Yesterday I saw a video from VA Secretary Doug Collins (former member of Congress from Georgia) bragging about how they were cutting $2 billion worth of what were clearly, in his estimation, worthless and stupid contracts. They were in fact almost one thousand different contracts tied to everything from medical and burial services to cancer prevention and doctor recruiting programs. I’ve posted that video below. This afternoon I received this email from a longtime reader …

I’m a contractor working for a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) for 15 years. I’ve worked on projects with the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. During that time, I’ve run marketing campaigns to get veterans to enroll in healthcare, conducted program evaluations and process improvement efforts, and provided strategic communications support.

Often there’s business news on at the gym where I go to work out each day. I’ve noticed over the last handful of days that CNBC has had a series of chyrons over their panels, all of which are some version of “why is the market so downbeat all of a sudden?” There are also some similar ones about consumer confidence, which has also been dropping. Economies are complex and no shift — including temporary ones — can be definitively ascribed to a single factor. But as I’ve watched this, I’ve been struck by how little discussion there is of one fairly straightforward explanation.

I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to confirm or refute pervasive rumors throughout the Social Security Administration that the agency is about to announce an across-the-board cut of 50% of staff. The decision was purportedly announced at an afternoon meeting yesterday by Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek. He asked for a plan for 50% cuts to be presented to him this afternoon. I have not been able to confirm this. But David Dayen at The American Prospect appears to have found two people who were in the meeting and do confirm it. Here’s David’s report.

It’s been hard to imagine that they were actually contemplating this, not because it’s horrible but because it’s likely to have such dramatic (and likely political costly) impacts on tens of millions of Americans. But here we are.

I had been planning, today or tomorrow, to write a post giving everyone a heads up that next week we kick off our annual TPM membership drive. I like to do that because when the drives coincide with major news events, or even public crises, I want to remind people that these are fixed annual events, a key part of our business model, etc. We’re not dropping one in just because it’s a period of high news interest. But my thinking about this changed a bit when I saw the news this morning that Jeff Bezos appears to be taking direct control of the paper’s opinion pages, saying they will now focus on promoting “personal liberties” and “free markets,” and will not publish contrary opinions. As I’ve noted before, the editorial page is literally where the paper itself speaks. It speaks for the ownership. Owners bringing those voices into line with their personal beliefs isn’t a crazy thing — entirely different from putting a thumb on the direction and integrity of news reporting.

I took a moment to think what “personal liberties” meant. If the line were “democracy and free markets” or “the rule of law and free markets” or even “freedom and free markets,” that reads quite different. In context, it’s pretty clear the meaning of this is a hard right/libertarian kind of politics. Bezos is the owner. He calls the shots. But if we are now moving into a world and a politics of the oligarchs vs. the people, it’s pretty clear that the Washington Post as an institution is firmly attached to Team Oligarch.

Which brings us back to our drive, kicking off next week. We’re in a new era. We’re not new. But the ways we differ from other news organization are much more consequential now than they have been at really any other point in our history. So when we kick off this year’s drive, please keep that in mind. Please consider subscribing if you don’t already. Consider suggesting it to your friends.

We mentioned on Monday that the Office of Special Counsel had found that six federal civil servants from six separate agencies had been unlawfully terminated from their positions. Now the Merit Systems Protection Board has granted the request to halt those terminations. Needless to say, this all sounds very technical and bureaucratic, and it’s not at all clear just what it means. I’m kind of there too. I think the best way to put it is that there are agencies within the federal government charged with deciding what kinds of dismissals are and are not okay. The OSC is a sort of finder of fact. It decided these terminations were unlawful. Then it brings it to this board and ask them to reinstate these people. That’s what just happened.