"Aaaaah wait a minute... i remember talking to you about this last month."
Yes, I think I recall this conversation as well.
"You are half right. "
No, I am 100% correct when it comes to how contracts operate. What your post reflects is that, somehow, you believe political influences can change the rules around a contract. This is false. Every American person and organization are held to the exact same expectations about contract fulfillment. Breach is very well defined in American law and the consequences of breach are also defined well.
The Government is not exempt from the rules of a Contract. In fact, Congress feels SOOOO strongly that Governments should be held accountable for Contract law that the Tucker Act was passed back in 1887 which specifically states that the Government can not claim immunity for claims of contract breach where the remedy is money.
I will address each of your sentences one at a time below, but first wanted to make it clear that there is no "political aspect" to a contract breach. There are definitely political forces around the FORMATION of a contract, but once the contract is formed, it is formed and the contract follows standard contract law. Watt was not around during the formation of the contract, so we can't blame him for that. And since he is now bound to the contract, we can't reasonably ask him to get fired, probably sued, and possibly go to jail for us, who he has never even met. None of us would face those kinds of punishments for a "morale victory" that benefits strangers.
"Treasury has the right to cancel payment but in doing so without any legal or political case, the Treasury will look like it is acting alone."
The Treasury has that right. In fact, the 3rd Amendment specifically says "Purchaser may waive the Periodic Commitment Fee for up to one year at a time, in its sole discretion". Therefore, it doesn't matter what it looks like. The agreement gave the Treasury the POWER to end the contract whenever it likes.
"It will be responsible for stopping revenue for the Treasury"
Your argument is that the Treasury won't stop the payments because it will make them look bad. I find this argument so hypocritical and ironic. Every single day, people blame WATT, of all people, for not ending the NWS, even though doing so would end him in a world of ACTUAL trouble, because he has no legal right to end it. The Treasury, on the other hand, has the LEGAL right to end the sweep, and yet Watt gets the blame? This entire argument makes no sense.
The facts are simple. Watt CANNOT end the sweep without ending up ruining his life. The Treasury CAN end the sweep, as dictated by the original agreement and basic contract law. Therefore, the BLAME for not ending the sweep must fall on the Treasury, not on Watt.
I just don't see how you can logically refute this.
"In other words, it needs a strong "reason" or "case" either by congress, by the courts OR by WATTS to stop it. "
Incorrect. The treasury can act unilaterally, as stated above...and Watt CANT stop it.
"All I am saying is WATTS has to press the issue and make it public"
He has done this. He has written multiple letters and given multiple public statements saying that he is against the NWS.
"meet with congress"
He has!
"get major support by the leading experts"
Leading experts have already commented that the NWS is dangerous. Check!
"that he wants to stop the NWS to stop because it is killing the GSEs."
He has done this too. He, of course, is not going to use such emotional words as "killing the GSEs", but he has made such equal claims in more professional wording. It would seem as though Watt has met all of your criteria above.
"When was the last time we actually heard him speak about the NWS?"
If you count his letter, then very recently. If you are talking about verbally, I couldn't tell you...but that is irrelevant. There's only so many times someone can scream "The sky is falling!" before their vocal cords give out.
"if he did that with this Administration, they will stop it."
He sent a message to Mnuchin in his last letter specifically stating that the NWS is dangerous. So, he did this too.
"I mean he is a Director of an Independent Agency that can't be fired... what is he worried about? "
The President of the United States can't be fired either (at least to the same degree as the Director of an Independent Agency)...and Trump actually has the power to influence the ending of the NWS, directly, thru an executive order.
So why hasn't he?
