A History of Betrayal by a Senator, Out of Touch with His Voters
Republican primaries took place in Indiana on May 3, 2022. Senator Todd Young ran unchallenged.
Six weeks later, on 24 June 2022, the Senate passed the bipartisan "gun safety bill" by a vote of 65-33.
Fifteen Republicans voted with all Democrats in the chamber to pass the bill. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell supported the final passage.
Senator Todd Young was among the 15 Senator Republicans who voted to support this attack on the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. This law will do nothing to address the true issue facing America, which is the destruction of the family by our government's programs and regulations initiated by the ever expanding Bureaucracy.
Six days later, on 30 June 2022, Dr. David G. Storer, O.D., filed with the Indiana Election Division as an Independent Conservative write-in candidate for U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana.
___________________
**Pro-God, Life, Freedom, Liberty, Gun Rights and Anti-Excessive Government Spending, Anti-Crime, Illegal Immigration, Woke, and Anti-Bureaucracy**
____________________
Independent Conservative Citizen Senator Storer will Always Vote Only with the Interests of the Citizens of Indiana in Mind -- not Senate Miss-leadership's Interests.
The citizens of Indiana will never be surprised by the NO votes cast by Citizen Senator Storer on bills that represent direct attacks on the Freedom and Liberty of the Citizens of Indiana.
__________________
First, Citizen Senator Storer will Always Vote to Protect the Future of Our Children and Grandchildren, which will Represent his Primary Principle Behind His Votes.
_______________
Second, Citizen Senator Storer's NO Votes will Always represent an Attack on Government Over-Spending. Baseline Budgeting will be a Direct Target for Senator Storer.
_________________
"Baseline budgeting" is one of those Washington terms that sounds very dry and boring. In reality, baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing spending. The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.
Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed.
Politicians often like to have it both ways. Baseline budgeting gives politicians an opportunity to deceive taxpayers by allowing them to claim that they are holding the line on spending while providing more services.
Baseline budgeting seems like a technicality and should not be such a hotbed of contention, but every round of budget negotiations involves baseline budgeting with both sides of the aisle complaining that the other side is using the process to mask spending increases. Baseline budgeting is an issue that truly separates the deficit hawks from the budget chickens.
Eliminating the inflated budget baseline will force Congress to justify and account for increased spending instead of hiding behind automatic increases. Through commonsense accounting, taxpayers would learn that spending in Washington is not under control.
______________
Third, Citizen Senator Storer's NO Votes will Always be intended to starve the Beast -- Big Government.
_________________
Citizen Senator Storer's NO Votes will Always Represent Indiana's Attack on the Bureaucratic Leviathan that is Reaching into the Families of Indiana and the individual Lives of Indiana Citizens:
The United States Federal Civil Service -- Beginning with the IRS
(Known as “The Deep State” “The Swamp” "Big Government")
Unelected Bureaucrats who write regulations, not laws, that carry the force of law, as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court
Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, commonly referred to as Leviathan, is a book written by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and published in 1651 (revised Latin edition 1668). Its name derives from the biblical Leviathan. The work concerns the structure of society and legitimate government, and is regarded as one of the earliest and most influential examples of social contract theory. Written during the English Civil War (1642–1651), it argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. Hobbes wrote that civil war and the brute situation of a state of nature ("the war of all against all") could be avoided only by strong, undivided government.
The United States federal civil service is the civilian workforce (i.e., non-elected and non-military public sector employees) of the United States federal government's departments and agencies. The federal civil service was established in 1871 (5 U.S.C. § 2101). U.S. state and local government entities often have comparable civil service systems that are modeled on the national system, in varying degrees.
The U.S. civil service is managed by the Office of Personnel Management, which as of December 2011 reported approximately 2.79 million civil servants employed by the federal government, including employees in the departments and agencies run by any of the three branches of government (the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch), including over 600,000 employees in the U.S. Postal Service.
