Homeland Insecurity

    

Chapter 5 of the "Mandate for Leadership" calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security. You may recall that this newest department was created after the attacks of 9/11, hoping to coordinate several otherwise unrelated agencies like immigration, Coast Guard, Secret Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Mandate suggests a more logical, mission-oriented regrouping, but in the meantime advocates death by thousand little cuts. 

      Clearly, the object of the chapter is to strike out against immigration, but not the straight-forward deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants as touted so often by the current Republican Presidential candidate. Instead this chapter lists devious ways to get rid of LEGAL immigrants. For instance, eliminate  visas currently granted to victims of human trafficking who are serving as witnesses for the authorities. Or limit the H-1B visa most often used by university graduates to extend a student visa by qualifying for a specialized job. 

    These limitations are worded so that the impact is not immediately clear. For instance, the Mandate calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to not update the list of countries that can participate in the H-2 Seasonal Worker program. But since the list is only valid for a year, failing to update the list at the end of the year is the same as shutting the program down entirely. 

          The Mandate would remove Temporary Protected Status, which was established in 1990 to protect immigrants from war-torn countries. An estimated 700.000 who have been living and working legally in this country for decades would be deported.

        Punishing immigrants is not all. Although illegal aliens don't qualify for federal school loans, the Mandate wants to deny federal aid  to ANY student if their school allows  "illegal aliens"  to qualify for in-state tuition, which 26 states have approved. Never mind that this would be a grave violation of the state's right to determine its own rules for in-state tuition.   

      And when it comes to state's rights this chapter goes to the other extreme as well.  Disaster preparednes should be on the states, the Mandate says. The Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to respond only in the most severe emergencies and should reduce the amount of grants available. That advice should be well received by conservatives in Florida and Texas, the two states that receive the largest portion of FEMA funds thanks to frequent hurricanes. 

Bull in a China shop

    

              With 3 million people serving around the world, the US Department of Defense is the largest,and most visible, part of the federal government. But the 2025 Project would have us believe it is in bad shape. A military that wears masks during a pandemic, and requires Covid vaccinations,  looks weak and risk adverse.  the authors say.  Evidently they forgot that the last great  pandemic was spread by WWI soldiers from the US who took it to Europe where it killed more than bombs and bullets combined.

       The second section in Project 2025's "Mandate for Leadership" demands a strong military, free of such precautions as vaccines or prissy "discrimination, equity and inclusion" training.

    To rebuild the military,  the Mandate recommends an almost wartime recruitment policy, just shy of a draft, with all public school students required to take the military entrance exam. ROTC programs would be increased at high schools and congressmen would be encouraged to have military recruiters at their town halls.

     Although the Mandate wants to expand the ranks, there's no room for transgender soldiers, no matter how capable an individual may be. On the other hand, the Mandate says anyone who was dismissed for refusing to take a COVID vaccine should be returned to the ranks -- with back pay.   

      I do agree with the recommendation to increase wages and family allowances for enlisted soldiers.       "No uniformed personnel should ever have to rely on social benefits like as food stamps or public housing assistance," the Mandate says.

    The Mandate also wants to step up foreign military sales by designing more export friendly armaments,  streamlining the congressional review process, reducing trade restrictions and expanding contracting   Although the Mandate stresses "warfighting" is the primary focus of defense, it does recognize "irregular warfare" including counter terrorism, cyber attacks, misinformation and economic plots. 

       China is "by far" the most serious threat to U.S. security, the Mandate says. That's hardly new. When I was a kid somebody told me there were so many people in China that if they started marching against the USA, the line would never end. Every time we had a bomb drill in school,  I imagined an unending line of Chinese soldiers was at the door. 

       That was 70 years ago and the long line never appeared. I visited China a few years back and was amazed that it wasn't that much different from all the other countries I've visited. 

        When Donald Trump was president, he called former president Jimmy Carter for his input on the source of China's strength. 

           "Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody? None," Carter was reported as having told Trump.  During the same time, the US was involved in one war after another. "China has not wasted a single penny on war," Carter explained. "and that's why they're ahead of us. In almost every way."

        It's like we've built this big, bad bull for the battlefield but instead he's breaking things in a China shop. 

 

 

 

 

             

Administrative State

         

  "Personnel is Policy" is an oft repeated maxim in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025.  The people you hire determine the policy you get. You know, like appointing someone who has never been to public school to head the Department of Education. That's a pretty good indication of your education policy. 

             The first section of the "Mandate on Leadership" is all about managing personnel from details of who reports to whom in the White House Office, and what agencies need to be eliminated in the Executive Office of the President, to the vast civil service system. 

