This agency that targets Republicans while shielding Democrats must be dismantled
Elon Musk has claimed that one of the most common errors of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist. But it doesn't take a SpaceX-level engineer to understand that the Office of Government Ethics – an agency few Americans know by name, but whose unchecked power casts a long shadow over our democracy – simply has no purpose in its current form. The OGE is a partisan, bureaucratic thicket that should be fully dismantled. It selectively enforces hazy rules around the financial arrangements of incoming candidates and officials – often in a heavy-handed manner against Republicans. Commonly, the two winners in a battle with OGE are (1) Democrats and (2) lawyers. As a practicing attorney in the field of political law, I have a first-hand look at this frequently-partisan battle waged by OGE against nominees and candidates.
The taxpayer-funded monument to post-Watergate paranoia is a relic of a bygone era. On behalf of my clients, I have navigated its labyrinthine requirements for years, and I can attest: OGE is not a guardian of integrity, but a sanctimonious bureaucratic machine, burdening public servants with meaningless red tape while undermining the will of the electorate. It's time to dismantle this sham and restore accountability where it belongs: with the voters.
Created in 1978 amid the hysteria following Watergate, OGE operates on a flawed premise: that every public official is a latent crook, requiring constant oversight by unelected mandarins. This assumption insults the intelligence of the American people, who are perfectly capable of judging their leaders at the ballot box. Ethics in government is not preserved by faceless desk jockeys wielding stacks of financial disclosure, recusal, and divestiture forms; it is enforced by citizens casting votes. Outsourcing this sacred responsibility to a bloated agency like OGE diminishes democracy itself while costing taxpayers more than $20 million annually.
Even worse than the real cost to American taxpayers is the inherent tax this imposes on those looking to serve their country in the federal government. OGE's bureaucrats personally involve themselves in a probing, uncomfortable, subjective examination of the finances of nearly anyone in a middle or senior position in the federal government, along with that person's immediate family members. They consider themselves the prosecutor, judge, and jury for whether someone who has had financial success in the real world must give it all away in order to enter the government. What's worse, OGE often changes its own measurement standards, leading to limited predictability as to what a nominee can keep and what he or she must offload. As an attorney who represents clients through this process, I take no delight in this outcome, but it results in hours of needless work for lawyers and financial advisors, the costs of which must often be borne by the individual seeking to serve.
Consider its practical and public failures. In recent months, OGE's obsession with nitpicking financial disclosures delayed the confirmation of President Trump's nominees during an already protracted transition. These reviews — often redundant and always laborious — added no discernible value to the public's understanding of nominees' fitness, and cannot possibly be in the public's interest. By inserting itself as an unelected gatekeeper, OGE slows governance and frustrates the mandate of elections.
Worse, OGE has become a weapon of partisan warfare, selectively enforcing its vague standards to target Republicans while giving Democrats a free pass. Take the case of Biden's Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who held millions in stock in an electric bus manufacturer championed by the administration. In 2021, President Biden visited the company, praising it as a cornerstone of America's green future. The company later went bankrupt, but not before the secretary cashed out with $1.6 million in capital gains after Biden's visit.
OGE's response? Silence. Contrast this with the agency's relentless hounding of Trump's HHS Secretary Tom Price in 2017 over private jet travel, fueling a media firestorm that ultimately led to his resignation. The pattern is clear: OGE plays favorites, acting as a blocker to create controversies for one side while ignoring the other.
This double standard extends to OGE's handling of high-profile figures. When FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr contributed to the authorship of Project 2025, Democrats cried "conflict of interest." OGE dragged out its review, allowing the Left to smear Trump's agenda unchecked, only to clear Carr after the damage was done, just two weeks before the 2024 election.
Compare this to Hunter Biden's lucrative Burisma dealings during the Obama years — OGE didn't utter a peep. Similarly, Biden's Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack faced no scrutiny for cozy private jet trips in 2022, while OGE amplified outrage over far less egregious Republican travel. Such selective amnesia betrays OGE's impartiality and exposes its role as a partisan cudgel of the deep state.
