Energy Department Refuses President-Elect Trump Request for Information

US Department of Energy

US Department of Energy

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Scientific American, The US Department of Energy has refused a request from President-elect Trump’s Energy Department Transition Team for information about what their people do on their work time.

Energy Department Refuses Trump’s Request for Names on Climate Change

Trump’s transition team asked for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers.

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump’s Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers.

The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect’s energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place.

The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years.

Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said Tuesday the department will not comply.

“Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people,” Burnham-Snyder said.

“We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department,” he added. “We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.”

He added that the request “left many in our workforce unsettled.”

Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-department-refuses-trumps-request-for-names-on-climate-change/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_NEWS

In my opinion this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.

I say defund the lot of them. The few important roles they perform, such as overseeing the handling of nuclear material and nuclear waste, can be transferred to other departments.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
nigelf

Yep, this isn’t going to go down too well with the Trump team. Watch the axe fall soon after inauguration, as it should.
Who the hell do these people think they are? When the incoming President asks for information your only response is Sir Yes Sir!

Menicholas

January 21st.
Pink slips to the entire department.
As for the necessary jobs like mentioned above: Make them train their replacements in other departments.

Gamecock

Agreed. The entire department. They produce no energy, just hassle those that do*.
*Which describes 500 federal agencies.

Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Across the country every last one of them lost their jobs and were legally banned from ever working for the federal government. For those of us alive at the time it was an amazing step. Something everyone believed was impossible. From that point onward no one doubted anything Reagan said..
Look for something similar early in the Trump presidency.

MarkW

Reagan was only able to fire the air traffic controllers because they were in violation of their contracts, which contained a no strike clause.

karl

LOL — that cannot happen — per lots of legislation. But keep thinking that.

Sam J

You do not seem to know much about the DOE. Google “W88” that is what the DoE does. The DOE has nothing to do with oil drilling, coal inning, etc. that would be the Dept of Interior.
[Please follow site policy and use only ONE user-ID, login-ID, and email address. .mod]

Michael Jankowski

Pink slips…and replace them with immigrant workers on visas. There will be a hole in the matrix.

“LOL — that cannot happen — per lots of legislation. But keep thinking that.”
I dunno… this is a public records request coming from the HIGHEST requesting authority. Failure to turn over those documents is essentially a federal crime. Firing people for a crime I would think is entirely within his rights.

jst1

A request is just that. On January 21st, everything changes.

A request is a phish….
They have just put up a giant neon sign: “Dig Here First!” and bring dynamite and steam shovels…
Evety OTHER department owes them a big debt for placing the target directly on themselves…
Idiots. The correct approach is to say yes, then take 4 years to do it… (assuming they want to block effective action).

graphicconception

@E.M.Smith: Good point, well made!

oeman50

Yes, E. M. Then they can say, ” At this point, what difference does it make?!

karl

@ E. M. Smith
Tell me which Senator or Congressman will vote to cut jobs in his state?
The only people affected will be the SES appointees. Those appointed by the POTUS — which are quite few.
Good luck trying to fire or demote any of the rest

bit chilly

karl, despite what they may think,they are public servants. everything they do should be available to the public that pay their salaries.

Pop Piasa

Are these bureaucratic units ever audited by the government that created them? They appear to be creating autonomous empires within the system. I can’t imagine any of the academic departments where I was employed refusing the Governor’s request for info., what give these folks the audacity?

A belief in entitlement, Pop.
They honestly do not see a connection between their paycheck and their obligation to provide honest services to their employer.
I think ego is the basis of such delusion. In reality, it is not all about you.

On further reflection, Pop, I have a story for you:
As a manger, I was giving a talk to a group of union employees about the details we were trying to do for our customers. Most of them really cared about doing our best, because they lived among and were actually customers themselves.
One of the guys shouted out “I work for the union, not you.”
I asked him, “What if I didn’t sign your check?”
Most everybody got it. Not him, unfortunately. He remained a surly, dirty and slovenly man.
Later, I found myself in a position where I could have summarily fired him under the union contract, considering prior disciplinary actions. With the help of my Ops Manger, we found a solution to “suspend” his termination, pending some draconian requirements.
The man almost starved to death over the next 12 mounts of his suspension in Alaska. He came back clean, sober and a great man. Everybody was happy to have him back. We were all brothers, helping those who fell.
Sadly, in the Federal government system we can’t do that. Reduction In Force (RIF) is the best we can do. We CAN spend some money to get the laid off people other jobs. It is ONLY MONEY.

They had a good example, and they simply followed the strategy of their boss for the last eight years. I imagine the more zealous DOE climate crusaders feel nothing but pride for the immense executive over reach they were key players in. It’s going to be tough to accept that the game is over.
Time to clean house.

More on the idea that it is ONLY MONEY!
Seriously, given the billions of dollars we are throwing around daily, what is a few bucks?
PEOPLE are more important than MONEY. Read that again: PEOPLE are more important than MONEY.
That doesn’t mean you throw away money. Wasting money hurts people. Spending money intelligently to help people is smart.
Do government bureaucrats, in the aggregate, spend money intelligently?
Do individuals, in the aggregate, spend money intelligently?
My conclusion? Let many PEOPLE spend lots of MONEY intelligently to help PEOPLE. That means projects, jobs, family, whatnot. Otherwise, let government bureaucrats spend your MONEY.

What makes them bold is that they are Dems and Dems are slaves to the party in return for early pensions and endless unearned bonuses. That’s how Dems keep getting voted back in, with endless bribes, endless holidays, 8 week vacations after one year’s service, it’s maddening.

Paul Penrose

Sorry Charlie, I have to disagree. Why should I want someone to take my money to help me? I can take care of myself. And if I want to help others, that should be my choice, not yours or anybody elses. Forcing me to help others does not make me virtuous, but it does make you a bully and a thief.
That said, I do believe that people who can afford to, should help others less fortunate. Especially those close to them. But “should” is not “must” and that’s where I draw the line.

RockyRoad

These folks at the DOE concoct “stories” (lies) about the climate so their refusal to transition properly to a new management team is not surprising at all.
They’re so brash they’ll probably sue for cruel and unusual termination when they’re issued pink slips, too!
(That will be fun to watch.)

Griff

It is your political opinion that these are lies…
Their evidence is in line with scientists working in universities and govt departments worldwide, including (for example) in China.
How come all these people are telling the same ‘lies’?
Sacking them without investigation as to the accuracy of their research, reports and figures would be a cover up, surely?

Analitik

So what are they hiding Griff, that they won’t name those working on defining the “truth”?

catweazle666

“It is your political opinion that these are lies…”
No Grifter.
It is our considered opinion based primarily on the science of climate and observations of the conduct of certain “scientists” – for example Mann and his “Hockey Team” – that they are lies.
The conduct of the catastrophists such as yourself with your mendacity and obvious paid-for advocacy merely reinforces those opinions.

MarkW

As always, Griff has a mighty loose definition for “data”.

Gamecock

Maybe the Trumpster is setting up Perry . . . like he did Romney. Make Perry head of DoE, then eliminate DoE!
Bwahahaha.
Mr. Trump, make Jeb Bush head of Dept of Agriculture (which grows nothing, just hassles those who do), then eliminate DoA. 🙂

Gamecock

On the other hand:
‘Former Texas Gov. Perry picked to head dept. he once sought to abolish’
Maybe Trump is granting Perry his wish.

CapitalistRoader

Their evidence is in line with scientists working in universities and govt departments worldwide, including (for example) in China.
How come all these people are telling the same ‘lies’?

Because telling the truth would leave them without jobs or with severely reduced income.

I can’t imagine what will happen when he sends that list to NASA. He can fire all of them outright, I don’t even think he needs congressional approval.

Well said, Nigel the Elf! I love how the Brits think they can comment freely on the crappolla going on here on the other side o’ the pond. Speak up, mateys!

johnofenfield

As a Brit what Trump is about to do to the EPA is a Godsend to us. We are now paying an extra 325 GBP every year in every household for green energy & this is going to almost double by 2020. If Trump destroys the IPCC & all those expensive organisations such as NASA GISS maybe our purblind politicians will take notice. That’s why we are cheering him on. Your domestic arrangements are yours to deal with but we are hoping for a global impact. PLEASE.

George Hebbard

It has always piqued me that the Department originated to reduce USA dependence on foreign energy has totally failed in it’s mission. I want my money back!

Michael J. Dunn

A history moment: The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was established in 1946 to supervise the continuation of the Manhattan Project. In 1974, it was superseded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which included the regulation of commercial nuclear power, and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). In 1977, the present DoE was established to consolidate these and other agencies in response to the 1973 oil crisis.

dan no longer in CA

An additional difference is that the AEC had a mandate to promote nuclear power. Today’s NRC does not have that mandate. They can continue to regulate until the industry is strangled.

stock

However, we know the NRC is captured. Their inspections are tough, their actions are weak.

At Michael J. Dunn, A neat summary of organizational history. How does that compare with permitting?

•The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.’s Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina. — Source: eia.gov

Charles Higley

Was the Department of Energy one of the three departments that Rick Perry one time stated that he wanted to dissolve? He could not remember the name at first, which made it memorable. Now he is the Head of the DoE. They should be scared.

1. What does the Department of Energy have to do with Climate?
2. Wasn’t it the DOE that funded the Mann hockey stick studies?
3. Isn’t CAGW and Climate about STOPPING energy?
4. Shouldn’t DOE be about PRODUCING energy?
5. It sounds like DOE is funding studies OPPOSING its own mandate.

