2 federal sites in Sault Ste. Marie on DOGE closure list; both house tribal services
SAULT STE. MARIE — As part of the sweeping efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency to reduce federal spending, two buildings in Sault Ste. Marie are set to close.
The sites appear on the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) "Wall of Receipts" under a list of federal properties with upcoming lease terminations.
According to DOGE, the Indian Health Services Sanitation office has an annual lease of $34,375, providing a total savings of $85,937. The local Bureau of Indian Affairs office at 2845 Ashmun St. is the other site slated for closure.
The two buildings house services that are intended to help enhance the quality of life for tribal members and create economic opportunities for Native Americans and Alaska natives.
Subscribe: Get unlimited access to our coverage
Officials from the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians are still in the process of investigating how much the building closures will impact services going forward.
Sault Tribe Chairman Austin Lowes said he is concerned about the lack of communication from DOGE regarding the closures.
"It's unclear at this time whether that means the offices will be permanently closed, if they will relocate to a different location or if the leases will be renegotiated," Lowes said in a statement on Facebook. "Tribes don't know because we weren't consulted by this administration prior to the closure announcement, which is an obvious problem."
Lowes also noted that the Sault Tribe Health Division is not directly impacted by these closures.
— Contact Brendan Wiesner: BWiesner@Sooeveningnews.com
This article originally appeared on The Sault News: 2 federal office sites in Sault Ste. Marie on DOGE list to close
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy
The six justices comprising the far-right majority on the Supreme Court just radically endorsed a sweeping intrusion into the privacy of hundreds of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency or 'DOGE,' without so much as the pretense of a justification. One must seriously wonder what their endgame really is, because it's not about upholding the law. With the exception of a reference to the Treasury Department, the Constitution says nothing about federal agencies. Congress creates them pursuant to its Article I powers to legislate. But Congress did not pass any legislation creating the Department of Government Efficiency. It was declared into existence by President Trump via executive order when he took office in January. What's more, for the real federal agencies that Congress actually creates, Article II of the Constitution mandates that their officers — the agency heads or 'secretaries' — must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The outgoing 'head' of DOGE, Elon Musk, was neither. Congressionally created agency heads are also confined to the job descriptions established under a governing statute for each particular agency. For DOGE, Trump directed the actual federal agencies to create 'DOGE Teams' to 'coordinate their work' with Musk and to 'advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda.' This kind of uber-power over agencies is constitutionally unprecedented. The point of mandating Senate confirmation of agency heads is of course to enable elected representatives of the people to gather information about a candidate's qualifications and possible disqualifying characteristics, such as conflicts of interest that would make it difficult or impossible for an officer to neutrally exercise the duties of their office. According to an April report from Senate Democrats, Musk and his companies faced upwards of $2.37 billion in legal liability stemming from 65 pending or potential federal investigations, regulations and litigation across 11 agencies relating to his companies — including Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported in February that Musk would simply 'excuse himself' if a conflict of interest arose. That cynical strategy failed. In firing tens of thousands of federal employees, including over a dozen inspectors general, Musk managed to muck around with numerous agencies that regulate him — such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is now nearly defunct, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is grossly inappropriate self-dealing. A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained that Musk's DOGE team members were violating a slew of federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act, the Tax Revenue Act of 1976 and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The Privacy Act protects citizens' sensitive data unless government access is 'for a necessary and proper purpose' and mandates that 'adequate safeguards' be in place 'to prevent misuses of this information.' Information cannot even be shared between agencies without the consent of the people whose personal data is implicated. In April, a federal judge in Maryland agreed that Trump's unfettered data-collection effort was legally dubious, finding that the pretense that it was necessary to detect 'fraud, waste and abuse' was not enough to overcome the myriad statutory protections for individual Americans' private data. The judge issued an order temporarily enjoining DOGE from harvesting unlimited amounts of information from the Social Security Administration — which may include birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, tax return information, bank account information, credit card numbers, employment and wage histories, citizenship and immigration records, and detailed medical records. Trump's executive order requires agencies to give the DOGE teams 'full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.' The lawsuit is thus a standoff between Trump's roving DOGE snoops and the rule of law itself. In a terse order issued without full briefing or oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts — on behalf of the six conservative justices in the majority — sided with DOGE, reversing the district court's temporary injunction and allowing Musk's minions to access a treasure trove of personal data while the district court's decision is on appeal. Normally, when a district court issues an order, that order holds while it is appealed (absent some finding of exceptional circumstances). In this case, DOGE was positioned to possibly get what it wants down the line, either from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or from the Supreme Court in due course, while the case makes its way through the system. In the meantime, the status quo of keeping statutory protections in place for regular Americans would stand — just like it has under every president before Trump. Instead, Roberts found that it is DOGE — not the American people — that would irreparably suffer if the legal questions are given time to percolate on appeal. DOGE gets the goods immediately. If the plaintiffs manage to secure a ruling affirming the district court on appeal many months from now, thus undoing the Supreme Court's stay, the damage will already have been done. The data is already breached. There is no longer a remedy. To justify his decision, Roberts properly cited the four-part test for granting a temporary stay of an injunction: Trump must show that he will likely win under the various federal laws that otherwise protect the data, that he'd be irreparably damaged without a stay, that the stay will not 'substantially injure' other parties (like Americans who want their personal data to remain secure) and that a stay is in the broader public interest. The wrinkle is that Roberts didn't bother to actually analyze any of these factors. He just summarily concluded they were satisfied. Too bad for the plaintiffs — and too bad for the American people, whose personal data is now in the hands of DOGE and anyone else it cares to share it with. Roberts simply reasoned that the DOGE team must get access to the records 'for those members to do their work.' In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that 'the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The majority nonetheless is 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.' Since the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's job has included holding the other branches of government accountable to federal statutes. By baldly eschewing its constitutional role while hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy, today's conservative majority is much like DOGE, the entity it put above the law: a fake. Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk might already be making up over Los Angeles protests
The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump appears to be cooling off, with Musk recently expressing support for the White House's stance on immigration protests in Los Angeles and engaging positively with posts from President Trump and VP JD Vance. Despite a dramatic fallout over federal spending, Musk has since deleted inflammatory posts and responded amicably to conciliatory comments from Trump's camp, signaling a possible reconciliation. The so-called 'blood feud' between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump may already be simmering down, after the richest man on the planet returned to endorsing the actions of the White House. In recent weeks the political partnership that was Musk and Trump broke down in spectacular fashion over the Oval Office's 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Musk felt the package undermined the work he had done with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to reduce spending and the federal deficit, though Trump claimed the SpaceX founder went 'crazy' after finding out the bill cut certain electric vehicle mandates. But even in the last 24 hours the sharpest rebukes between the pair seem to have been walked back and in some cases, rescinded. Musk seems to have reconnected with the work of the White House due to the protests currently happening in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Neuralink founder has long pushed for tighter border controls into the U.S., and this was among the political common ground which led to him supporting Trump in the 2024 elections. Musk's repatriation into team Trump began with the X owner screenshooting a post from the president's Truth Social platform. In the post, Trump wrote: 'Governor Gavin Newscum and 'Mayor' Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots. These are not protestors, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists. Remember, NO MASKS!' The Tesla CEO also reshared a post from Vice President JD Vance, adding it to his timeline with two American flags. The post from Vance itself contains a further screenshot from Trump's Truth Social, in which he claims 'order will be restored, the illegals will be expelled and Los Angeles will be set free.' The post from Vance accompanying Trump's post reads: 'This moment calls for decisive leadership. The president will not tolerate rioting and violence.' And a further indication of the thawing relations between Musk and his former colleagues in Washington D.C. was his response to a JD Vance interview published at the weekend. Speaking on podcast 'This Past Weekend' with Theo Von, Vance said: 'I don't want to reveal too many confidences but [Trump] was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon…the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk, and I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine.' Reacting to the clip, Musk wrote: 'Cool.' Perhaps the most notable of Musk's actions has been to delete the most salacious of his posts on X, which claimed the president's name is in the Epstein files. The post—shared with no evidence—was slammed as 'BS' by Vance. The spat between Musk and Trump has unfolded a breakneck speed since the man worth $356 billion left Washington D.C., rescinding his title as a special government employee. The partnership between the duo hasn't always been smooth sailing, with Musk making his opinions of some major Trump 2.0 policies clear. He wasn't a fan of tariffs, for example, and publicly sparred with a top Trump advisor, Peter Navarro, on the issue. While White House Press Secretary Karoline Levitt laughed off that feud as 'boys will be boys' she did have to respond more forcefully when Musk's ire was directed at the Oval Office. The Tesla CEO has variously claimed Trump could not have won last year's election without him, as well as asking voters to rebel against the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' saying it is a 'disgusting abomination.' Musk even went as far as calling for Trump to be impeached, and baited the Oval Office into cancelling government contracts with his private entities. Trump hasn't been silent on the matter but has been somewhat more tempered. Although warning Musk's federal contracts could be due a review, the president added he 'wasn't thinking' about the Tesla CEO and hopes he does well with his EV-making company. 