Washington Swamp Dwellers crying is good for America.

The Swamp Dwellers at the Bureau of Land Management won't be able to rub shoulders with lobbyists any more.  Bo-freaking-hoo.

Opponents of the Trump administration’s plan to break up the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the country’s public lands bureau are warning of a brain drain, saying many staffers who are being reassigned are opting to quit rather than move out West.
U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt defended the move Friday.  

Opponents have projected that the number of Bureau of Land Management staffers agreeing to move from headquarters could be as low as 15%, which Bernhardt said was “not consistent with what I’ve seen.”

I just took an informal poll of every Active Duty servicemember I've ever served with, and they all told me that they don't give a shit what some sniveling little swamp-dwelling bitch thinks about moving.  They could lose every employee they have in the move, and I'd say the entire bureau would still be greatly improved.

You do not need the entire department of any US government agency consolidated in D.C.  In this day and age, I don't even need to be at my unit in order to do my job - I should know, as I've worked from home, from vacation, from other TDY trips, etc.  I can do my job from anywhere.  I'd prefer to do my job from the middle of an isolated mountain with an enclosed and heated cigar smoking area, but the Army hasn't seen fit to provide me with that yet. 

Still, the point remains that the only reason to keep all these people in Washington D.C. is to make sure they can rub elbows with all the right rich and politically connected people who they really answer to, instead of answering to we the People.  We Normal Americans, who are quite honestly sick of their bullshit.  I hope none of them make the move.  I hope it's a clean sweep and we get all new people from the heartland of America moving in to those jobs.  Let the Swamp Dwellers stay in the swamp and stab each other in the back for the reduced numbers of gummint jobs that remain.

This is what success looks like.

Regulations at lowest count since records began being kept in 1970's.

The next time to meet a NeverTrump "conservative", ask them who else other than maybe Ted Cruz would have done this.  Donald Trump isn't a politician.  And that's what they hate about him.

Still not tired of Winning.

I think the EPA should be located in Minot, ND.

Because the cost of living is much lower there than it is in Washington D.C. which means you wouldn't need to pay people over six figures.

We all know military pay isn't high, but bureaucrats don't come cheap. The average benefit package includes 10 federal holidays, 13 sick days and 20 vacation days — that's four weeks — a year. The benefits alone cost taxpayers just under $23 billion a year. 

The report even suggests that the government has an unofficial minimum wage: $100,000 a year. That's the minimum average salary for 78 out of 122 federal departments and agencies, although some individuals make less. Even so, the report notes, "29,852 federal employees out-earned each of the 50 state governors receiving more than $190,823." 

It used to be people went into government to do good. Now, apparently, it's to do well.

Move the Department of Energy to some place in New Mexico.  Or Arizona.  The Department of Education can build their headquarters in Wyoming.  Move some other department to Mississippi, and another to Nebraska.  All of those places are much, much cheaper to live than Washington D.C., and it will do two things:  Allow you to hire people for less money, and de-centralize the bureaucracy that currently infests D.C.  We can see exactly how dedicated these people are to their jobs when they can't hob-knob with fancy lobbyists at all the right bars and clubs.  We'll see how much they love their jobs when it's -30 with a windchill even lower than that, and they still have to report in to the office.  We'll see what kind of "public service" is offered when the nearest five-star restaurant is an hour drive away.

And quite honestly, if that makes a bunch of these pukes retire, so much the better.

Let the Sequester happen

How many Federal union jobs can we get rid of in one swipe?  I want to find out!

This explains Nanny Bloomburg

Kevin Baker links to a post called Moral Communism, that explains how the Marxists first make a behavior immoral, then pass laws to ban it.

So finally I get back to the Moral Law. Moral Law in anglosphere societies has, in the past, been fairly limited in scope, addressing a limited range of “vices” generally inherited from the Christian moral code. There was remarkably little even of that prior to the nineteenth century- it was the Church’s job to look after our immortal souls, not the secular law’s job. Prostitution was generally legal, beer was unregulated, you could gamble as much as you like, and so on. Henry VIII introduced the Sodomy Law, inherited from canon law when he nationalised the Church, but that seems to have only been really used against egregious pederasts. Even Oscar Wilde was only persecuted because he was blatant, foolish, and The Marquess of Queensberry’s other son was being buggered by the Prime Minister Lord Rosebery, who was beyond the infuriated Queensberry’s grasp for obvious reasons.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Reformers and Progressives began expanding the Moral Law sphere. Temperance laws, obscenity laws, and so on. But in the past few decades we have found entire new spheres of human activity come under the Moralist system. Our interactions with other people; what we may say to them or about them, how we may generally treat them, the treatment of animals, the treatment of homosexuals (protected) and paedophiles (damned). Smoking, of course. And, in emulation of non-Christian religions, even the foods we eat or how fat we may be. And of course, that huge new moral sphere, “the environment”.

NYC bans Trans-fats, smoking in public, salty foods.  California bans smoking and a host of other things.  Taxes on tobacco.  "Soft drink" taxes.  How many things have been banned or taxed for "our own good"?

So instead, they go for a two stage process. First of all, they persuade people that some Damned Thing is immoral. Then they show that the free market allows or encourages that immoral thing. Then they can say, “well, we wish we didn’t have to do this, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to intervene in that part of the economy, to stop the Damned Thing, sorry”. This leaves the free marketeer floundering around having to try to justify the continuance of the Damned Thing in the name of some nebulous “liberty”. And then they say, “so your selfish desire for “liberty” means this Damned Thing must go on?” and you lose the argument in public, because most of the audience have been persuaded that there is a moral crisis that must be addressed, and you are a heartless asshole who just doesn’t care.

And Bingo.  I've had the "heartless capitalist" argument used against me more than once.  It was effective until I pretty much became heartless in the context of the "pore 'n starvin", having dealt with them far too often when I lived in Seattle and found out that they're poor and starving because they refuse to hold a job, or they're strung out on their drug of choice.

The only way I know of to counter this argument is to show the Marxist as a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the "damned thing" at all, he only wants more government control.  And that's not an easy thing to do.