Henning Nielsen

DOE = DOA? At arrival of new administration, that is.

Sam J

The DOE builds and maintains the US nuclear weapons mostly. So you are saying trump will fire nuclear weapons engineers? The DOE has nothing to do with regulation of carbon, oil drilling , coal mining. It’s a science and engineering.

catweazle666

“So you are saying trump will fire nuclear weapons engineers?”
I don’t think anyone’s said that they’re going to nuclear weapons engineers, Sam.
You seem to something of a lurid imagination!

SamJ
Nope. You are wrong. (Or reading from a democrat’s fake news briefing sheet. )
The DOE spends part of its budget on nuclear energy security – But NOT very much.
And NONE of the huge budget increases they are requesting the next fiscal year – ALL of which go to secure IRAN’S nuclear weapon program and increase the energy bills here at home due to wasteful and exaggerated “new” energy programs, and more and more energy department bureaucrats.
Following is copied from THEIR own web site, not your false and exaggerated claims.

Overall, the FY 2017 budget request for DOE represents a 10 percent increase above the FY 2016 enacted level, reflecting the importance of DOE’s work enabling the transition to a low-carbon secure energy future, and leading America’s research for discovery and innovation. It also continues important work to protect public health and safety through the Department’s commitment to cleaning up past nuclear weapons production while also maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile and advancing the President’s commitment to controlling and eliminating nuclear materials worldwide.
As part of the United States’ commitment to Mission Innovation, the U.S. government will seek to double the $6.4 billion that Congress provided in FY 2016 for clean energy R&D to $12.8 billion in FY 2021. The FY 2017 budget makes good on this commitment by proposing $7.7 billion in discretionary funding for clean energy R&D across 12 agencies, an increase of about 20 percent. DOE’s proposed FY 2017 clean energy R&D budget of $5.85 billion represents 76 percent of Mission Innovation investments.
The budget also proposes the creation of the ARPA-E Trust, which creates the needed funding stream to allow ARPA-E to expand its scope to address larger scale, more complex energy challenges than can be currently supported under its already successful program. The proposed trust would provide $150 million in FY 2017 and a total of $1.85 billion over five years to ARPA-E, increasing ARPA-E’s total budget by 70 percent from $291 million to $500 million.
To complement a national R&D effort, the budget also proposes new “Regional Clean Energy Innovation Partnerships,” creating up to 10 centers that will engage universities, industries, investors, labs and others to work toward technology-neutral clean energy breakthroughs that support regional needs.
The budget request also includes $12.9 billion for the nuclear security program managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, $357 million over the 2016 enacted level, that will support implementation and monitoring of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran to prevent that country from building a nuclear weapon, along with DOE’s core activities of maintaining a safe and secure nuclear deterrent and preventing the proliferation of nuclear material.
Other highlights of the FY 2017 budget include:
$6.1 billion for Environmental Management to address the obligation to clean up the nuclear legacy of the Cold War, including $271 million to maintain critical progress toward returning the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to normal operations, with the goal of restarting limited operations in 2016.
$5.67 billion for Science to continue to lead basic research in the physical sciences and develop and operate cutting-edge scientific user facilities while strengthening the connection between advances in fundamental science and technology innovation.
$2.89 billion, an increase of 40 percent, for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to continue a diverse suite of sustained investment in development of renewable generation technologies, sustainable transportation technologies, and manufacturing technologies; and in efforts to enhance energy efficiency in our homes, buildings and industries.
$1.3 billion for 21st Century Clean Transportation to expand investment in transportation technologies of the future, establish regional fueling infrastructure to support the deployment of low-carbon fuels, and accelerate the transition to a cleaner vehicle fleet.
$994 million for Nuclear Energy to support vital ongoing R&D in advanced reactor technology as part of a low-carbon future.
$600 million for DOE’s Fossil Energy program to advance carbon capture and storage and natural gas technologies, and $257 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the system’s durability and reliability and begin addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance.
$262 million for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability grid modernization activities to support a smart, resilient electric grid for the 21st century and fund critical emergency response and grid security capabilities.
$8.4 million for the Office of Technology Transitions to help get technologies out of National Laboratories and to the market.

MarkW

Step one) Fire the administrator who refuses to follow the orders of his boss. (The president)
Step two) Fire the assistants who refuse to follow the orders of his boss.
Later, rinse, repeat until one of two things happen. You find someone who will follow orders. There is nobody left.
Either is acceptable.

johnofenfield

“You’re fired” is a phrase which Trump knows full well how to say, when and to who.

karl

None of that has occurred. The President Elect — has no authority currently. He is not anyone’s boss.
Aside from political appointees (the Senior Executive Service) — it is almost impossible to fire a federal employee.
In fact, there is a whole lot of legislation that protects federal employees from just the kind of retaliation you propose.

It is not nearly impossible to fire Federal employees.
Appointees are supposed to submit their resignations. The incoming President is under no obligation to accept resignations from productive employees.
All SES employees are managerial staff and subject to the same hire/fire privileges and obligations are most businesses managerial staff. Every Federal Executive Service (SES – Senior Executive Service) employee can be fired without notice. Many of the SES can beg off getting canned long enough to retire from Federal Service.
Civil Service Employees do have some protections. That doesn’t prevent them from getting fired, or easier done, having their positions eliminated leaving them without a job.
I stated before that I had a boss who didn’t mind firing people, even if it was technically illegal. A few years of fighting in court and they’re ready to cooperate or allowed early retirement.
Before he became my boss, he brought an entire data center of over 1,000 employees into line, (yes, Federal Civil Service).
All it takes is incentive. The boss gets his incentive from his superior, who usually makes it clear whose position is short lived if results are not achieved quickly. That was my boss’s incentive going into the data center as the third boss that year (as I remember).
He fired summarily anyone who refused to follow orders. That woke up a lot of people. Most of those who were fired for refusing to perform their duties were canned forever.
Everyone was reassigned. Those that preferred or were accustomed to working days, got night shift. Those that like working nights, got day shifts or afternoon shift.
Employees that thought they had a right to be upset or angry got fired. Many of these won the right to return to work, but most took their court ordered award and left.
Every employee’s work was scrutinized and a lot of positions were eliminated if their work wasn’t considered essential.
Oddly, most employees still employed worked hard, very hard.
This boss had a simple motto.
A) He assumes everyone is intelligent enough and trained enough to work hard and be productive.
This boss called that managing style, “Management by Whim”.
B) When the boss is not continually surprised by the quality and over achievement of his employees work he begins to resort to identifying specific objectives, duties and deliverables every employee must show for their work. Starting with a daily list for each direct report on what they are expected to achieve, every day for every employee.
The boss called this “Management by Objective”.
C) When management by objective fails; the boss has no choice but to resort to the final management style.
The boss called this fall back management style, “Management by Terror”.
At the data center, he discarded both of the first to management styles by the end of the first day. On his way home, he stopped in an automobile parts store and bought a lead headed handle, that us amateur car mechanics know as a persuader or a lead hammer.
When some employee was whining about their work, work load, co-worker, non-work problems, supervision, whatever, in the midst of the sob story this boss would go into a frenzy and beat up a trash can or desk with his lead persuader, then leave. The employee’s supervisor would get a message about requiring a solution to the ‘problem’.
Few employees need second demonstrations to get their acts in order. People learned not to stop and chat, call friends on the phone, stand at copiers, leave early, clock in after their scheduled time… Lots of little time wasters.
If a job really needed more than one person, the workload got shifted. People who were underworked suddenly started searching for “more work”, before their positions got cut.
Any job or business can be straightened out. Any non-performing or reluctant employee can be fired. All it takes is workers who document employee failings properly. It may take a year or more, but it is doable.
Even n the Federal Civil Service.

karl

@ATheoK
It seems there were a lot of people that didn’t know how to work the system, because the 13s, 14s, and 15s I know would have fed that Boss his lunch in a week.
All it takes is several complaints substantiated by multiple employees — and unless a Tier 2 or Tier 3 SES is covering and providing juice — guys like your Boss get censured and reassigned.
“Excuse me sir, I am not refusing to follow your direction, however, I am exercising my right to confirm that your order is actually legal with HR, my union representative, and possibly the OIG.” Via email.

Jan Christoffersen

Nigelf,
Although I am sympathetic re: the request for information, I am not sure the incoming administration has any right in law to expect compliance. Everything changes on January 20, 2017.

george e. smith

“””””….. The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect’s energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place……”””””
Well there won’t be any friction if no staffers remain in place.
I seem to recall, that Pres. Ronald Reagan fired all of the Air Traffic Controllers.
G

karl

The Trump transition team disavowed requesting the info TODAY — and stated the person responsible is being counseled.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/14/politics/energy-department-litmus-test/

Perry

It was a shot across the bows to see what further “persuasion” would be needed to obtain a change of course. Those questions were not assembled by one person. The XO ordered the gunners to fire. The Captain stood aloof & is now in discussion with his XO about “crossing the T” for a broadside.

Wally

After all, they are paid by taxpayers and we have a right to know what they have been up to at our expense.
Heads roll after 1/20.

DavidB

Trump could fairly easily re-organize many of the departments he controls. As much as Nixon put them together, someone can rip them apart and re-make them.
I keep hearing people say it’s impossible to fire government employees, no, it’s very simple. You get rid of their job completely.

