even if there's a conflict, it can in many cases be waived.
In terms of the bolded above, I can't answer your question precisely because the phrasing is conclusory. Of course a president cannot disregard the constitution or a valid law - and I posted that in terms of any attempt to abolish USAID which I said Trump cannot do. I note that you had no such objections when Biden tried to forgive student loans or engage in a variety of other clearly unconstitutional or unlawful acts - including refusing to enforce the border laws.
In terms of budget, it depends on how the appropriation is made and a variety of other factors. I wouldn't expect you to understand that given your tendency to ignore and dismiss legalities (as you did above in failing to mention the potentially available waiver).
If it is a direct and UNCONDITIONAL appropriation, then I believe the president is limited in his ability to disregard it (not sure about that). However, most appropriations are not of that nature and in many cases, there are statutes that give the president lots of discretion. For example, Biden withheld and delayed appropriations to Israel over Gaza policy which, I note again, you have said nothing about.
In the case of USAID, the statute expressly gives the President/Secretary of State to direct the actions and disbursements of the agency. I posted the link to that above.
Yawn.
As usual, you totally DEFLECT the primary point which is a
conflict of interest.If you want a list of the $20 Billion in contracts, perhaps you should contact House Representative Mark Pocan in Wisconsin for the list. It was his claim. Not mine.
Your reading comprehension continues to be very poor.
I've noticed that you conflate an awful lot.
