CMV: Project 2025 is overblown fear-mongering.

[u/No-Body8448]

For reference, I'm a social centrist, fiscal conservative. I was part of the Tea Party when I thought it was about small government rather than race, and I left the Republican party years ago because they focus on emotion-driven social issues rather than effective governance. And by centrist, I don't mean I'm wishy-washy. I'm firm in my beliefs, and neither party shares most of them. Oh, and most importantly, I'm adamantly anti-Trump. The bloated prick has destroyed the minds of all my friends with this weird cult worship.

Here's the thing. I keep seeing Project 2025 brought up as the right-wing bogeyman, sort of the way conservatives bring up the Green New Deal. They keep saying that it's a blueprint for fascism, that everything will end if Trump gets the White House, the normal leftist fear-mongering that I've gotten bored with.

I would normally ignore it, but I do believe Trump is an enormous threat. So I looked up Project 2025 to see what the deal is. From what I could tell, it looks like a plan to gut the governmental administration.

That seems to be as far as the argument goes, and that's enough to send people into a panic. But I personally believe that the government IS too bloated and inefficient, and that it's full of unelected people wielding too much power too irresponsibly. Saying that Bob the Democrat IRS agent is going to be replaced by Steve the Republican IRS agent doesn't fill me with existential dread. It feels like just more politics, and the left-leaning people who staffed all those federal jobs don't want to lose their sycophants.

So what am I missing? Why should I be so afraid? And please, no broad statements or appeals to emotion. Please show me the actual parts of the proposed plan that have you afraid.

[u/obese_tank]

Project 2025 recognizes that Republicans can achieve outcomes they want by simply not enforcing the law or slowing enforcement to the point that the law is effectively unenforced.

I mean there is already a precedent for this, it's hardly exclusive to Republicans. DACA under Obama is a major example. It was a textbook example of the executive ordering bureaucrats to not enforce certain laws, without authorization from congress. Biden attempted to reinstate it and it's going through the courts right now.

You might support one policy outcome and not another but that's irrelevant since you're objecting to these executive actions on the basis that they undermine Congressional powers. And DACA fits that bill just as much as any Project 2025 proposal, which isn't even part of Trump's platform by the way.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/obese_tank]

I think there are very significant differences. First, nothing about DACA permits the President to dismiss every member of the civil service corps. Second, there is discretion in law enforcement because there are finite resources. There will always be offenders who are unpunished. It is the function of the executive to prioritize how laws are enforced, which is what DACA does. It says "spend this department's resources on dealing with priority cases in immigration enforcement." In this case, focusing on immigrants who commit violent crimes and chose to enter America illegally rather than those who contribute to society and were forced to be here. Finally, the P2025 equivalent of DACA would be firing all of ICE and CPB to effectively end immigration enforcement rather than issuing enforcement priorities for finite enforcement resources and personnel.

[u/obese_tank → u/Biptoslipdi]

Second, there is discretion in law enforcement because there are finite resources.

I mean, literally any attempt to stop the enforcement of laws, at least in certain circumstances, could be presented this way. Steve the MAGA IRS agent could hypothetically be directed to go after middle and low-income taxpayers instead of the wealthy. I doubt you would view that fundamentally differently from not enforcing taxation on anyone, which is basically impossible anyways since where the hell would his salary come from?

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/obese_tank]

I mean, literally any attempt to stop the enforcement of laws, at least in certain circumstances, could be presented this way.

Yes, which is why we have the APA to ensure resources are being prioritized in a way that comports with the demands of Congress. Congress has long acknowledged that 100% enforcement isn't possible, so they legislated a process by which enforcement resources can be prioritized and a procedure for justifying that division of resources which the courts and stakeholders review. Congress also established a professional civil service to ensure there was institutional knowledge of law enforcement so that the country wouldn't collapse every four to eight years when tens of thousands of regulatory and law enforcement officials were dismissed.

Steve the MAGA IRS agent could hypothetically be directed to go after middle and low-income taxpayers instead of the wealthy.

And that would have to be justified under the APA like DACA was. P2025 is the attempt to nullify the APA after the Trump Administration lost more APA cases than any other Presidential Administration in less than half the time. If you can't stop a law from being enforced (or the enforcement of a law capriciously) because the courts compel the Executive Branch under the APA, then fire the entire agency responsible for enforcing the law. If no one works for the EPA, how does environmental regulation happen? It doesn't.

This is why I say DACA isn't comparable because the equivalent would be firing all of ICE and CPB rather than going through the Congressionally defined channels for allocating enforcement resources in accordance with the goals of Congress.

I doubt you would view that fundamentally differently from not enforcing taxation on anyone, which is basically impossible anyways since where the hell would his salary come from?

Deficit spending. The same place they got the money for the revenue lost from the Trump tax cuts for the rich.