The agency's redundancy compounds its flaws. Every federal department already has internal ethics offices, rendering OGE's $24 million annual budget a wasteful duplication. If an official breaks the law, the Department of Justice can prosecute.
OGE's sister agency, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which polices Hatch Act violations, is cut from the same cloth. In 2024, Biden's budget director Neera Tanden flirted with Hatch Act violations, fundraising brazenly on X, while FTC Chair Lina Khan appeared at Democratic campaign events, prompting a House Oversight inquiry. OSC's response? Nothing.
Yet in 2017, it aggressively pursued Kellyanne Conway for a fleeting comment about Ivanka Trump's brand, demanding probes and decrying the "death of democracy." The hypocrisy is stark: Democrats skate, while Trump's allies face the guillotine.
President Trump's decision to fire OGE chief David Huitema in February 2025 was a bold step in the right direction toward dismantling this deep-state agency with crosshairs on Republicans. The public's resounding reelection of Trump in 2024 was a mandate to sweep away such bureaucratic obstructions, not a call for more oversight by unelected elites. Trump's broader dismissal of 17 inspectors general alongside Huitema sparked predictable outrage, but it underscored a truth: officials elected by the voters–not agencies–hold the power to punish misconduct.
Abolishing OGE would not leave ethics unpoliced. Internal agency offices, the Justice Department, and — most crucially — the electorate provide ample checks. OGE's existence only fuels conflict, delays the president's administration from being filled with his chosen advisors, and erodes trust in public institutions, the very opposite of its stated mission. It's time to end this bureaucratic charade. Let's trust the American people to hold their leaders accountable, as democracy demands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge
If there is a single point of agreement among all the Democrats running for mayor, it's that New York is too damn expensive. They uniformly call it an 'affordability crisis' and pledge to do something about it if elected. They are largely correct — the cost of living in New York has become absurdly high. Advertisement Although part of the trend grew out of the inflation sparked by massive spending by federal, state and local governments during the COVID era, there is also a long history of Gotham being one of most expensive places in the nation to live. A study shows that, in comparison to the national average, food prices in the five boroughs are about 22% higher, while housing is 278% more expensive. Making ends meet The United Way finds that basic costs for city households have risen twice as fast as the median income and estimates that about half of them need help from the government, friends or family just to make ends meet. Advertisement As Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani recently told The New York Times, 'There are far too many New Yorkers who do not know if they will be able to call themselves that next year, who do not know if they will be able to afford their rent, or their child care, their groceries, or even their MetroCard.' True to his socialist affiliations, Mamdani is promising the longest list of freebies, but his rivals have all joined the spree. Even Andrew Cuomo, often regarded as the most centrist of the bunch and the leader according to polls, is no shrinking violet in the giveaway games. The candidates' promises to address the problem sound very nice — until you realize that nearly everything they are offering would ultimately drive the sky-high cost of living even higher. Advertisement Already that burden is one of the top reasons why New York City and state lead America in losing residents to lower-cost jurisdictions. Congestion pricing is the latest example of how and why the cost of living here keeps rising. If the candidates all want to raise prices even higher, they should support a joint slogan: 'Dear Voters, If you're not broke yet, just wait.' The problem is that government compassion doesn't come cheap. Advertisement In fact, it's outrageously expensive. That's certainly true in the case at hand. The candidates' 'solutions' are just promises to give away more stuff to more people, such as free bus service, free child care, free this and free that. It's all wrapped in the language of compassion for the poor and working class. But what the lefty Dems leave out of the conversation is an honest explanation about where the money would come from to pay for all their added goodies, and what the impact would be of an expanded redistribution scheme to deliver them. Don't be fooled by the lack of details. That's intentional because the numbers would be frightening. Take away to give away But hiding the truth doesn't change the fact that because City Hall can't print money, it will first have to take more from residents and businesses if it is going to give away more. Advertisement Consider the obvious impact on businesses. If they are taxed more, most will make up for it by raising prices on their customers, cut the pay of their workers or reduce the number of workers. When a business goes broke, the city gets no taxes and the workers have no income. Because higher taxes always impose a trickle-down cost on some people, a similar outcome is true if the government raises income taxes on individuals, sales taxes or property taxes. Advertisement Somebody somewhere along the line is going to feel the pinch of every added dollar the city takes to give away to someone it declares more deserving. For those forced to pay more, the 'solution' to the problem means their cost of living is going to get even higher. That's why the candidates' plans need to be seen in light of the current budget. As it stands, City Hall will raise and spend a whopping $112.4 billion this year — nearly as much as the entire state of Florida. Advertisement New York state, meanwhile, will raise and spend $255 billion, with much of that money coming to the city. Additional agencies, such as the MTA, have their own budgets, which spend tens of billions more. Clearly the problem isn't a shortage of money to spend. Advertisement The problem is a shortage of responsible spending. Thus raising spending for 'new needs,' as the politicians call their freebies, by hiking taxes and fees at this point is almost certain to create as many problems as it solves. There is still time for the Dems to lay out a plan to actually reduce government costs. The first debate was little more than a bidding game to see who could promise more new giveaways and most vehemently denounce Donald Trump while pledging to 'resist' his presidency. The second and final mayoral debate, required by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, will take place Thursday, with primary day falling on June 24. It's incumbent on the moderators to demand that Mamdani and all the others explain, with specifics, where they would get added funds and who would pay them. Glib lines like taxing the 'top 1%' mean nothing because those families already pay inordinate amounts of the city's personal income tax. According to a city comptroller report, in 2021 the top 1% — about 6,000 families who reported incomes of $1 million or more — paid a whopping 48% of the city's total income tax haul. It's neither fair nor sensible to demand they pay more, when packing up and leaving altogether is proving to be so popular. Leftward lurch Unfortunately, we haven't heard much of a different message from other candidates in the race, including Mayor Adams, who is running as an independent. With GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa widely considered not viable, there is so far no check and balance on the Dems' leftward lurch. The vast majority of their spendthrift City Council candidates and those seeking other offices on the ballot are proving to be automatic supporters of larger and more expensive programs. National conversations about cutting taxes and reducing government waste, fraud and abuse have yet to find meaningful support in New York. That must start to change this week. Libs' stupidity taking a toll There they go again: Another major media outlet is confusing victimhood with the consequences of wrongdoing. The bleeding heart Boston Globe writes, 'Unpaid fees jeopardize thousands of Mass. driver's licenses,' saying, 'Thousands of Massachusetts drivers each year face the possibility of losing their legal authority to drive unless debts unrelated to road safety are paid in full.' Among the debts it cites are tolls the drivers evaded. Here's a crazy idea: The drivers could pay the tolls and keep their licenses. Why is that so hard?
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Jersey governor's race is set as Mikie Sherrill and Jack Ciattarelli win their primaries
Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli have won their parties' primaries for governor in New Jersey, NBC News projects, setting up one of the most closely watched races of the year. New Jersey is one of two states with governor's races this year, and the contest will be an early sign of how voters are responding to President Donald Trump's second term. Sherrill beat out five other Democrats for her party's nod, pitching herself as the most electable candidate — after her party struggled in the state last year compared with other recent presidential elections — and as a Democrat willing to stand up to Trump. She also leaned heavily on her background as a former Navy helicopter pilot and on criticism of Trump. "It's going to take a strong voice to cut through the noise from Washington and deliver for the people. So I stand here tonight doing just that. And as a mom of four teenagers, you guys know I'm not going to put up with the incompetent, whiny nonsense coming from aggrieved MAGA Republicans,' Sherrill told her supporters Tuesday at a victory rally. 