There are three categories of U.S. federal employees:[5]
· The competitive service includes the majority of civil service positions, meaning employees are selected based on merit after a competitive hiring process for positions that are open to all applicants.
· The Senior Executive Service (SES) is the classification for non-competitive, senior leadership positions filled by career employees or political appointments.
· The excepted service (also known as unclassified service) includes jobs with a streamlined hiring process, such as security and intelligence functions (e.g., the CIA, FBI, State Department, etc.), interns, foreign service professionals, doctors, lawyers, judges, and others. Agencies with excepted service authorities create their own hiring policies and are not subject to most appointment, pay, and classification laws.
In the early 19th century, positions in the federal government were held at the pleasure of the president—a person could be fired at any time. The spoils system meant that jobs were used to support the American political parties, though this was gradually changed by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent laws. By 1909, almost two-thirds of the U.S. federal workforce was appointed based on merit, that is, qualifications measured by tests. Certain senior civil service positions, including some heads of diplomatic missions and executive agencies, are filled by political appointees. Under the Hatch Act of 1939, civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities while performing their duties. In some cases, an outgoing administration will give its political appointees positions with civil service protection in order to prevent them from being fired by the new administration; this is called "burrowing" in civil service jargon.
U.S. Civil Service Commission
Public support in the United States for civil service reform strengthened following the assassination of President James Garfield. The United States Civil Service Commission was created by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which was passed into law on January 16, 1883. The commission was created to administer the civil service of the United States federal government. The law required federal government employees to be selected through competitive exams and basis of merit. It also prevented elected officials and political appointees from firing civil servants, removing civil servants from the influences of political patronage and partisan behavior. However, the law did not apply to state and municipal governments.
Effective January 1, 1978, the commission was renamed the Office of Personnel Management under the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978 (43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783) and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
Main article: Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
This act abolished the United States Civil Service Commission and created the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). OPM primarily provides management guidance to the various agencies of the executive branch and issues regulations that control federal human resources. FLRA oversees the rights of federal employees to form collective bargaining units (unions) and to engage in collective bargaining with agencies. MSPB conducts studies of the federal civil service and mainly hears the appeals of federal employees who are disciplined or otherwise separated from their positions. This act was an effort to replace incompetent officials.
Attempted reforms under the Trump administration
In May 2018, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders intended to crack down on unions that represent federal employees and to make it easier to fire federal workers. It was claimed that the changes are designed to strengthen merit-system principles in the civil service and improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the federal government. However, in August 2018, after reviewing the executive orders in detail, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily struck down most of the executive orders, ruling that they were an attempt to weaken federal labor unions representing federal employees.[30] Judge Jackson's ruling was reversed by the DC Circuit on jurisdiction grounds, saying the unions should first have complained to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
In October 2020, Trump signed an executive order that created a new category of federal employees, Schedule F, which included all career civil servants whose job includes "policymaking". Such employees would no longer be covered by civil service protections against arbitrary dismissal, but would be subject to the same rules as political appointees. The new description could be applied to thousands of nonpartisan experts such as scientists, who give advice to the political appointees who run their departments. Heads of all federal agencies were ordered to report by January 19, 2021, a list of positions that could be reclassified as Schedule F. The Office of Management and Budget submitted a list in November that included 88 percent of the office's workforce. Federal employee organizations and Congressional Democrats sought to overturn the order via lawsuits or bills. House Democrats warned in a letter that "The executive order could precipitate a mass exodus from the federal government at the end of every presidential administration, leaving federal agencies without deep institutional knowledge, expertise, experience, and the ability to develop and implement long-term policy strategies." Observers predicted that Trump could use the new rule to implement a "massive government purge on his way out the door". Schedule F was eliminated by President Joe Biden on 22, January 2021, nullifying the personnel changes.
Trump’s directive has created an unlikely alliance of federal employee unions, associations representing managers and executives, good government groups, academics and other experts in opposition to the administration’s plans. They unanimously have argued the policy would undo more than a century of federal civil service laws and restore the spoils system that pervaded government in the 19th century.