What does the law say about this? In my country, see https://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/3.5
which says Ministers “should not be involved in their departments’ day-to-day operations.” I suspect that the identities and professional society memberships of low-level workers would be very much outside the scope of what a Minister is allowed to “be involved in”, even the Prime Minister himself. I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA had similar rules, in which case, while I agree that it is reasonable for the Trump team to *want* this information, and any businessman would expect it to be delivered promptly, it *may* be that the rules of the political system say that they can’t have it. In fact the request would be regarded as an egregious breach of the rules here, and the DOE’s refusal as a courageous act of principle. Because of what the rules are.
Perhaps someone who understands the US system could explain?

markl

I’ll speak from my 30 years of knowledge and experience as a manager. People’s personal lives are off limits to an employer unless it affects their work on the job. An employer, be it private or government, is well within their rights to know everything an employee is doing while at work. Everything. If an employee uses their employer relation for anything it must be with the approval of the employer.

It looks like draining the swamp is objected to by the leeches and muskrats.

Yup. Great analogy.

stock

Uh ya know that is kind of an insult to Muskrats

Neil Jordan

And leeches.

Pat Frank

Ernest Moniz is the Energy Secretary. He has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and was head of the science team that negotiated the Obama Administration’s nuclear pact with Iran.
He is also a believer in AGW, stating during a talk that climate models do a pretty good job of simulating the climate.
As I recall, in his first days at Energy, he forbade his staff to publicly state a critical view of AGW. This seems to me to be at least as chilling as anything implied by the Trump transition team question about names of those attending UN-sponsored climate conferences.

Pat Frank

By the way, does anyone know whether the Trump team 74 question set is unprecedented with regard to information requests of the transition teams of prior administrations?
Context is everything.

There is no need for an energy dept., they sit around collecting checks and then bonuses for doing absolutely bupkus. Flogging is too good for them. 24 hours in the stocks is more like it.

Sam J

yeah, good idea like wh needs nuclear weapons engineers?

Muskrats are nice animals, leeches not so much.

Pierre DM

“Muskrats are nice animals”
Not inside your fish shanty. First hand experience

change muskrats to toads and scum.

Phil

I suppose we would need to define what they mean by “independence.” They are part of the executive branch.

sciguy54

Exactly, Phil. Are they employees or are they independent? One thing Trump has lots of is the skill to find out where something stinks and how to get rid of it before it endangers a project. You are either a valuable part of the team or independently watching progress from outside the fence. The Trump team may be slowed by this tactic, but I would bet that the brainchild of it will be the first to gain “independence”.

They are parts of the gang of problem makers planted by the party to throw monkey wrenches into everything Trump intends to do. There are thousands of them, maybe tens of thousands–who knows? Obama is the most poisonous bastard ever to be in the White House, and he and his weasels are going to do all the damage they can between now and 2020; you never saw a more bitter bunch than Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and that witch of a man, Schittface Schumer.

Interesting times ahead.

RD

Friction equals you’re fired for cause, with no unemployment benefits.

stock

And no pension.

These chimps collect pensions after only a few years. There ought to be a law but the Dems prevent making anyone responsible for doing anything but being Time Servers and then Collectors of Huge Pensions.

Oh, come on!
They are protected by government unions.
Destroy whole bureaucracies, or live with the zombies.

You can live with Zombies, just always have a baseball bat with a big spike in it for when Zombies come calling. There is no living with Union Workers, they will eat us all alive eventually. Have you seen Detroit, the whole city is being devoured by Unions and Inner City Vandals, neither of which can be stopped.

Pierre DM

All union contracts have procedures for eliminating problem employees. It is spineless bosses that don’t follow procedures that fosters entrenchment zombies.
Every request must be in writing complete with timeline and followup procedures and violations written up the same.
With large construction projects in major cities, Trump is well aware of how the union contracts work. Bureaucratic always-in-government managers never feel enough incentive to follow through and go along to get along.

EW3

“They are protected by government unions.”
Federal employee unions were illegal till JFK signed an executive order permitting them.
President Trump can negate that EO with the stroke of a pen in 30 seconds.
Unions should be very careful.

markl

Didn’t know that was an EO!!! Learn something new every day 🙂

karl

@ EW3
Sorry — you are incorrect. The right to form unions for federal employees is protected by STATUTE
The 1978 The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
The Statute: § 7102. Employees’ rights
Each employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right. Except as otherwise provided under this chapter, such right includes the right–
(1) to act for a labor organization in the capacity of a representative and the right, in that capacity, to present the views of the labor organization to heads of agencies and other officials of the executive branch of the Government, the Congress, or other appropriate authorities, and
(2) to engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by employees under this chapter.

CapitalistRoader

Yeah, Congress need to dump this crap:

” SUBCHAPTER I–GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 7101. Findings and purpose
“(a) The Congress finds that–,
“(1) experience in both private and public employment indicates that the statutory
protection of the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate
through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them–,
“(A) safeguards the public interest,
“(B) contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and
“(C) facilitates and encourages the amicable settlements of disputes between
employees and their employers involving conditions of employment; and
“(2) the public interest demands the highest standards of employee performance and
the continued development and implementation of modern and progressive work
practices to facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient
accomplishment of the operations of the Government.
Therefore, labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the
public interest.

No better time than January 2017 to do so.

karl

@CRoader
You do realize that military service members are covered by the law? Why do you want to take the right to be in a union from our servicemen and servicewomen?
Are you anti-military/

karl

@ CRoader
Furthermore, it would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL suppression of free-speech to prevent federal employees from being able to join a union.
There is no compelling interest to deny the right to associate.

Karl, do you realize that you are wrong?

10 U.S. Code § 976 – Membership in military unions, organizing of military unions, and recognition of military unions prohibited:
(b) It shall be unlawful for a member of the armed forces, knowing of the activities or objectives of a particular military labor organization—
(1) to join or maintain membership in such organization; or
(2) to attempt to enroll any other member of the armed forces as a member of such organization.

Why are you anti-American?

catweazle666

“Why are you anti-American?”
I think he’s a Billary supporter suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.
It takes some of ’em like that.

@Karl:

Furthermore, it would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL suppression of free-speech to prevent federal employees from being able to join a union.
There is no compelling interest to deny the right to associate.

Wow. Your use of all caps completely changed my mind.
Just kidding. Employees have no right of free speech in the workplace. And they can associate all they want, they just shouldn’t be able to collectively bargain. The federal government should have no obligation to recognize any federal employee organization.
See, Karl, unions are perfectly fine in competitive environments. That way if a union gets too greedy and/or management gets too stupid, the unionized company in question can go bankrupt with little impact on the majority of citizens. Government entities, however, are monopolies. Greedy unions and greedy politicians have every incentive to fork out lots of taxpayer $$$ because, hey, everybody wins, right? Except for taxpayers who end up holding the bag. See Bankrupt Cities, Municipalities List and Map for the end result of any government employee union.
Ban federal employee collective bargaining.

karl

@ capitalist — so wrong lol
It says they cant join “military labor organizations” — which are defined as
“(2) The term “military labor organization” means any organization that engages in or attempts to engage in—
(A) negotiating or bargaining with any civilian officer or employee, or with any member of the armed forces, on behalf of members of the armed forces, concerning the terms or conditions of military service of such members in the armed forces;
(B) representing individual members of the armed forces before any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, in connection with any grievance or complaint of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of military service of such member in the armed forces; or
(C) striking, picketing, marching, demonstrating, or any other similar form of concerted action which is directed against the Government of the United States and which is intended to induce any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, to—
(i) negotiate or bargain with any person concerning the terms or conditions of military service of any member of the armed forces,
(ii) recognize any organization as a representative of individual members of the armed forces in connection with complaints and grievances of such members arising out of the terms or conditions of military service of such members in the armed forces, or
(iii) make any change with respect to the terms or conditions of military service of individual members of the armed forces. ”
They can join any union they want that does not violate the above section; for instance a Union that lobbies Congress for changes to the laws regarding soldiers.
Members of Congress do not fall under the definition of “civilian officer or employee”

commieBob

It’s a meaningless gesture by someone with nothing to lose.

Pat Frank

You’re right, cB. They can say that the present Energy Secretary forbade them from providing names, which may very well be true. They’d be required to follow his directive.
Therefore they’re not being defiant, in a formal sense. They’re just following required protocol.
The top of the hierarchy at Energy will be replaced anyway, following January 20. So, as you observe, they’ve nothing to lose by their actions, and everything to gain in virtue points with the desired audience.

Menicholas

Replaced by former Texas Governor Rick Perry.
Perry famously ran for President with a policy position of disbanding the Energy Department!
He had a momentary brain lapse and could not remember the name of the department, which tanked his campaign.
Under his leadership, we will hopefully all be able to forget all about the department when it is no more.

I don’t see how they can get a directive not to provide names. Isn’t that a government job? Isn’t it supposed to be public information? When did us paying for them get to be something they can keep from us? Unless it is top secret.

Lee Osburn

“Top Secret”
BINGO Shelly. And what if this top secret billet is preventing the public from getting the information we need to make proper judgements about our present government? There seems to be a magic lining around them and protecting them from prosecution. DOE, DOD, EPA, and the rest of those ,,,’s should be in fear of losing their job, pensions, and no telling what else. Popcorn in the microwave already…

Jeff Alberts

“He had a momentary brain lapse”
Not so sure it was momentary. He was on DWTS, after all.

karl

@ Shelly
It seems that the request for individual employees by name and membership could be a violation of the Privacy Act. Even IF it came from Trump after the Inauguration.
Employee consent is required to release personally identifying information within or without Agencies of the Federal Govt, with 12 exceptions.
It’s not routine (the WH does not routinely review what meetings individual employees attend) — so that exception to employee consent is out
It’s not in response to a criminal investigation — which would come from DOJ — and go to DOJ, not to the WH – so that exception is out
and the other 10 don’t apply

Firing time!

