Mike Black
@mikeblack114.bsky.social
8.5K followers 190 following 8.8K posts
Are you shittin me?!?!! No, but you'll print that and I'll probably be investigated Posts mine, but if you see something you think you can use to get me in trouble I did it on my own time and my own device, so good luck
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
mikeblack114.bsky.social
WARNO for (what's hopefully) tonight's game
mikeblack114.bsky.social
gonna try to to get this on the table today

We'll see how it plays but I think it's gonna be an excellent "you're in command, good luck (shit goes immediately sideways)" sort of game

Also both solitaire and fairly simple, so might be a good addition to any professional education scheme
Cover of Miracle at Dunkerque wargame .
mikeblack114.bsky.social
I also think Hermann's game can be played in less than 12 hours lmao
mikeblack114.bsky.social
in the designer notes Hermann explicitly says it's not a direct simulation but rather is intended to put you in the seat of the commander and force you to make the (hard, shitty) decisions
mikeblack114.bsky.social
gonna try to to get this on the table today

We'll see how it plays but I think it's gonna be an excellent "you're in command, good luck (shit goes immediately sideways)" sort of game

Also both solitaire and fairly simple, so might be a good addition to any professional education scheme
Cover of Miracle at Dunkerque wargame .
mikeblack114.bsky.social
our man don't miss
uticaeric.bsky.social
“I’m Kirsten Gillibrand and I think applesauce is wonderful, I recently spoke with a board member at TikTok, Barron Trump, he agrees that crypto is the future. Let’s put aside our differences and work on a bipartisan solution for American crypto bagholders: they all get a trillion Melania coins”
mikeblack114.bsky.social
The *authority* bit I'm not 100% sure on because crossing streams between doing legislation in appropriations bills is 🙃 (even though Congress does it all the time now), but regardless there is no MILPERS appropriation to transfer the $ into

No FY26 MILPERS and FY25 is expired (no new obligations)
mikeblack114.bsky.social
I can see that the media is doing an as expected abysmal job of covering this by making it sound like this is some arcane debate about legislative clauses sparked by supposed genius russ vought, but this is explicitly a Constitutional crisis because the executive is usurping core Article I functions
mikeblack114.bsky.social
It's also worth reiterating that absent this reprogramming authority being written into law it would be not just illegal but flatly unconstitutional for DoD to expend money in any fashion not explicitly specified (by both type/use and quantity) by Congress in an appropriations bill
mikeblack114.bsky.social
Since we're getting a crash course in DoD reprogramming authority, CRS has a good report on it linked below. Some important points:

Congress gives DoD reprogramming authority because when you're dealing with a trillion dollars, some stuff is probably going to need to be changed over 12 months
mikeblack114.bsky.social
My interpretation of what OMB has said so far is they're gonna reprogram appropriated two year RDT&E monies from FY25 to cover an as yet nonexistent FY26 MILPERS
mikeblack114.bsky.social
lmfao
sallyjenx.bsky.social
Ratio me. Please. It's a badge of honor. If you don't like a link, go follow some chicken-heart who needs the approval of the thought-police. Caitlin Flanagan of @theatlantic.com is a tremendous writer and this piece is an excellent read. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
Don’t Bet Against Bari Weiss
The new editor in chief of CBS News triumphs over her critics.
www.theatlantic.com
mikeblack114.bsky.social
I'm not 100% on the exact specifics of the *authorities* associated with a CR and when they actually expire, but regardless of that there's no valid account to transfer the funds into

FY25 MILPERS is expired and can't initiate new obligations, and FY26 MILPERS doesn't exist
mikeblack114.bsky.social
And finally reprogramming requires there to be a valid appropriation to transfer the funds into. There is no FY26 MILPERS (military pay appropriation) and FY25 MILPERS is expired (cannot legally do new obligations), hence why this is an illegal usurpation of Article I appropriation power
mikeblack114.bsky.social
It's quite possible that this results in codification of these reprogramming limits in actual law, instead of trusting DoD to not shoot itself in the head with regards to the Hill because russ vought told them to
mikeblack114.bsky.social
DoD implemented these in discussion with the committees because in a DoD not run by a drunk and a pack of rabid raccoons, everyone recognizes the importance of not unnecessarily missing off the Hill

At minimum this stunt will make the professional staff members (PSM) on approps VERY unhappy
mikeblack114.bsky.social
Additionally, DoD has implemented threshold limits for when a reprogramming action requires (per DoD policy, not law) Congressional approval (chair+ranking member of armed services and appropriations committees)

To scope the discussion these limits are all in the ~$10M ballpark
mikeblack114.bsky.social
So whatever reprogramming DoD has already done in FY25 (which is almost certainly more than zero) is taken out of that $8B in terms of what's legally allowed to be reprogrammed

The fact that OMB is flatly saying they have $8B in authority should give pause that any of this is above board
mikeblack114.bsky.social
However Congress also jealously (-ish, lately) guards the power of the purse and so implements limits on this

The $8B that everyone is talking about is the *total* reprogramming authority for FY25, per the CR. That means that is the *total* amount money that can be reprogrammed under this authority
mikeblack114.bsky.social
Since we're getting a crash course in DoD reprogramming authority, CRS has a good report on it linked below. Some important points:

Congress gives DoD reprogramming authority because when you're dealing with a trillion dollars, some stuff is probably going to need to be changed over 12 months
mikeblack114.bsky.social
Yeah, and also even if you take their argument at face value, even they are implicitly agreeing their ability to so this is limited to $8B, less whatever DoD had already reprogrammed in FY25
mikeblack114.bsky.social
Does raise the point though of how much of that topline reprogramming threshold had they already eaten up earlier in FY25, because thay $8B is in total for DoD, not that you get to reprogram as much as you want $8B at a time
mikeblack114.bsky.social
afaik the DoD thresholds are an internal executive policy that the executive does because it's a smart way to do business with appropriators, not actual law

My assumption is they've said to hell with that in this instance, which will be very popular with the appropriators (esp the PSMs)
mikeblack114.bsky.social
I don't know enough about the technical details to know if this is something DFAS (DoD) could do on their own or if they'd have to go upstream into Treasury in order for it to work, but wouldn't surprise me if it's the latter
mikeblack114.bsky.social
Explicitly marketed as "solve your no pockets problem while avoiding a backpack"
mikeblack114.bsky.social
There was a leatherworker at the art fest the other week selling what was literally a shoulder rig except with large pouches and no holster lol
mikeblack114.bsky.social
The only way I can think of to do this is to carry out the process by which they normally rollover to a new FY for MILPERS when there is an appropriation, which kind of gives the game away re: this being an illegal usurpation of Article I powers