         If you remember your American History, civil service used to be the domain of political cronies, jobs determined by who you know, not what you know. But that all changed after a disgruntled worker who lost his job assassinated President James A. Garfield. The Pendleton Act, passed in 1883, established the merit system where civil service jobs were based on qualifications, not political favors.

        The Mandate claims that the non-partisan, "merit" system became out of control over the years, so now it is virtually impossible to fire civil  servants even if they aren't doing the job. Several presidents going back to Jimmy Carter tried to update hiring practices and employee evaluations, but cost-of-living pay increases have overrun merit increases. That seems to be the Mandate's real complaint against civil service jobs -- pay and benefits are equal to Fortune 500 companies and exceed that of smaller businesses.

         Let me get this straight, the Mandate thinks the greatest country in the world should not compete with the biggest companies for the best employees.Surely that's not the point this section is supposed to be making. 

        The Mandate solution is to make sure every agency and department is headed by a political appointee--not as a political favor you understand, but just to insure that the President's policy is being carried out and appropriations are properly approved. 

    Is this what they mean by "dismantling the administrative state"? Returning to the cronyism of 150 years ago?

Self-governance

   Before I leave Kevin Roberts' introduction to Project 2025 I must mention a major contradiction in terms -- that is all about terms. 

   "America’s corporate and political elites do not believe in the ideals to which our nation is dedicated—self-governance, the rule of law, and ordered liberty," he writes. "They certainly do not trust the American people."

    Wait a minute. Isn't it the conservatives, the group he champions, that doesn't trust a woman to make choices about her own medical care? That doesn't trust people to choose who they want to marry? And refuses to hear the wails of a teen struggling to accept a gender that just doesn't fit? They certainly don't want to allow self-governance for anyone whose choices don't agree with their own. 

    And how does Roberts suggest we deal with this disparity? By eliminating certain terms from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists." Those terms include:

• sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”)
• diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), 
• gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive,
• abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights

   Roberts equates transgender ideology with pornography, as addictive as any drug, he says.

   "Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders," he suggests. 

      It's no surprise that a few pages later in the section examining the executive office of the President, the Mandate for Leadership advises elimination of the Gender Policy Council and replacing it with a special advisor to the president on family life. 

   As long as that family's life doesn't have any of the terms that have been eliminated.
 

   
 

  

 

 

Pot calling the kettle black

     In the forward of Project 2025's  "Mandate for Leadership," Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts enjoys name-calling. "The Left" gets the ugliest titles he can think of like "socialist" "global elites," "The Great Awokening," and "Marxist academics." 

     He bemoans the “enlightened, highly educated managerial elite" that run things rather than the "humble, patriotic working families who make up the majority of what the elites contemptuously call fly-over country." 

    He writes,  "Intellectual sophistication, advanced degrees, financial success, and all other markers of elite status have no bearing on a person’s knowledge of the one thing most necessary for governance: what it means to live well." 

    I think it is  kind of ironic that Roberts insists on listing his degree (PhD) after his name on the cover. Is he afraid someone reading the book might mistake him for a humble, patriotic working man?

      He also has a crazy notion that everything in the government is corrupt and unfriendly while private enterprise is caring and nice.

     " It’s not because grocery store clerks and PTA moms are “good” and federal bureaucrats are “bad,” he writes. " It’s because private enterprises—for-profit or nonprofit—must cooperate, to give, to succeed."

      Obviously he's never tried to deal with a cable/broadband company like AT&T or Comcast who are notorious for their inability to listen to customers. Better yet, try to negotiate with an insurance company. Grocery store clerks? He hasn't been in a store in a decade or more. Customers have to check out their own purchases in most stores.  There's no customer service anymore. 

       In fact, the best customer service I have ever received has been from government employees. I needed to apply for a passport a couple of years ago. I filled out all the paperwork online, got the picture taken, then went to my local post office and asked the clerk's advice on the best way to mail it. We decided on Priority Mail and I watched as the clerk threw it into a huge bin. 

       About an hour later, I realized I had forgotten to sign the application. I  went back to the post office on the slim hope that maybe my package could be located. The bin was now piled high, but the clerk got out a step ladder and patiently took the mail out of the bin looking at each Priority package until he found mine. Then he opened it, allowed me to sign the form, and resealed it without charging me a penny for his trouble. 

         My next best story about customer service happened a year ago when I called the Kent County Health Department.To my surprise an actual person answered the phone and was able to give me the information I needed in less time than it would have taken to negotiate the answering machine at most businesses. Hooray for the Kent County Health Department and the postal clerks and civil servants everywhere.

        Needless to say, after reading the 17-page Forward I am hoping the rest of the book has more facts and less name calling.