I agree, though for the present time they are legally in the right, but not after Trump takes office.

Javert Chip

I wonder if they have the legal right to refuse legitimate transition team requests of a duly elected president.
It certainly gives Trump & his Energy secretary-designate Rick Perry reason to massively reduce funding.

Pat Frank

I’m actually unhappy with the Rick Perry choice. He never struck me as a bright bulb.
Apparently he has a BS degree in “Animal Science,” previously known as Animal Husbandry. He later trained as pilot in the Air Force, flying C-130’s.
I don’t recall anything special in his stint as governor of Texas,either. Any Texans here can correct my impression. But he doesn’t really seem to have any creds for that position.

A common theme of the Democrats is to portray most of their opponents as stupid. Rick Perry did serve three terms as Governor of Texas, and the state did fairly well relative to the rest of the country. I have heard Perry on talk radio, and he generally did rather well in that format (admmitedly friendly). Much of the impression of Perry came from the 2012 primaries, when as it turned out, Perry was on rather heavy pain meds for a back injury.

RockyRoad

Seems they’d want to curry favor with the new administration, but they’re so steeped in stupidity they can’t see past their paychecks.

joelobryan

Pat,
If Trump’s goal is to dismantle the climate hustle, Perry is a good choice.
If your goal is to maintain and modernize nuclear weapon stockpile, Perry’s a poor choice.
I can see where this headed.

Well, flying C-130s isn’t all that simple. He probably has some amount of skill. “Animal Husbandry” is sort of humorous, but all it means is he’s probably the son of a cattle rancher.

karl

@javert
Well — POTUS isn’t actually elected until Dec 19th — all that voting is for show — the Electoral College does the actual electing.
Only 5 or 6 states invalidate an EC vote that is unfaithful to the party winning the State vote, the rest have NO CONTROL over how the electors actually vote.
Furthermore, while highly unlikely — the Electors can vote for ANYONE, they don’t even have had to be on a ballot.

TG

Pop corn and beer. This will be a smackdown!

toorightmate

The Energy Department has just expedited their restructure.

Robber

Drain the swamp.
Eben Burnham-Synder is the Director for the Office of Public Affairs. Eben leads communication of DOE’s policies, innovations, and breakthroughs to Americans and the news media to help keep the public better informed and involved in the energy and security issues of our time.
Before joining DOE, Eben spent nearly a decade working in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, including work on legislation to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, reduce carbon emissions, and expand the use of clean energy like wind, solar, and carbon capture technologies. He is a Boston native, a Wisconsin Badger, and a gym rat.
Eben, you’re fired!

Given the tone of his communication, I assume he believes he has a safe landing back at the Congressional staff he came from. Do Dems have enough positions for him?
One should avoid irritating the new boss.
Clueless twits be, though. Evidence Brandon, Jim D, Willard, etc.

HIGH-HORSE BUREAUCRATS! 🙁 THEY WANT TO GET FIRED AND REPLACED IN JANUARY?????

Stonemason

Going to be pretty hard to write pay-checks if the department doesn’t supply the incoming administration with the names that would go on those checks. And, shouldn’t the names of individual employees and what they do be publicly available considering they are ‘public servants’ (paid by taxes)?

R. Shearer

Many are contractors.

South River Independent

The contracting officer and his representative will know who is working on each contract and what they are tasked to do. Contract deliverables (reports, and other technical data) will provide the results of the work. Every government contract can be cancelled at the convenience of the government.

Rhoda R

Contractors are easy to fire, they don’t have civil service protections. I wonder if a FOIA request for the travel vouchers over the last four years would perk things up a little bit.

Are attendance rolls at such public mettings public? Seems like a reverse lookup of all attendees vs US Gov payroll ought to be enlightening. ..

George Tetley

No money, no paycheck!!!!

Having “been there, done that” DOE budget people must please their Congressional counterparts. Refusal to discuss programmatic details will get a program cut.

stock

Yep, eliminate all their stupid redundancy, that will be about 50%
Then eliminate all the lying, thats another 25%
Just cut their budget 75% and I bet they are more responsive next request.

Chris

What’s the word I am looking for? Hmmmm. When someone is attacked over being a skeptic on AGW (say a university professor), WUWT readers are up in arms. When Trump asks for a list of AGW believers, presumably to take punitive action, you’re all for it. Oh yeah – hypocrites, that’s the word.

It would seem reasonable, that if some personnel are working on issues (such as CAGW) that the incoming administration doesn’t want to fund, that they ask how many people are involved with these issues, so they have an idea of how many personnel can be assigned immediately to other tasks. These are scientists, after all, and they work on whatever they are told to work on. There is no such thing as independent research in the DOE complex. It is all funded with a cost-code at some point. If some of the cost-codes are going away, wouldn’t it be nice to have a plan for what to do with these scientists?

Chris

Where is your evidence that the President gets to decide every single area of research? Are you going to tell me that Trump can tell the NIH to stop working on diabetes research? You realize he is not a King, correct?

Phil

@Chris
There is supposed to be a constitutional framework consisting of three equal, but separate, branches of government. These people work for the executive branch. What undemocratic alternative are you proposing?

Janice Moore

Chris: You are the one who made the claim that such an exercise of power is ultra vires. Given that this type of action has become SOP in Washington, D.C., YOU have the burden of proof to show that POTUS does not have such power. If Obama can constitutionally tell NASA that one of its main objectives will be to boost “Muslim self-esteem,” then Trump can determine the research focus of an executive agency. You can’t have it both ways. Further, even though this and many of Obama’s orders were ultra vires/unconstitutional orders it does not make Trump’s getting the DOE back on the observation-based science track also uv/un-const.
Prove Trump cannot do what Janice the AE said.
or
Prove Obama was wrong to do what he did (and there are many other such examples of Obama determining agency objectives).
Just prove SOMETHING. As it is, you have proven nothing. And doing that for you is not Janice the AE’s job.

blcartwright

Some of the things they do are set by statute, as written by Congress. Others are determined at the discretion of the Secretary, presumably within guidelines established by law. The 74 questions were quite clear and asking which were by statute (only Congress can change) and which were discretionary (the president, the secretary and his deputies can change)

MarkG

“Are you going to tell me that Trump can tell the NIH to stop working on diabetes research? You realize he is not a King, correct?”
You realize that 90% of Federal government jobs are unconstitutional, correct? There’s nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to have a Department Of Energy.
Trump needs to cut about $1,000,000,000,000 off of Federal spending to have any chance of avoiding bankruptcy. Eliminating those 90% of jobs would be a good start.

MarkW

Chirs, he’s the head of the executive branch, of which DOE is a part. Which means he does get to decide what they work on.

karl

@ Mark G
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
— Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
duh

karl

@ all
No, a POTUS cannot tell the NIH to stop working on diabetes research. Even if he issued an Executive Order, it would be UNLAWFUL — as all funding for the NIH is statutorily directed through legislation. Any TYPE or KIND of research that is identified as allowable or specifically identified for execution becomes approved once the POTUS signs the budget.
POTUS CANNOT veto by line item — it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL per SCOTUS.

Chris

Janice, if you know how the federal government works, then you will know that bills defining budgets and allocations of budgets for programs are contained in funding bills. The President does not get to (for example) say he/she wants to eliminate research for diabetes at NIH. It doesn’t work that way.
And Janice, you haven’t proven anything, you’ve made statements. Big difference.

Another Doug

Key word: presumably.
Also, there is a YUUGE difference between government employees attacking professors or those in the private sector, and the head of the Executive branch asking for names of employees in the Executive branch. So no, that’s not the word.

Janice Moore

Chris: Re: presumably to take punitive action
Being fired or being refused publication or suffering in other ways because you have serious doubts about AGW conjecture is
NOT A VALID PARALLEL to
simply being asked what you have done in your job and professional life.
You are confusing:
1. “Attack”
with
2. “Ask.’
Yes, they both begin with the letter “a.” That is about all they have in common.
Your presumption is mere speculation. You are prejudging. In other words, you appear to be prejudiced against Trump and or science realists, thus, you wrote the illogical paragraph you did.
Further:
If Trump wants to have an energy department working TOGETHER toward goals based on science facts, he needs to fire those whose career has been spent fighting against those goals.
This is simply common sense. An organization needs to work as a TEAM.

Chris

Janice, the same thing could be said about every other topic or area of research in the federal government. What kinds of drugs are researchers at NIH working on? What kind of diseases? What kind of projects are the Army Corp of Engineers working on? It’s ludicrous to assert that this is a normal information gathering exercise, when this is not being done in other departments.

Phil

@chris
Please give us a break. There has been two decades or more of stonewalling on data, on adjusting data without disclosing the adjustments, of claims of “non-partisanship,” of wanting to prosecute those who may disagree on the science, on preventing papers from being published, on starving skeptical and published scientists of funding, etc. It’s time that they are put in the position of actually supporting their science. If the science is sound, that would not be a threat. That they have decided to stonewall is very eloquent.

Exactly, Janice. They were just asked a simple question with no hint of retribution or punishment. On the other hand, the libs have continuously been preaching that skeptics should be jailed and even killed.
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (skeptics) — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” -David Roberts, Grist Magazine

Janice Moore

Chris: re: the same thing could be said about every other topic or area of research in the federal government.
So what?
That Trump can’t clean up every swamp simultaneously means he ought not clean up the DOE swamp?
Logic, Chris!
Try using it.