'You probably can't do better than to quote George Washington at this moment: Fix the bayonets, I'm resolved to take Trenton,' Sherrill added. Ciattarelli, who had Trump's endorsement in the primary, defeated four other Republicans for the nomination in which he also appealed to voters' desire for electability, casting himself as the Trump ally best positioned to win the Democratic-leaning state in November. Ciattarelli came close in 2021 to defeating Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, who cannot run for re-election because of term limits. And during his victory speech, he panned Sherrill as "Phil Murphy 2.0" and pitched a vision for an inclusive GOP that would buck years of Democratic control in the state. "We made a strong statement about what the New Jersey Republican Party stands for: A party open to anyone and everyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules; a party of Jersey values and common sense policies; a party that believes our best days are ahead of us if, if we have the courage to think big and act boldly," Ciattarelli said. The Democratic primary featured Sherrill and five other prominent Democrats, including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, teachers union president Sean Spiller and former state Senate President Steve Sweeney. While Sherrill, the only woman in the field, was a persistent leader in limited public polling, victory was far from certain as millions of dollars flooded the New Jersey airwaves. Sherrill was winning more than one-third support with most of the expected Democratic vote tallied, holding a double-digit lead over Fulop, the next-closest Democrat. Sherrill showed early signs of strength in crucial Essex County, which is home to the most registered Democrats. The Essex County Democrats endorsed her, but the county also includes Newark, which Baraka leads. Sherrill won around 43% of the mail-in vote, followed by Baraka at 24%, Fulop at 17%, Gottheimer at 10%, Spiller at 5% and Sweeney at 1%. Sherrill proved to be a strong fundraiser, and she did have help from an aligned outside group, One Giant Leap PAC, which launched ads boosting her in the final weeks of the race. Sherrill also racked up support from the most county Democratic parties, prompting some critics to tie her to the state's Democratic political machine. Sherrill touted her military service and her success flipping a longtime Republican House district in 2018 as she made her case to primary voters. While each of the candidates presented a different path forward for the party, Sherrill said the 'obvious' path is to 'effectively govern.' 'Ruthless competence is what people in New Jersey want to see in government,' Sherrill told NBC News before she marched in the Asbury Park Pride parade. 'And that's what I've always provided, and that's what I think stands in stark contrast to the most incompetent federal government we've probably ever seen in this nation.' Ciattarelli leaned on his endorsement from Trump in the final weeks of the race, in which he faced former radio host Bill Spadea, state Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac and contractor Justin Barbera. Ciattarelli trounced his opponents, winning more than two-thirds support with most of the expected vote in. Spadea was in a distant second at 22%, followed by Bramnick, Kranjac and Barbera in single digits. Trump hosted a tele-rally as early voting kicked off this month, telling supporters that Ciattarelli is 'going to help us with a win this November and send a powerful message to the entire country that New Jersey is turning red.' But Ciattarelli did have to overcome attacks from Spadea, his chief competitor in the primary, who highlighted Ciattarelli's past criticisms of the president as proof he was not sufficiently pro-Trump. Trump ultimately backed Ciattarelli about a month before the primary, writing on Truth Social that Ciattarelli is now '100%' MAGA and is best positioned to win in November. Both Ciattarelli and Sherrill have already previewed the general election fight, sparring on social media over Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill and his recent decision to federalize California National Guard troops despite Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections. Sherrill has tied Ciattarelli directly to Trump, who lost the state by 6 points in November after he lost it by 16 in 2020. Sherrill's recent TV ad warns, 'MAGA's coming for New Jersey with Trump-endorsed Republican Jack Ciattarelli,' and she said at a primary debate last month that Ciattarelli is 'not going to stand up to Trump on anything.' It remains to be seen whether Ciattarelli will put some distance between him and Trump in the Democratic-leaning state, but he has said he would campaign with Trump this year. Ciattarelli has also previewed how he might push back against Democrats who try to tie him to Trump, often noting that the next governor must address four crises facing the state: affordability, public safety, education and overdevelopment. 'Last time I checked, this was a race for governor,' Ciattarelli said at a recent campaign stop. 'And so what is it that President Trump has to do with those windmills of our Jersey Shore? What does he have to do with the fact that we have the highest property tax in the nation? What does he have to do with the failure of our public school system, which just slipped from two to 12 on the national report card? What does he have to do with the overdevelopment of our suburbs?' 'They broke it, they own it,' Ciattarelli said of Democrats in charge of the state government. 'And we're not going to let anybody forget it over the next five months.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why are more Americans filing for Social Security benefits?