'I have no intention of speaking to [Musk],' Trump added in an NBC News interview this weekend. 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the president,' he added. And even if Vance is hoping Musk will return to the fold, Trump added to NBC he believed his relationship with the CEO is over. This story was originally featured on
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Republicans Have a Revenue Problem
Congressional Republicans love to talk about the deficit and federal spending, particularly when Democrats are in power. Before he became House speaker, Mike Johnson argued in his 2018 statement titled '7 Core Principles of Conservatism ' that America was facing 'an unprecedented debt and spending crisis.' In Johnson's view, Congress had 'a moral and constitutional duty' to bring expenditure under control. In 2023, before he became the Senate majority leader, John Thune inveighed against 'reckless, out-of-control government spending' and argued that if spending reform is a priority for the GOP alone, then there is 'something seriously wrong with the Democrat Party.' They had a point. Aside from the brief period from 1998 to 2001, the federal government has run deficits for more than 50 years. When Ronald Reagan entered office, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio—a standard metric economists use to measure government indebtedness—stood at just 32.5 percent. It currently stands at 121 percent, an extraordinary level for peacetime. In President Joe Biden's last year in office, the government brought in revenues of $4.9 trillion against outlays of $6.75 trillion, resulting in a deficit of $1.8 trillion, or about 6.4 percent of GDP. And President Donald Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act will only compound the problem: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that its proposed extension of his 2017 tax cuts for another 10 years will add more than $2.4 trillion to the national debt. The United States is now experiencing a structural deficit with potentially dire fiscal consequences. Serious efforts to curb spending—which DOGE is not —are desperately needed. Yet the task of closing the huge gap in our government finances has another dimension besides cost-cutting: Raising revenue, too, is desperately needed. Jonathan Chait: Why DOGE could actually increase the deficit The Republicans' focus on spending—when they're not responsible for it—obscures the fact that the U.S. collects significantly less money as a share of GDP than comparable countries, and less than it has taken in historically. Among OECD countries in 2023, the United States ranked 32nd out of 38 for the revenue it collects as a share of GDP. Among advanced industrial democracies, only Ireland and Chile collect less. And at 17 percent of GDP in 2024, federal revenues are well below their peak of nearly 20 percent in 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration. The following year, the United States enjoyed a $128 billion surplus, and the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt would be paid off by 2009. Instead, tax cuts under George W. Bush in 2001 added $8 trillion to the deficit; a further round of cuts by Trump in 2017 contributed another $1.8 trillion. Spending went up as well, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that 37 percent of the current deficit can be attributed to these tax cuts. For the Republican Party, tax cuts are now divorced from any specific fiscal context and have become a way of life. In a fusion of ideology and self-interest, a powerful nexus of monied interests, lobbying groups, members of Congress, conservative intellectuals, and media worked together to enforce anti-tax orthodoxy and stamp out dissent. Tax cuts were one of the few policy areas that the party's disparate factions—Wall Street Republicans, Main Street Republicans, Silicon Valley libertarians, and social conservatives—could all agree upon. Yet this long-established anti-tax consensus now confronts several looming challenges. The first is the party's shifting composition. The Republican base has become more populist in temperament and more working class in character, and low-income voters are less sympathetic to tax cuts that mainly favor their high-income peers. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center reveals that a plurality of Republicans and Republican leaners actually prefer raising taxes on households with incomes greater than $400,000, by a margin of 43 to 27 percent. (Among all Americans, 58 percent favor raising taxes on those with high incomes, whereas only 19 percent favor lowering them and 21 percent would keep them level.) Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's claim during his confirmation hearing that high-income 'job creators' need the incentive of tax cuts may have been welcome to the GOP's wealthy donors and 'starve the beast' enthusiasts, but such views are now a minority in the party. A second challenge is the distributional impact of the new bill's tax-cutting measures. Many commentators wonder why, during a time of record deficits and debt, a further round of upper-income tax cuts is necessary. Analysis from the Tax Policy Center notes that while average effective tax rates barely changed from 1945 to 2015 for most Americans, the rates for high-income households have fallen sharply. Tax Policy Center scholars have also noted that nearly half the benefits of an extension of the Trump cuts would go to the top 5 percent of households (those making $450,000 or more). Democrats have been quick to seize on the inequity of cutting Medicaid and SNAP benefits to finance this upper-income giveaway. The third challenge is that, by taking revenue increases off of the table, Republicans have saddled themselves with an unsolvable fiscal conundrum. Cuts on the order of 27 percent across the entire federal budget would be needed to bring spending in line with revenue. If major categories of expenditure such as Social Security, Medicare, defense, and debt servicing are exempted, spending cuts alone cannot tackle the deficit. Acknowledging the magnitude of this gap, a few fiscal hawks in Congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and the House Freedom Caucus, have called for even deeper cuts. But many Republicans fear with justification that such a course would bring grave political risk. What Republicans are not grappling with, but should, is the disconnect between their intellectual justifications and economic and fiscal reality. Their first rationale is that tax cuts ultimately pay for themselves in higher government revenues through increased economic growth. To be blunt, no persuasive evidence exists for this contention at either the federal or the state level, including in the record of the 2017 cuts now proposed for extension. Republicans' second rationale makes a more nuanced assertion that higher taxes will depress economic growth, reducing jobs and inhibiting the downward distribution of income. Yet rigorous comparative analyses across multiple countries have found no serious evidence to support this contention. The economist Paul Krugman has referred to such arguments as ' zombie ' ideas that keep 'eating people's brains' long after their intellectual credibility is dead and buried. Buffeted by these forces, cracks are starting to appear in the GOP's anti-tax orthodoxy. Some MAGA voices, such as Steve Bannon, have recently come out in favor of a tax hike on the wealthy to finance cuts for the middle class. Others, such as Vice President J. D. Vance and Project 2025 eminence Russell Vought, have expressed interest in raising taxes on those earning more than $1 million a year. They met fierce resistance from Republican luminaries such as Newt Gingrich, Larry Kudlow, Sean Hannity, Mike Johnson, and Ted Cruz. And the ultimate enforcer of tax-cutting orthodoxy, Grover Norquist, recently compared any Republicans willing to consider tax increases to a ' little cancer cell in the party.' Trump himself has tried to have it both ways, toying with the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy to cater to his populist base without actually doing anything to forestall his tax-cut extensions. His gesture toward putting America on a sounder financial footing is to argue that his tariffs can play an important role in replacing income-tax revenues. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that, under certain configurations, tariffs could raise significant additional revenues over the next decade. But all credible projections suggest that tariffs will be unable to compensate for the lost income tax. They are also a highly regressive form of taxation that may spark retaliation by other countries, result in higher inflation, and reduce both economic growth and the tax revenues that flow from it. Republicans who are serious about the deficit have several options. The most obvious one would be to close the gap between the tax revenues owed to the government and what it actually collects. The IRS estimates that in 2022, about 13 percent of taxes, totaling $606 billion, owed to the federal government under our existing tax code were not paid. Many analyses of federal tax policy and enforcement— including some by conservative scholars —have argued for beefing up the IRS, with a focus on high-net-worth individuals and households. Few investment opportunities yield a higher rate of return than IRS audits on upper-income filers, yet the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have moved in the other direction and sought to cut the agency's staff and funding. Other steps Republicans could take would aim to end tax breaks for the über-rich. Sunsetting the 2017 bill's higher estate-tax deductions, which now stand at $14 million for individuals and $28 million for married couples, would bring in an estimated $201 billion over the next 10 years. The state and local tax (better known as SALT) deduction changes in the proposed bill are extremely regressive, with much of the benefit flowing to upper-income households; they are another loophole that could be closed. Republicans could also raise revenue specifically for transportation infrastructure by increasing road-user fees and gas or mileage taxes. (The gasoline tax has been frozen at 18.4 cents a gallon for more than 30 years.) None of the above will be easy, or even possible, to achieve in this Congress. The Republican Party has come a long way from the days when Ronald Reagan raised taxes four times after his 1981 tax cuts led to higher projected deficits. The official posture of fiscal rectitude continues, but the GOP's $10 trillion secret—the amount that tax cuts have contributed to the national debt—is that, if forced to choose, many on the anti-tax right would prefer bigger deficits to higher taxes. The United States no longer has that luxury. The government's interest payments have become larger than its defense expenditures, debt-rating agencies are downgrading the U.S., bond traders are demanding higher yields on U.S. treasuries, and risks to the dollar as the world's reserve currency are piling up. To redeploy Thune's phrase, something is 'seriously wrong' with a party that worries about running deficits yet refuses to consider any sustainable way to pay for them—and instead slashes services to its rural and working-class constituents. Rigid principle must give way to pragmatism: Any genuine deficit-reduction conversation needs to include not just spending cuts but higher revenues.