Chris,
How do you know it won’t be done in other departments? How do you know it isn’t already being done? DOE employees were so “unsettled” THEY took the story to the press. Why would people who have done nothing to worry about do such a thing?
I hope the new president DOES go through every single department with a fine toothed comb and eliminates all the waste, redundancy, and bureaucracy he finds. Flying to expensive and futile climate conferences all over the world=a HUGE carbon footprint….not to mention a taxpayer pain in the arse…how sad that such heros of “science” must be sheltered from all inspection. Maybe they need some coloring books and some cocoa along with a safe place to hold out until the big, bad man goes away.

Menicholas

“…the same thing could be said about every other topic or area of research in the federal government. What kinds of drugs are researchers at NIH working on? What kind of diseases? What kind of projects are the Army Corp of Engineers working on?”
One obvious difference is that pharmaceutical research, and investigating diseases, and Army Corp engineering projects are not based on lies and supported only by political propaganda.
Another difference is that many of these legitimate fields of inquiry are being starved of funds to feed to CAGW propaganda army.
If Trump is serious about his campaign promise to cut spending and get rid of waste, he can start by doing exactly what many have said they will do but none have done…actually dissolve an entire bureaucracy.
His hiring of Perry to lead the department indicates he will likely to what none have done before.
Firings and layoffs, and transfer essential functions to other departments.
If you are a government research scientist in the field of climate science, you should be looking for your next job.

Crispin in Waterloo

It seems to me that the DOE alarmists and fine wine and dine party goers are worried the new administration will do exactly the same things to them they have been doing to the climate realist community.
They need not fear. The incoming group are not nearly as corrupt and venal as the CAGW crowd.

Ahhh, Crispin. People are people.

Duncan

If I can call a spade a spade, I do see the list of questions as a shakedown of the DOE and hard to defend as ambiguous but my response is > Suck It Up. If the new administration asked similar questions of how many NASA scientist are currently looking for life on Mars, department budgets, etc. as they wished to reallocate these resources to other, in their view, more important departments, that is their prerogative. Of course many of these scientist and general public would get upset.
What is funny about all the bemoaning by the DOE/EPA using ‘their’ words, the SCIENCE IS SETTLED. Why is more research needed, the chickens have come home to roost. You’ll always have winners and losers, don’t cry into your Starbucks coffee. Renewable’s are commercially viable, they will prevail in the end (according to the experts). Don’t get worried.
And just think how good the “wall” will be as a Flood Barrier in 50 years, climate mitigation defense at its best. I really hope Fake News did not make you believe this is to stop illegal immigrants (lol). Also if Russia ever invades Mexico, while setting up an email hacking network, it will stop them too.

Leo Smith

“One obvious difference is that pharmaceutical research, and investigating diseases, and Army Corp engineering projects are not based on lies and supported only by political propaganda.”
I wouldn’t be surprised….if half or more of them were. In times of peace and plenty, no one actually really cares how much taxpayer money gets channelled into make work projects for cronies.
I worked on defence projects years ago. At least 75% of the money was thrown down the drain. To be honest that was about as good as we could get it, given the state of technical ignorance of governments and the military.
Today its probably nearer 90%.
As a rough guide assume 9 out of every 10 tax dollars are wasted, and begin there….

Chris

Phil, the science is sound. That’s why the Fortune 1000 believes it and is taking action on it. I love how skeptics here on WUWT focus their comments on scientists only. Ignoring the fact that the world’s top companies, the insurance industry, the oil and gas companies – all believe that AGW is real and that action needs to take place. And it’s not just “liberal” companies like Apple and Google, it’s Walmart, BP, Anheuser Busch, etc.

Phil

@Chris (11:54 PM)
Please don’t confuse business with science. When the environmentalists prohibited incandescent bulbs, the price of a bulb increased between 5 and 10 times. The businesses selling bulbs loved it. If businesses can figure out how to profit from something, then they will be all for it. Your logic is political and without regard to the scientific method. One of the companies that stood to profit the most from CAGW was Enron, after all. ‘Nuff said. The anti-watermelon argument is a logical fallacy. This is not a choice between market economics and science. This is a choice about public policy based on sound logical scientific reasoning, without recourse to hoaxes like the hockey stick, gimmicks like turning off the air conditioning before a hearing and trying to use criminal laws (RICO) to try to stifle dissent.

Janice, you amaze me. It is beyond remarkable how WUWT has enlightened you. I remember when you were naïve and first posted here. Remember me talking about my pet spider.
Thanks for being you, my finest compliment.
Your eternal friend, stan.

George Tetley

@ Janice Moore
+ 1,000

to Chris:
Your comment, “this is not being done in other departments”, is missing a word. It should say “this is not being done in other departments, yet”. You seem to think that anything done by government is done for reasonable and logical reasons. That is incorrect. Everything done by government is for political reasons. For instance, the research into HIV/AIDS. It has produced results that “look promising”. It has done that for a good 30 years. Same with fusion reactors, producing results that “look promising”. It is not logical to continue research, throwing money away, for results that continue to “look promising”, and “we’ll probably have a breakthrough in the next five years”. It’s time to cut to the chase, and make the decision to quit funding projects that will never give the results that certain political entities want.

Janice Moore

Stan!
🙂 Thank you!
Yes, I remember Schmidt. How (shudder) is she? And the little birds on the rail (much lovelier to contemplate)? Are they still giving you joy, and vice versa? And it was so much fun to talk about Libby, too… . Is she okay? (I ask in a very quiet voice…)
“Naive.” Well. If you say so, lol. To me, I’m just the same ol’ Janice, a 10-year-old in a very good disguise who has done a lot of reading.
You are STILL one of “the giants” — your mind is sharp and you are obviously well-educated, but, it is your great heart that makes you stand so tall. Glad you are here.
Gratefully,
Your friend,
Janice
**********************
Also, thank you to George — much appreciated! 🙂

Janice Moore

Well said (every comment), Janice the Elder!
With admiration,
Janice, Junior 🙂

MarkW

Companies respond to the political environment. Nothing new there. Neither is it proof that AGW is real and something to be worried about.

Chris

“That Trump can’t clean up every swamp simultaneously means he ought not clean up the DOE swamp?”
Haha, Trump played his supporters, and they (apparently) are still being played. Trump has “drained the swamp in DC” by appointing all insiders or major donors so far. So much for draining the swamp.

Streetcred

#ExxonKnew … ring your bell?

No. All I get is a dull leaden thud of propaganda.

Hivemind

If you actually look into what #ExxonKnew, you would find out that they knew the computer models were garbage and unfit for purpose. Just like 30 years later – Faith In, Confirmation Out (FICO).

Chris,
Nice try. But no dice. Trump did not ask for a list of “AGW believers”. His transition team had a long list of requests, and one of them was a list of conference attendees…the word “believers” is not in play, so logical fallacy. And we have no idea for what reason, punitive or otherwise. If you view a new boss asking for a detailed list of employees, what they do, where they go, what they are working on, and what associations they belong to that are sponsored by the company dime “an attack”, then surely you spend a great deal of time defending every single corporate employee from such outrageous (punitive) behavior every time a company changes hands!
hint….If you’re not out there doing that, you’re a hypocrite.

Janice Moore

+1
(and — Hi, Aphan! 🙂 )

katze50

+1

Mike the Morlock

Mark T December 13, 2016 at 8:13 pm
“and he ultimately approves their funding (or lack thereof).”
Mark, ah no. The president can veto funding and congress can over ride the veto.
Since it is a republican congress I don’t think Mr Trump will have any trouble defunding unneeded departments.
This is going to be fun to watch.
michael

Chris

Nice try, Aphan. He did this in one department, so your statement is false that this is a general, business as usual request.

Ed Bo

Chris:
Have you actually read the questions? Aphan is completely correct, there is nothing in any of these questions asking in any way, shape, or form about any scientists’ beliefs.
There are a couple of questions about who participated in what governmental activities (on the taxpayers’ dime). These are completely valid questions.
The government scientists I have worked with over the years (in less politicized labs) have always been prepared to showon a moment’s notice presentations of their work. Some even keep an easel in their office with posters at hand. I teased one about this, and he told me that since taxpayers were paying his salary, he was obligated to be able to justify his work.

And they were proud of it.

gnome

I have no reason to suspect anything other than that their new boss wants to send them all a Christmas card. No-one in their right mind would deny the new Secretary the right to demand any information about his department he cares to ask.
Where in the world does the public service set its own priorities and interests? Not in any democracy I can think of.

Chris

OK, let’s do this. Please tell me which past President, of any party, asked for these kind of detailed questions, on a single topic, from a single Department, prior to assuming office. Take your time, I’ll wait. Bush II was a climate skeptic, but did nothing like this.

Phil

@Chris (12:01 am)
Another logical fallacy. Precedent is not required. This is normal business practice. Why should government be exempt?

Hivemind

“Please tell me which past President, of any party, asked for these kind of detailed questions”
In Australia, this sort of detailed briefing is normal procedure for every incoming minister (in your terms, secretary). I can’t think of any reason that such procedure wouldn’t be normal for every western government, the US included.

MarkG

“Bush II was a climate skeptic”
Bush II was a cuck.
Look, it’s really simple. The left have grown used to being able to do whatever they wanted because the cucks wouldn’t do anything to stop them. They’ve banned or bankupted entire industries. They’ve attacked and defunded those who oppose them. They’ve forced people out of their jobs because they won’t go along.
The right have grown sick of it. They’ve been nice, they’ve tried to reach an amicable compromise, and the left have crapped on them.
So they’ve said ‘no more Mr Nice Guy’. Now, any tactic the left have used is fair game. If Trump sacks every single one of these people, not a tear will be shed, and the response to cries of ‘But that’s not NICE!’ will be ‘But we don’t care’.
You’re not in Cucksas any more. The left wanted a Culture War. Well, now they’ve got one.
They’re about to learn why you never want to make the Saxons hate.

