You do understand the difference between Civil Service employees and political appointees, right? Let me simplify it for you. If you appoint somebody, you can fire them. If they're hired under merit system rules, you can't. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
presidents have always been able to fire their political appointees
however, the career civil service employees, who were hired based on merit, cannot now be fired unless they are found to violate federal regulations or where the government conducts a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees. such proposed terminations must then follow a defined process
the purpose is to allow the non-appointee government workers to not be subject to political influence as they carry out the work of the public
it is this insulation from political influence/whims that newt proposes to end
his proposal would result in worse government. think banana republic
JB thats ok except, if you were to do efficiency studies on what merit employees accomplish in a given day, I bet you could cut the workforce "to the bone" and still have adequate service. Same for administration and management. Id much rather prefer the higher ups get the axe than the rank and file, because lets face it, the heirarchal shape of government bureaucracy is nowhere near as efficient as people would like to believe. The more layers between the top and the bottom the more the system tends to break down. Thats why the red tape has become so insurmountable.
The prupose of government has become to create more and more government. Thats got to change. Governmental mindset needs to change with it or nothing will be accomplished if you DO cut it.
however, this topic is about crazy newt proclaiming that federal employees should be fired for no reason other than their politics being a different brand than his own
no thinking American could agree to that
"Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage