I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine. He is an air traffic controller in Denver. He was sharing with me the contents of the letter offering him his early buyout this September. He claims that a bunch of his buddies in there are seriously considering it. I asked him what he was going to do about it and he said that he was gonna stick around because it seems like as short staffed as they ar on air traffic controllers they are not paying him enough money. He sees it as an opp

Devils Advocate wrote:

I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine. He is an air traffic controller in Denver. He was sharing with me the contents of the letter offering him his early buyout this September. He claims that a bunch of his buddies in there are seriously considering it. I asked him what he was going to do about it and he said that he was gonna stick around because it seems like as short staffed as they ar on air traffic controllers they are not paying him enough money. He sees it as an opp

That's interesting - how can they be offering buyouts when there's a national shortage of controllers?

Even if your buddy doesn't want to move, seems like the smart bet is to take the buyout and then re-apply for an opening that's bound to come up somewhere.  Of course, depending on the buyout he may find himself out of work longer than he wants.  Of course, if he's willing to move he may negotiate a better offer while still employed.  And the buyout could contain poison pills if he accepts a similar position nearby, but that's probably unlikely for govt buyouts (especially for jobs that may be unionized).

I've seen a few articles referencing a lawsuit and claiming controller shortages are because open positions have been held for DEI candidates, even passing over qualified non-DEI candidates while continuing the search.  If that's true, Trump is going to have a field day.

iclfan2 wrote:

Mexico tariffs appear to be paused now. Those seem like the more important ones than Canada. 

Yeah I saw that Trump had paused to tariff after Mexico called him up. 30 days to see if they intend to uphold their side of things. 

Also I heard a news blurb and did I hear it right? Trump has to stop the movement of high powered guns into Mexico?

Yeah, this font sucks

Trudeau could throw a real wrench in things if he says "OK, while we're using tariffs to force security compliance...we'll clean up the fentanyl if you do something about all those illegal guns coming into Canada..."

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Yeah I saw that Trump had paused to tariff after Mexico called him up. 30 days to see if they intend to uphold their side of things. 

Also I heard a news blurb and did I hear it right? Trump has to stop the movement of high powered guns into Mexico?

Yeah, this font sucks

It appears Trump agreed to help curtail the trafficking of rifles to the cartell from the US and Mexico is sending 10k national guards to the border to help curtail illegal immigration but targetting drugs (specifically fentanyl).

gut wrote:

Trudeau could throw a real wrench in things if he says "OK, while we're using tariffs to force security compliance...we'll clean up the fentanyl if you do something about all those illegal guns coming into Canada..."

Looks like Canada backtracked as well.

iclfan2 wrote:

Looks like Canada backtracked as well.

I've flipped on this.

Dumb on me, as I thought the tariffs started 2-1. The EO was on 2-1, and tomorrow was the day they were going to kick in.

So, going forward I highly doubt the tariffs actually kick in. It's a tactic and like most things Trump says, I'll focus on his actions and when they kick in now. 

The market is pricing in the uncertainty. 

gut wrote:

That's interesting - how can they be offering buyouts when there's a national shortage of controllers?

Even if your buddy doesn't want to move, seems like the smart bet is to take the buyout and then re-apply for an opening that's bound to come up somewhere.  Of course, depending on the buyout he may find himself out of work longer than he wants.  Of course, if he's willing to move he may negotiate a better offer while still employed.  And the buyout could contain poison pills if he accepts a similar position nearby, but that's probably unlikely for govt buyouts (especially for jobs that may be unionized).

I've seen a few articles referencing a lawsuit and claiming controller shortages are because open positions have been held for DEI candidates, even passing over qualified non-DEI candidates while continuing the search.  If that's true, Trump is going to have a field day.

DOGE baby. 

I've heard the same thing about the fork in the road emails. 

I still am mystified that Republicans in Congress are going along with what Musk is doing.

It's gross Executive overreach. 

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

DOGE baby. 

I've heard the same thing about the fork in the road emails. 

I still am mystified that Republicans in Congress are going along with what Musk is doing.

It's gross Executive overreach. 

I'm not sticking up for Trump because I don't like flurries of EO's... but would Congress ever "betray the system"? Even Dems are behaving rather conservative when it comes to protecting the system that they all have become accustomed to. 

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

I've flipped on this.

Dumb on me, as I thought the tariffs started 2-1. The EO was on 2-1, and tomorrow was the day they were going to kick in.

So, going forward I highly doubt the tariffs actually kick in. It's a tactic and like most things Trump says, I'll focus on his actions and when they kick in now. 

The market is pricing in the uncertainty. 

I actually did bake a spiced pound cake with a honey drizzle instead of icing, though it had nothing to do with tariffs 🤣

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I'm not sticking up for Trump because I don't like flurries of EO's... but would Congress ever "betray the system"? Even Dems are behaving rather conservative when it comes to protecting the system that they all have become accustomed to. 

The system as in the Constitution? Article 1 is pretty clear. 

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

The system as in the Constitution? Article 1 is pretty clear. 

No and don't play coy, it doesn't suit you. 

CenterBHSFan wrote:

No and don't play coy, it doesn't suit you. 

Nothing in the Constitution gives Musk the current authority he has to cut government without oversight or input from Congress. 

I still know a number of folks in the DC region. My Wife talked to her college roommate tonight and in their friend group are several folks that work for USAID and have contracts with them.

 Friend would travel to Africa for virus prevention often. She is on leave and fully expects to be unemployed in a month. They are scrambling to find other jobs in the Healthcare space right now. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/us/politics/musk-federal-government.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Good article on the amount of power Musk has amassed with zero Congressional oversight. 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2025/02/03/elon-musk-mike-flynn-columbus-lutheran-social-services-see-homeless-choices-doge/78181093007/

Story today I  saw and heard today while at an event. 

My firm works with folks to get environmental clean up grants and funding.  Think old dirty sites.

Well, a lot of that funding has now been on hold, or frozen.

We have some communities that have delayed awarding dollars to local firms to clean up sites. 

Spoke to a few other communities today and they are not sure ans worried they may have to abandon their plans for redevelopment.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution gives Musk the current authority he has to cut government without oversight or input from Congress. 

Nothing in the Constitution gave the intelligence community the ability to spy on Americans without any legal path either, but they did it. Millions and millions of times. And when they got exposed we were supposed to believe that Edward Snowden was the bad guy. There is a great argument against the way he did it. But we won't see it coming from you, will we?

Nothing in the Constitution allows the same entities to purposely lie to the FISA courts a few dozen times in order to hoax the American public and engage in political fuckery either but they did it anyway. 

Those same intelligence agencies are supposed to catch out political persecutions - not participate. But participate they did. 

All of those things and more you never once called them out. 

STFU about bringing up the Constitution, you don't  believe in any of it as long as it works out for the people you want it to work out for. Or against. 

Got to be fuckin kidding me

Government oversight committees are a joke. Those same people think exposing government corruption is a traitorous act and get apoplectic when somebody doesn't parrot on command.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution gave the intelligence community the ability to spy on Americans without any legal path either, but they did it. Millions and millions of times. And when they got exposed we were supposed to believe that Edward Snowden was the bad guy. There is a great argument against the way he did it. But we won't see it coming from you, will we?

Nothing in the Constitution allows the same entities to purposely lie to the FISA courts a few dozen times in order to hoax the American public and engage in political fuckery either but they did it anyway. 

Those same intelligence agencies are supposed to catch out political persecutions - not participate. But participate they did. 

All of those things and more you never once called them out. 

STFU about bringing up the Constitution, you don't  believe in any of it as long as it works out for the people you want it to work out for. Or against. 

Got to be fuckin kidding me

Does that make what Musk is doing ok to you then?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Does that make what Musk is doing ok to you then?

No it does not.

But your high and mighty partisanship is something to behold.

For the record I want our federal govt reduced by at least 57.7%.

But I would like it done in the correct old fashion way, which means it is never going to happen.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

No it does not.

But your high and mighty partisanship is something to behold.

If you say so, at least you acknowledge Musk is in the wrong. I'll take that. 

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

If you say so, at least you acknowledge Musk is in the wrong. I'll take that. 

I never said if it was right or wrong. 

I said I wasn't ok with it. Not much is going to make me happy. I'm just an old malcontent.

And really, I don't think you give a shit if Elon Musk is slashing budgets. You would probably support it if Biden appointed Mark Cuban or Liz Cheney to do the same thing. I think it would be safe to assume that they would save taxpayers around $2.10.

I think the weird thing about Musk's role is that there's been no vetting or approval vote, like with actual legit Cabinet positions. It's just a rich spaz buying his way into influence, being handed a position and doing what he wants with apparently no oversight. I mean, it is entertaining to watch Ds do what they do best (holding conferences to talk about how this is bad while offering no insight on how to counter it, as if THIS will be the time that impotent criticism with no actual action is finally gonna work for them), but not a big fan of this in general.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I never said if it was right or wrong. 

I said I wasn't ok with it. Not much is going to make me happy. I'm just an old malcontent.

And really, I don't think you give a shit if Elon Musk is slashing budgets. You would probably support it if Biden appointed Mark Cuban or Liz Cheney to do the same thing. I think it would be safe to assume that they would save taxpayers around $2.10.

Wow. You couldn't be wrong as usual. 

I've been pretty consistent over the years, that I am not in favor of Executive overreach and wish Congress would grow a spine and take back their oversight powers. 

I've long detested the use of Executive Orders going back to Obama as I knew they were temporary and only band aides. Hell, I bashed Biden for his, especially on the student loan front. I have pretty consistent that only real change can come from Congress, to address immigration, budget reform, taxes, defense budget reform, SS, etc. 

I would not be at all for what Musk is doing if it was from the Democratic President.

It is wild just one person can go in and just slash and gash whole departments and agencies without any oversight. 

The Constitution is pretty damn clear on Article I and II. 

It's obvious from your posts you do not understand how the federal budget and process works. That's ok, the media sucks at educating people about it.