MarkW

The media is only talking about one department, therefore the questions were only given to one department.
It never ceases to amaze me what qualifies as proof to a warmist.

Lee Osburn

Maybe Don just wants to talk to them. He seems to be getting around to talking to people without writing a letter to them but, talk is really cheap. It also seems that it is out in the open. That is when talk becomes a commodity that becomes worth more than money. Insiders are everywhere.

Chris

Gee, Trump has retracted the list of questions, and said it was a mistake in judgement by someone on his transition team. So much for your arguments that this is business as usual.

Mark T

The difference is that Trump is the DoE’s boss and he ultimately approves their funding (or lack thereof). He also appoints all of their senior leadership, who serve at his pleasure.

@Chris: Nice trolling….
There is a dramatic difference between attacking independent folks for thinking AGW a farce, and The Boss asking just what his staff is working on and where they spend his budget.
One is intimidation, the other normal management legal obligation.

Chris

Sure, EM, the fact that he is doing this for one department, in one area only (not, for example, on research into fusion) is just random. I’ve got a swamp in Florida to sell you, are you interested?

Hivemind

Chris, research on fusion is real science. CAGW is just fraud. Please learn the difference.

Monna Manhas

Chris, how do you know he is doing this for one department only? The fact that only the DOE is complaining is NOT proof that no other department was asked similar questions.l

blcartwright

Chris, perhaps DOE is just the lowest hanging fruit. You do not know for certain that this hasn’t or will not happen to other agencies. Even if it only every applies to DOE, so what? The boss has a right to know what’s going on in his agencies. It’s the executive branch, and he’s the chief executive.

MarkW

Chris, you keep claiming that only the DOE is being asked questions, yet you refuse to provide proof to back up that statement.

DonM

Chris,
I had a client, about 12 years ago, that had 20 acres of ground (about 6 acres of swamp-wetland). I approached the BLM with the similar question … “is there funding left to purchase wetland?”
the answer was “Yes”
We sold the Feds 5 acres of swamp for about $45,000 per acre….
It was 25 years ago that the client had bought the entire property for $200,000.
So Chris, If the dems get back into power and create more rules that allow for purchase of swamp for “environmental benefit”, I’ll take an option on your swamp … let me know where it is .

Chris

Oops., EM, Trump has retracted the questions. So much for your statement about the Boss.

AndyE

Chris – you are paranoid. What on earth makes you think that Trump wants to take “punitive action”?? But even if he did he couldn’t – because you have laws in the United States, haven’t you?? People can only be punished there if criminal action can be proved. Trump would, I think, be hard pressed to prove that it is a crime to believe in AGW.

Me thinks Chris may be worried about his job. Trump is a business man, and he is going to look for dead wood wherever he can. Finally an executive who is NOT a career politician. Best thing that could happen for America.

Chris

Jvc, I’m a business man who lives in Asia. My job is totally secure and has nothing to do with government. I can’t speak for whether you are deadwood.

AndyE

Chris, you are paranoid – what on earth makes you think that Trump wants to “take punitive action”?? And even if he did, he couldn’t – because in the US there must be proof that you have committed a crime before you can be punished. And I think Trump would be hard pressed to prove in a court of law that it is a crime to believe in AGW!!

MarkW

The P word gets you sent to automatic moderation.

Chris Hanley

They could be redeployed researching climate change due solely to naturally occurring factors.

David A Anderson

Chris, “presumably to take punitive action” is the strawman assumption.
Yes, that is quite the assumption. Beyond that exactly zero WUWT posters are calling for persecution of workers or firing of professors because they argue for CAGW.
In fact most here would love to see real debate before a national audience; say Richard Lindzen, Christopher Monckton, Craig Idso against any alarmists.
Now if certain CAGW proponents were found to have purposely and falsely manipulated data with intent to deceive, then prosecution is welcome.
Beyond that, CAGW alarmists are happy to reach in and take from the pockets of others, whereas skeptics had no such motivation.

It isn’t hypocritical unless the critics profess to support study of the AGW hypothesis as a useful, then turn around and fire the people working on it Chris. What’s being done is the people who write the checks are asking for the names of the people they want to fire.
Nothing hypocritical about it. Look it up.

Hivemind

Chris, the work you’re looking for is turnabout. It’s no use whining when your own tactics are used back at you, since you’ve already established that they’re fair play.

Chris

No, that is not the words I am looking for, Hivemind. When did I establish they were fair play?

Man Bearpigg

Ah, so when were you last here feeling sorry for climate skeptics? What sort of ‘punitive’ action to you predict? The same that the skeptics got ? i.e. a loss of their livelihood. Remember it was the warmists pointing their fingers, but they don’t like it when the finger points their way and YOU talk about hypocrisy ?

M Courtney

If your boss asks for details of what you’ve done on your onw money in your own time you have every reason to be offended. Tell ’em to get lost.
But if your boss asks for details of what you’ve done on theirmoney in their time you really ought to tell ’em the truth.
There is no business where yo can get away with this. It’s an embezzlers charter.

ozspeaksup

well mate if they actually were proud and did good science..wouldnt they be GLAD to pin their name on their work and admit what they worked on?
to the people who provide the job the building they work in , and their wages?

MarkW

I love it when leftists assume that everyone else has evil motives.
Projection in action.
Regardless, these people work for the taxpayer.

Joel Snider

No. This is going after the fraud. AND the people who tried to abuse their authority. See, this is where the hypocrites finally get what’s coming to them.
The word you’re actually looking for is ‘Karma’.
And, oh YEAH, I’m all for it.

Chris

The fraud, they are going after the fraud!!!!! Yes, that “fraud” that has the vast majority of climatologists, the Fortune 1000, the oil and gas companies, the insurance companies, and the global investment community convinced.

catweazle666

You just don’t get it do you, Chris?
You really are entirely clueless.

Joel Snider

Chris – just because a lot of people go along with the fraud – for money, funding, or PR – or whatever reason – does not validate anything. In fact, that’s exactly the problem – orthodoxy has stacked the deck with political allies and they have advised/coerced the rest. If anyone was actually ‘convinced’ they would be going forward full steam instead of PR stunts (or faking emissions tests).
Your crybaby wails of ‘everybody says so’ is petulant and ridiculous.

“POTUS CANNOT veto by line item — it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL per SCOTUS.”
And yet Obama decided that people could sell marijuana, and use banks to deal with their drug money, even though it’s a violation of federal law. I could name a dozen others. Obama called the constitution’s bluff. Congress is powerless.

Joel Snider

Not ‘powerless’, ‘gutless’. They had the power to block him all along.

noaaprogrammer

Probably the “credentials” for a great many of them have nothing to do with what they are actually doing.

TA

Well, Rick Perry said he wanted to eliminate the Energy Department, and Trump is going to appoint Perry to head the Energy Department tomorrow. This ought to be fun.

Menicholas

The next four years are shaping up to be the most emotionally satisfying days of my entire life.
I suspect that many of Trump’s appointees are being hired to do specific jobs, and many will then depart.
The writing on the wall is that Trump and his team will go through the entire federal budget item by item and simply cross many of them right off.
It will be the most satisfying thing I can imagine to hear nightly of the list of government leeches and swamp rats to be fired that day.
i think it has not sunk in with many how drastically things are about to change…we have the first ever President who is not a career politician, and who owes nothing to anyone except the taxpayers of the US.
He will do the job like it has never been done before…like a businessman who takes over a company and simply fires people who are not essential to the bottom line.
This is how he will accomplish what his goal surely is…to be remembered by history as the best President the United States has ever had.
He knows full well that he cannot allow dead weight to remain and also do the other things he has said…balance the budget, spend on infrastructure, create jobs on a massive scale…make America great again!
I know many are thinking he cannot actually do what he says he will do, cannot really terminate an entire department.
Well, they also said he could not get nominated or elected.
The biggest surprises are yet to come…just wait and see.

Not quite. Dwight D Eisenhower was not a career politician. Most of the others are too far back, but perhaps I can nominate Ulysses Grant, and George Washington?

Keitho

Well said Menicholas, I agree 100%.
This is a wonderful time to be a conservative, and alive.

EJ

Hoping that you are at least 97% correct, : )
Although 100% would be wonderful too !

MarkW

dudley, it can be argued that the job of a general is mainly political.

karl

The line-item veto is unconstitutional per SCOTUS. The POTUS can’t cut spending he does not agree with — he either signs the budget as presented to him by Congress, or doesn’t.

Menicholas – Word for word, you’ve pegged exactly how I feel and how I see it. Never has a President had to unravel such a mess and never has one been so free to do so. He is no one’s puppet and no one’s slave. Donald Trump will get the job done, one can see it already in the choices he is making.
This is the most exciting time to be alive and I am so glad to be here and to witness the massive turn-around that is unfolding. I hope the whole world is dragged into line and the oppressive ideologies of the Left get thrown off once and for all. It’s been a long time coming.

George Tetley

Chis@$1,000,000,000,000,.com
do you drive a car ?
Well please bring it to me next time you require a fix, I could “work” a couple of hundred million $ into the bill.

With luck Congress will quickly change the laws pertaining to civil servants and public employee unions, but funding cuts are quick and fun too.

