Summary

House Speaker Mike Johnson plans to cut 75% of federal agencies, reducing them from 428 to 99, in collaboration with Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), led by Vivek Ramaswamy.

Johnson’s agenda includes defunding PBS, Planned Parenthood, and curbing the “administrative state” through legislation and executive orders under Donald Trump.

Critics warn such cuts would impact jobs, healthcare, and essential services.

Backed by recent Supreme Court rulings limiting agency authority, Johnson and DOGE aim to reduce federal regulations, sparking significant debate over these drastic proposals.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    161·
    15 days ago

    As an outsider looking in, I am wondering whether this might mean that the Republican party has a vision for a weaker federal government, such that the states would have more, well, rights. I.e., if the federal government gets very scaled down, is that at the same time emptying up the regulatory space for individual states to go in all sorts of different directions, or does it come with some kind of libertarian straightjacket?

    The majority of the US population lives in wealthy blue states. If the regressive rural states can’t stomach the kind of extensive welfare state that makes sense in more urbanized places, fine. Like a “two speed Europe”, they can choose to stay behind, so long as California, Massachusetts, NY etc get the freedom to experiment with social democratic policies.

    Edit: this kind of more decoupled federalism also exists eg in Canada. Quebec gets to pretend it’s France while Alberta gets to pretend it’s Texas.

    • NotBillMurray@lemmy.world
      22·
      15 days ago

      In effect they want states to be able to do what they want, as long as it aligns with Republican ideals. All you need to do is look at their rhetoric towards sanctuary cities for the “states rights” argument to fall apart.

      Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

      -Frank Wilhoit

      • admin@maple.socialEnglish
        11·
        15 days ago

        Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

        -Frank Wilhoit “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      15 days ago

      Our dumbfucks fucks here in Quebec are increasingly leaning towards the Americanization of Canada.

      I’ve seen so many people talking about how it would be cool to be the 51st state when he met Trudeau.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        6·
        15 days ago

        As an American, I urge you to fight that effort, in a serious way. America rocks, but also sucks in several major fuckin’ ways.

        Good luck, stay Canadian and keep up the mutual love.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      2·
      15 days ago

      Wait until the override the posse comatatus act. The. It will be clear. They plan to make money slaves out of blue states.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      31·
      14 days ago

      Oh no. It’s entirely so they can do stupid shit. They’ll happily ax 75% of agencies and set the DOJ to making sure Blue States don’t just do it on their own. We’ve seen this play out in some red states already where they forfeit any regulation on a subject and then ban the blue cities from doing it themselves.