Summary
Rep. Harriet Hageman faced loud boos at a Wyoming town hall after endorsing funding for Elon Musk’s DOGE cost-cutting initiative.
The crowd, mostly opposed to her stance, jeered as she laughed and clapped, labeling the audience’s reaction “embarrassing.”
Hageman defended Social Security funding despite concerns that Musk’s efficiency drive might cut it, calling it a “Ponzi scheme.”
The only bipartisan applause came when Hageman opposed closing rural mail distribution centers.
Somehow, she thought these were good talking points:
“I voted in favor of the continuing resolution, or CR, which extends funding…” Rep. Harriet Hageman said as the booing began. She smiled as she continued, “…for the fiscal year until September 30.”
“It keeps the lights on for President [Donald] Trump and DOGE to continue their work,” she added, as the booing reached a crescendo.
It’s worth noting:
About 500 people had packed the civic center auditorium in Laramie, where a local reporter with the Cowboy State Daily estimated about three-quarters of the crowd were there to oppose her.
It was a “startling dynamic” in a state that Trump carried with more than 72 percent of the vote, according to the Cowboy State Daily.
The Luigi talk was interesting and suggests there is biparstisanship on the problem of the oligarchy:
During Wednesday’s town hall, the crowd also burst into chants of “Tax the rich!” and “January 6th!”
I’m also unsure why the crowd chanted “January 6th” given that the seditionists were pardoned and this is very red Wyoming. Could there be some bipartisanship here as well now?
These GOP townhalls are very enjoyable. Let’s hope we see more of this.
The implication I’m getting from that January 6th chant is that they’re basically threatening to lynch 'em. I grew up and am still surrounded by these ingrates, they are surprisingly murder happy towards politicians in general let alone the feds.
These GOP townhalls are very enjoyable. Let’s hope we see more of this.
Let’s hope the energy leads to change. I do want to be entertained, but I want to safe first.
Why would a cost cutting initiative need funding?
I dislike doge just as much as the next person, but we all know this is not a good counterpoint and if used against dems we would ridicule it. You can’t just willy nilly move government funds around (legally, don’t get me started on all the illegal bs happening), so if doge is hiring people that are getting paid, the money needs to come from somewhere. That allocation would need to happen even if they WERE cutting billions in spending (they’re not). That is a good rule for governments to have. There are sooooo many reasons to dislike doge, but the fact that a government agency needs funds to run is not a problem. People have been complaining about the post office using similar rhetoric. Just because it costs money, doesn’t mean it’s not saving/making money.
For the record: DOGE AND TRUMP AND ELON ARE BAD
USPS doesn’t make money, it’s not designed to do so. This standard of profitability is never applied, for instance, to the military.
You’re incorrect mostly because the postal service (pretty famously at least in leftist spaces) DID make money (not every year admittedly). In fact, by law (aka cuz capitalists got mad) the post office is expected to ensure pricing covers the cost of fulfillment so the market stays competitive. Arguably, the main reason it is facing difficulties is because the government tried to force some bs payments onto it that were reversed by Biden in 2022. Regardless, you’re kind of making my point? It really feels like people are not reading what I wrote. The argument that a government agency needs funding and therefore can’t be a source of cost cutting or revenue is a bad argument. Governments require money to function. If the agency costs money, saves money, or makes money, it doesn’t matter. At some point, money will need to be allocated to it, even if it’s just to start it up. Saying “it costs money so that a problem” doesn’t make sense as an argument, even if it’s used against doge.
For clarity: I AM PRO POST OFFICE AND ANTI DOGE.
Isn’t the USPS required to fund employee benefits/pension 75 years ahead of time, meaning they’re funding employees who haven’t been born yet?