(NewsNation) — More older Americans are claiming their Social Security benefits earlier, a potentially alarming trend that could significantly reduce the income many rely on in their golden years. As of May, individual retirement claims are up 13% in the current fiscal year compared to the same period last year, an increase of nearly 320,000 claims, according to the latest Social Security data. To put the recent surge in perspective: From 2012 to 2024, retirement claims rose by an average of just 3% per year, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute, a research group. Plan to garnish Social Security checks for student loan debt paused Part of the recent uptick is due to more retirees claiming Social Security benefits earlier, a choice that permanently reduces their monthly checks if done before full retirement age. Jack Smalligan, a senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute, described the increase in earlier claims as 'disconcerting' because it can impact people's 'long-term retirement security.' 'For most individuals, delaying the time that they claim Social Security is a smart retirement decision,' Smalligan said. While demographic factors, such as an aging population, have contributed to the rise, increased concern over the Trump administration's handling of the system may also help explain the surge. Social Security data shows the spike in monthly claims was especially pronounced in November and January — the month Trump was elected and the month he took office. Polling shows public concern about Social Security is now at a 15-year high, an uptick that coincides with the Trump administration's plans to slash the agency's workforce. The president and advisers, like Elon Musk, have made unfounded claims about rampant fraud within the system, while website outages have also caused confusion. Smalligan pointed to the recent surge in calls to Social Security and the rise in field office visits as further signs of growing anxiety. At the same time, top Democrats, including former President Joe Biden, have amplified those fears with misleading claims that give the impression Americans' monthly retirement checks may not arrive. Democrats sound alarm on Social Security as Biden returns to stage Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has warned that Trump and Musk are coming for people's benefits and hiding behind bogus fraud claims to justify stealing people's checks. The political rhetoric appears to be resonating, but it's also fueling the broader uncertainty, potentially causing real harm. During a meeting in March, Social Security officials said that 'fearmongering has driven people to claim benefits earlier,' The Wall Street Journal reported. Overall, 52% of Americans say they worry a 'great deal' about the Social Security system, up from 43% in 2024, according to Gallup. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, that figure rises to 65% — a 30-point increase from the previous year. 'No one's scheming right now to privatize Social Security or dismantle it … that type of fearmongering is not helpful,' said Charles Blahous, a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University who specializes in Social Security. While Social Security does face long-term financial challenges, the system isn't going away, and future policy uncertainty isn't a good reason to claim benefits early today, Blahous said. Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits, while Democrats argue that staffing reductions will make it harder for retirees to access services, undermining the system in a different way. Other factors, unrelated to political rhetoric, could also be driving the rise in retirement claims. There are three key reasons for the uptick, according to a Social Security official: The start of the peak 65 baby boom, a massive surge of Americans turning 65 years old Implementation of the Social Security Fairness Act, which increased benefits for certain workers receiving pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security Improved outreach notifying spouses of Social Security beneficiaries that they may be eligible for a higher benefit Blahous acknowledged that the three factors are real but thinks 'the jury's still out' on how much of the recent rise is due to anxiety about the program's future. Another possibility is that stock market volatility, partly driven by Trump's ever-changing trade policies, temporarily lowered the balances of millions of retirement accounts and prompted some older Americans to claim their more reliable Social Security benefits earlier than planned. Americans can start collecting Social Security retirement benefits as early as age 62, but that doesn't mean they should. Claiming before full retirement age permanently reduces monthly benefits, which is why waiting often makes more financial sense. It's even more concerning when that decision is driven by fear about the program's future rather than a careful assessment of personal circumstances. 'It's basically an irrevocable decision, which is all the more reason why people should be very cautious about when they make it,' Blahous said. When is the best age to take Social Security? Someone who turns 62 in 2025 would see their monthly benefit lowered by about 30% versus what it would be at their full retirement age of 67. On the other hand, those who delay claiming until after their full retirement age receive an 8% increase for each year they wait, up to age 70. That can amount to thousands of dollars. In 2025, the maximum Social Security benefit is $2,831 for someone retiring at 62, but it rises to $5,108 for those retiring at 70. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