If they just go and cut 90-percent of the travel budget and forbid overseas travel….that probably is a good start.

I am personally aware of what happens when funding dries up on projects. The projects dry up, and go away, and so do the jobs associated with those projects. Most people working within the DOE complex have had projects disappear at one time or another. In some cases, it is possible to transfer over to a different project. Sometimes a person goes into a holding pattern, which can end in either another project, or in unemployment. Everyone in the DOE complex is dependent on the vagaries of funding. The continuing resolutions have been a real headache.

South River Independent

Janice is correct. If functions are eliminated and the budget is reduced, there can be a formal Reduction in Force (RIF), which is a formal process to identify the most qualified people to be retained to perform the retained functions and tasks. Those employees not retained can apply to other agencies that have open positions for which they are qualified or they can seek employment outside the government. (I survived a RIF at an agency where I worked and eventually retired after 29 years of government service.)

Jer0me

He he, Janice. I saw in one gov dept everybody ‘sacked’ (displaced) and they all had to reaply for their jobs. All the deadweights were forced to find other positions in the dept or redunancy. It was a delight to see, as a taxpayer!
Maybe Trump could try that one 🙂

Trebla

Insubordination: not obeying authority, refusing to follow orders. Not the best way to ensure continued employment in a cushy, government paid job, I suspect, but certainly providing ample evidence of bravado and courage as one falls on one’s sword.

kim

I loved the construction ‘Can you’ and remarked that it was a request that meant ‘Do so or demonstrate your deceit or your incompetence’. The reply is ‘We can but won’t’.
That is insubordination. It likely attempts to cover both deceit and incompetence and it will be a joy for Trump and Perry to uncover how much of each, for there are volumes to be filled with the tales.
===========

Rhoda R

Not insubordination yet. Trump isn’t President at this point. Just stupid and near sighted.

LOL. Worried much? 🙂

“We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.”
Wait…what? Are they saying that the names of who is on what committee, or who attended this or that, or who is working on what is NOT publicly available information? As tax payers, that information falls under the FOIA. And all it takes is looking up the expense accounts and/or international flights paid for by the department to destination cities during those time frames. Making the new BOSS dig for those stats is no way to get on the new BOSS’S good side.

Menicholas

He will not be their boss for long.
Count on it.
For many, their new boss will be the surly person behind the desk at the unemployment office.

Steve Fraser

+1

Jim Watson

The hunters have become the hunted.

This is more proof that the Energy dept needs to eliminated.

cary

Amazing response by political appointees who lose their jobs on the transition and a horrible situation for the career employees who are doing there job as directed by said political appointees. Maybe some of those employees should leak the answers. Gov Perry is going to have no problem finding the rats I believe.

Neil Jordan

Department of Energy was just trying to clean up the climate records and emails and stuff before Trump visits. Here is the [annotated “Downfall”] video:
https://youtu.be/bspbQJqI-h4

Janice Moore

THAT IS SUCH A COOL VIDEO!

Superbly well done.
Thanks for sharing that, Neil Jordan!
LAUGH — OUT — LOUD!

Menicholas

If you have a google account, any video you watch on any of your devices is automatically added to your history tab.

Menicholas

Sorry, inserted in wrong place…above comment should be down below a few spots.

Janice Moore

If anyone wants to add that video to their “favorites,” here is the youtube link (remove the — in the middle of “youtube” before copying/pasting it into your browser):
https://www.you —tube.com/watch?v=bspbQJqI-h4

tony mcleod

Here’s a much funnier one:

Gee… a spectacularly failed National Socialist bemoaning the present Global Socialist AGW policy failing… yeah, I can see the humor in that! Both completely out of touch with reality and imploding…

John@EF

I find these Nazi vids supremely ironic when the Trumpsters are probing to construct a list of those who must wear a yellow star.
[???? Just who is being persecuted by whom? .mod]

John@EF

[???? Just who is being persecuted by whom? .mod]
???? That rhetoric was used in the 1930s, too.

projection is the single most important “tell” of progressive social justice warriors: goebbels himself noted that effective propaganda was to accuse your enemy of everything you are doing. yes, supremely ironic indeed.

kim

Teacher Hillary sent me home with a gold star one day. It said I was ‘deplorable’. She was so pleased to award me that star.
====================

nankerphelge

Quite humorous really. What “…..many in our workforce (are) unsettled…..”. Isn’t the Science settled after all???
A Freudian slip of massive and portentous proportion!!
I guess there are many questioning Scientists who have also felt “unsettled” after being beaten up by all and sundry because they held different views. (Willie Soon, Roger Pielke Jr,, Bob Carter etc etc).
Grist to the Mill..

Janice Moore

@ all scientists-for-hire (by enviroprofiteers):
“You’re fired! — Donald Trump

lolol
The Energy Dept. employees have nothing to fear — if they have been doing honest, bona fide, science.
*******************************
ANOTHER GREAT ARTICLE — THANKS, ERIC WORRALL!

Joey

Looks like the firings start at the top!

jpatrick

If the head of the Foxes sent a formal request to the Hens to document how many eggs they had laid in the last year, the above is what we might expect from the Roosters.

kim

Heh, they’ve laid eggs alright, and they sit on them, and they still rot.
============

SAMURAI

It’s VERY difficult to get fired from a public-sector job, however, blatant insubordination of a lawful order is one action sufficient for immediate termination.
Trump and his administration must immediately fire anyone that’s insubordinate, and soon the message will be understood…
Trump and his administrators must also issue orders with very tight timelines or Leftist minions will just run the delay game.. Anyone that doesn’t comply with timelines also gets fired.
There is a new sheriff in town: comply or your career will die…
Make my day…. I hope many millions of public-sector employees quit or take early retirement and are not replaced. Attrition alone could balance the federal budget.

xxx yyy

” I hope many millions of public-sector employees quit or take early retirement…”
They do not have the intellectual/moral integrity to quit. Furthermore, they do not perceive that they are “off base”. Rather, they believe that the president-elect is the one who is “off base.”

SAMURAI

Most (not all) of government bureaucrats are in their cushy jobs because the pay, high job security and benefits are excellent with little concern about productivity, efficiency or merit as demanded by the private sector…
Yes, in the private sector, one has to show results or you’re fired…. What a concept…
Trump will try to create a private-sector meritocracy environment within the public sector, which many bureaucrats will find difficult, if not impossible, to work under.
Again, Trump’s new public-sector raison d’etre will be: comply to meritocracy or your career will die…
It’ll be very interesting to see how this plays out.

South River Independent

The usual sequence is to offer a buy-out to induce people to take early retirement. If too few accept, the next step is to do a Reduction in Force (RIF). See my comment at 8:53 pm, 13 Dec. for more info.

SRI, it is only money. I am not exaggerating: Money is the cheapest thing you have as a manager.
Spend anything you can to get rid of a poor employee. They destroy any chance you might have to satisfy your customers. In the public arena, customers are citizens.
More on this later.

Rhoda R

Frankly, I think that President Trump should eliminate all positions created since 2016 and RIF the current holders of those positions.

Are we sure there’s been any insubordination yet? Seems to me all this public noise is just posturing as long as it’s just a “transition team” in action. Does this team have any real authority at all? The DOE still works for Obama’s team, right?
Come January we may see a bit more cooperation from the career bureaucrats. The political warriors won’t last very long.

Robert Monical

I wonder if the travel vouchers etc. have record retention requirements.

Hivemind

Actually they do. They are, after all, the basis on which payments are made and essential in demonstrating correct decisions in any possible audit.

jimmy_jimmy

huh? Did he just provide ‘For cause’ in writing?

Janice Moore

I think he just provided some very nice evidence for “not a team player**.” Heh, heh.
** one of the approaches employment law attorneys use to get rid of difficult-to-fire bad apples in the U.S.

fizzissist

I’m excited to see what changes their mind on Jan 21st.

kim

You better think twice, have you been naughty or nice? The lumps of coal in the stockings on the 25th may change a few minds earlier.
What? You think Santa doesn’t know?
===============

Dems B. Dcvrs

“the department will not comply.”
Demonstrating the need to Fire a whole lot of Bureaucrats.
Smart professional response would have been, we respectfully delay answering questions until Mr. Trump is sworn as President. At which time we will provide answers to all questions.

Hivemind

Absolutely agree with this one. And it would be justified, since there is clearly a very large amount of work involved in preparing correct answers to each of the 74 questions.
To just flat-out refuse was clearly intended to publicly antagonize the transition team.

Spot on! They show themselves up as blatantly unprofessional. They need to go.

Glenn

“Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said Tuesday the department will not comply.”
From
http://congressional-staff.insidegov.com/l/3817/Eben-W-Burnham-Snyder
Details
Name Eben W Burnham-Snyder
Office Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA)
I was shocked to find Eben working for a liberal progressive democrat.

It’s worse than you think. Not only was he speechwriter for that buffoon and global warming blowhard Markey, prior to that he was Senior Communications Associate at NRDC (National Resources Defence Council – think board members Leo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google CEO Eric Schmidt – and before that account executive at Fenton Communications (famous host of the infamous Real Climate). An experienced propagandist. Time for him to hit the road.

LewSkannen

“I say defund the lot of them.”
I second that.

Steve Case

President Reagan said government was the problem, but he was just too nice of a guy to really do anything about it. Not so Trump. We are in for an internal government cat fight of epic proportions.

Menicholas

Reagan never had a Republican majority in congress.
The crucial difference.

Chris

Trump is proposing more federal spending, not less.

Chris, please go away. U R a troll.

catweazle666

F O O L.

blcartwright

He ain’t perfect. Here we are talking about the Good Trump. Hopefully we can reign in the Bad Trump on other issues.
Also, not all spending is equal. Get rid of the waste and fraud. Make sure the employees are actually contributing something. Basically, each department has a mission – a job to do. Anything else is unnecessary and hopefully eliminated.

Chris

Stan, thanks for expressing the power of your intellect for all to see.

Chris

catweazle – I’m hurt, just crushed, by what you’ve said.
/sarc off

Catcracking

Although not surprising, this seem to be an arrogant reply especially to someone is soon to become your boss. Looks like an awful start to your new manager. It would seem that the reply would have been better if they proposed what they could provide in reply to the request and give a better reason why it is difficult to reply to the specific request, the reason given is arrogant.
For example I assume their must be an organization chart with names on it which describes the various department and functions of the entire organization and sub organization charts giving more specifics for each sub department.
Furthermore working for a well managed engineering company, we were required to submit every year a comprehensive list of accomplishments for an annual review with our supervisor including goals for next year. These documents should be available for review
Also when I was an officer in the Army Engineers, I was in charge of a branch in the School of Engineers teaching maintenance and repair of some specific equipment and we went through a comprehensive audit where we had to justify the number of personnel in our branch considering the workload and number of classroom hours we were expected to provide.
Am I naive about how the government currently runs it’s various departments today? Based on my work in alternative fuels it seems to me that there are too many conferences going on with massive attendance such that the employees in the government have no time left to do any useful work. Apparently they want to cover this up?

PiperPaul

the reason given is arrogant
They assume they have public support, but they don’t.

kim

Heh, JMH at another blog just reminded me of President Reagan and the air traffic controllers.
========

Harold

First we had “Hope and Change”. Now we have Donald “Climate Change” and his socially liberal picks for cabinet positions. Yet y’all insist he’s some kind of monster conservative. Some kind of New York liberal.

Menicholas

Which are those Harold?

Germinio

This is exactly the right response. Public servants need to be protected from political processes so that
they can do what they are directed to do so without fear of reprisals from the next incoming administration.
If Trump wants officials who will do their best to implement new policies then he needs to ensure that they
feel secure in their positions and not subject to a witch hunt for doing what the previous administration told
them to do.
It should be noted that the transition team asked a list of 74 questions and the department is only refusing
to answer one. And ultimately Trump will have a better civil service as a result.

stock

SCrew that, they should follow truth, not the lies they were told to “prove”

kmann

What if the “Public servants” are part and parcel of the political process? What protection should they have?

David A Anderson

The incoming admin has the responsability to know every employee and their function. Not informing them of this basic information is ridiculous.

Geronimo, do you even read what you post? “they can do what they are directed to do so without fear of reprisals from the next incoming administration”
So it is OK to do what the old administration tells them to do, but not the incoming?
I’ll remember your intelligence level next time I see one of your posts.

A C Osborn

Yes, “I was just obeying orders” covers a multitude of sins doesn’t it.

blcartwright

Political processes such as the enabling legislation which spells out their roles? Or do they just reinterpret legislation and do their own thing?
Congress writes the laws which defines the scope. The Chief Executive, through his Secretaries, implements his policies within the law.

blcartwright

So it’s fine for one president to “fundamentally transform” things, but not for his elected replacement to decide to do things in a different direction?

Sean Peake

Three words: Air. Traffic. Controllers. Buh-bye

You're Fired!

Well guess what Department of Energy people? Your power as an agency is subordinate to the powers of Congress and the President. Under the separation of powers, all power is divided among the 3 branches of government. Agencies are not a branch of the government and can be dismantled at any time. They cannot deny the president the information he seeks because they don’t have the power to do so. They can be fired and replaced at will.

bill hunter

Well since Obama ordered complete cooperation, firing the persons responsible for non-cooperation would be appropriate even after Obama leaves office, unless of course Obama instructs them its OK to not cooperate.

Pat Frank: December 13, 2016 at 7:43 pm

Ernest Moniz is the Energy Secretary. He has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and was head of the science team that negotiated the Obama Administration’s nuclear pact with Iran.
He is also a believer in AGW, stating during a talk that climate models do a pretty good job of simulating the climate.

A physics PhD who says he believes in AGW is either: lazy (never investigated for himself), incompetent (can’t understand physics, the subject he is supposedly trained in), insane (lives in another world), or dishonest (knows the truth and says otherwise).

Pat Frank

Ron, the long-standing acquiescence of the APS and AIP in AGW still flummoxes me.

joelobryan

Swamp critters.

markl

I’m betting this will cause a flood of whistle blowers and that is the intent. The defense against AGW that has been denied for the past 8 years has begun. The debate that never happened but was settled will take place and be unsettled. Who and how complicity is determined and at what level will be what everyone worries about and that will drive the whistle blowers from the bottom up with everyone trying to save their skins. Can’t say I feel for any of them even though many were just protecting themselves and their families. This will be a nasty purge and I’m looking forward to it.

Menicholas

+ a whole big bunch

Jim G1

US Energy Dept., Born under Carter in 1977 and quickly had 20, 000 employees. Today 93, 000 employees and in 2015 a budget of $28 billion. Per wikipedia. Goal was to make the US energy independent and started off right away subsidizing alternative energy. So, how has that worked out? Let’s hope Perry can drain that end of the swamp.

stock

If they were all full time, that would be $301,000 per full time employee.
If some are part time, then the FTE rate is even higher. That is effing absurd!

Menicholas

$28 billion per year here, $28 billion per year there, and pretty soon your talking about real money!

Government employee FTE (full-time-equivalent) is not the issue. It is how many contractor employees there are.
The Federal government lies to us about how many people work for the government. The numbers have exploded with off the books people.

Mark T

The numbers cover overhead. $300k per employee is not out of the ordinary.

gnome

I think most of it went to Solyndra and Elon Mush.

karl

@stock
They fund lots of energy projects with loans — that’s where much of the money goes.
There are also many fellowships granted to researchers.

stock

@Karl, but they should also have a stream of incomes coming in also. So that doesn’t explain a very high Full Time Equivalent Cost

Gak! Another Carter boondoggle…. just say no to the loony legacy.

Chris

Most Western nations have departments of energy.

A C Osborn

Yes they do and they are ruining the countries they are in, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia to name but a few.

MarkW

Do you have any evidence that any of these DOEs do any good?
Or do you actually feel that everyone else is doing is doing it, is actually a valid defense of anything?

Chris

You do understand that research into fracking, which has given the US near energy independence, was funded by DoE when the private sector had given up, correct? DoE also looks after the nation’s nuclear arsenal, in addition to research in that area – 60% of the funding of DoE is in that area.

karl

@ Jim — astounding in how you present information
DOE simply combined FEA, ERDA, FPC and several other orgs.
BTW — 12 Billion is Spent on Nuclear Security (think mainly weapons)

The only goal for any government bureaucracy, is to spend every penny allocated for their budget so the next years budget can be inflated. Each promotion generally results in multiple hires as the newly promoted “director” needs to replace him/her self with an entire department to justify the promotion. Good friend use to sell computers for Dell—just before the end of the fiscal year, government orders for hardware would skyrocket–year after year.. Read recently that the DoD cannot account for some 6 trillion in funding–gone, lost in space, whatever. Would love to see the new POTUS reduce the size of the USG by about 50% if not more. Government should be run as any successful business is–no dead wood, no unproductive employees, no unproductive waste of funds.

stock

Yep, near zero duplication of effort.

R.S. Brown

Eric,
If each of the readers out here were to adopt ONE of the 74 questions included in
Willis’s report of 4 days ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-ugly-reality/
and turn that question into a Freedom of Information request to our Department of
Energy, the Department MIGHT have the answers by the time Trump makes the
transition from just a citizen to President.
Be polite. The FOI personnel at Energy are obliged by law to comply except when
secrecy laws are involved.

Actually, a helluva great idea! Grab one at random and go for it.
Thanks, R.S.

Walter Sobchak

In 1204 Pope Innocent III commissioned Arnaud (or Arnau) Amalric (died 1225), a Cistercian abbot, papal legate and inquisitor and tasked Amalric with the Albigensian Crusade. Cistercian friar, Caesar of Heisterbach wrote that, Amalric, when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered:
“Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”
“Kill everybody! Surely the Lord knows who are his”.

John in NZ

I just love the Albigensian crusade and for that matter anyone who has heard of it, but I am fairly sure that quote is apocryphal. It is a bit like one of the Simon de Montfort’s famous last words, ” They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist….”

John in NZ

To be fair, it was General John Sedgwick who really said that, but Simon (5th Earl of Leicester, not the more famous 6th Earl) was killed by a stone from a mangonel on 25 June 1218 during the seige of Toulouse (during the crusade) and it would have been an appropriate line to go out on. Bringing myself back on topic, The boys and girls at the DOE are about to be on the receiving end of a metaphorical attack from a trumptastic trebuchet. Not some candy-assed mangonel. Alea jacta est.

Walter Sobchak

Apocryphal or not, it is on point.
How about this quote:
“You’re fired.”
— Donald J. Trump

blcartwright

I can picture Trump recording a video to the American people, outlining the insubordination at the Department of Energy – and then saying, “YOU’RE FIRED!”

That quote and other versions that express the same sentiment indicate that that was indeed the policy during the crusade.

Robert Westfall

Washington DC is having a party while America is in recession. It is time for America to party and DC to be in recession. And Yes the two are related.