Federal employee hiring freeze.

[Visbek]

Stay at home parent? Slacker. Seriously, we could stand a little downsizing. There are roughly 22 million federal employees.

Try 2.8 million

Defense: 623k (does not include active duty soldiers)
VA: 239k
Homeland: 149k
Treasury: 109k
Justice: 105k (includes FBI)
Agriculture: 95k (includes food inspectors)
Interior: 66k (includes park service / rangers)
Social Security: 62k

So.... where, exactly, do you want to cut? Shouldn't you actually know what those positions are for, before demanding we cut them?

 

[Visbek]

we have time

No one said it has to happen tomorrow if tomorrow is not possible

The question is what happens if we do nothing?

The answer is the federal government will just continue to grow and thats unacceptable

Or, it will be roughly the same size, which is exactly what we've seen over the past few years. In fact, the number of federal employees dipped for several years during the Obama years.

We should note that today, you don't necessarily need a lot of employees to exert influence. E.g. if we equip the VA with advanced computers and lay off 15% of the staff, while improving records keeping and response times, that doesn't reduce the influence of the VA. Or, if the NSA hires a bunch of private contractors instead of civil servants, they reduce their staffing but extend their influence.

I know it's passé, but it doesn't hurt to get some basic facts before making a statement.

 

[Visbek]

Forget it, especially if that's supposed to be a defense of another dumbell Potus who thought a federal hiring freeze across the board for impact could succeed. It's a workaround that only goes around. And around.

It takes several years for a general across the board hiring freeze to begin to have any appreciable effect.

Yep... Reagan and Bush 43 also had hiring freezes. Both wound up increasing the size and influence of the federal government. So it goes.

 

[Mac77]

Or, it will be roughly the same size, which is exactly what we've seen over the past few years. In fact, the number of federal employees dipped for several years during the Obama years.

We should note that today, you don't necessarily need a lot of employees to exert influence. E.g. if we equip the VA with advanced computers and lay off 15% of the staff, while improving records keeping and response times, that doesn't reduce the influence of the VA. Or, if the NSA hires a bunch of private contractors instead of civil servants, they reduce their staffing but extend their influence.

I know it's passé, but it doesn't hurt to get some basic facts before making a statement.

I don't mind the government working smart if it does not overtax their ability to do so.

But in general less government is the most reliable way to get better government

 

[Mac77]

Yep... Reagan and Bush 43 also had hiring freezes. Both wound up increasing the size and influence of the federal government. So it goes.

Reagan I don't recall but bush was a wet noodle who did not want to fight the bureaucrats.

trump does not suffer from that shortcoming

 

[Visbek]

I don't mind the government working smart if it does not overtax their ability to do so.

But in general less government is the most reliable way to get better government

....unless it isn't.

Smaller police forces, fewer fire fighters, shutting down courtrooms, cutting food inspectors, firing VA doctors, cutting the number of air traffic controllers by 2/3.... The list goes on. Reducing government often results in negative outcomes.

The Framers certainly didn't agree with you, as they deliberately concentrated more power into the nascent federal government, and did not demand that it do as little as possible.

 

[Mac77]

....unless it isn't.

Smaller police forces, fewer fire fighters, shutting down courtrooms, cutting food inspectors, firing VA doctors, cutting the number of air traffic controllers by 2/3.... The list goes on. Reducing government often results in negative outcomes.

The Framers certainly didn't agree with you, as they deliberately concentrated more power into the nascent federal government, and did not demand that it do as little as possible.

Yes, some desirable hiring will be postponed along with the usual suspects of useless pencil pushers.

But at least at first every sector of the budget must give up something or it wont happen

 

[Visbek]

Reagan I don't recall

http://www.gao.gov/assets/140/137055.pdf

bush was a wet noodle who did not want to fight the bureaucrats.

Or....

Bush was another in a long line of Presidents who claimed to want to reduce regulation and the size of government, and expanded its powers and scope.

trump does not suffer from that shortcoming

Trump is full of irrational hyperbole, and has already said he wants to increase the Department of Defense -- already the largest employer in the Federal Government.

 

[Visbek]

Yes, some desirable hiring will be postponed along with the usual suspects of useless pencil pushers.

But at least at first every sector of the budget must give up something or it wont happen

Or, if you look at the actual budget, you will realize that Trump has already said he won't reduce the departments and programs that account for 70-80% of the budget.

Not to mention that he wants to cut taxes (i.e. reduce revenues) AND expand DoD and infrastructure spending.

And what do you want to cut, again? Food safety? FBI? FEMA? Nuclear safety inspectors?

 

[Mac77]

Bush was another in a long line of Presidents who claimed to want to reduce regulation and the size of government, and expanded its powers and scope.

Thats what I just said

But I don't think you are worried that trump wont do what he says but rather that he will reduce the size of government and put a lot of liberal hillary voters out on the street

 

[Mac77]

Or, if you look at the actual budget, you will realize that Trump has already said he won't reduce the departments and programs that account for 70-80% of the budget.

Not to mention that he wants to cut taxes (i.e. reduce revenues) AND expand DoD and infrastructure spending.

And what do you want to cut, again? Food safety? FBI? FEMA? Nuclear safety inspectors?

I think the trump budget is a work in progress

We will need to reduce spending across the board

 

[humbolt]

Try 2.8 million

Defense: 623k (does not include active duty soldiers)
VA: 239k
Homeland: 149k
Treasury: 109k
Justice: 105k (includes FBI)
Agriculture: 95k (includes food inspectors)
Interior: 66k (includes park service / rangers)
Social Security: 62k

So.... where, exactly, do you want to cut? Shouldn't you actually know what those positions are for, before demanding we cut them?

I've already corrected that number.

It's not my job to know which specific positions or people should be cut. Perhaps it's yours? I think $20 trillion in debt with rising interests rates demands that we cut where we can, and there aren't a whole lot of sacred cows - a few - but not too many.

 

[Visbek]

I've already corrected that number.

It's not my job to know which specific positions or people should be cut. Perhaps it's yours?

It's not my job, but merely stating "CUT CUT" doesn't make any sense to me.

E.g. 80% of the budge goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, unemployment insurance, Veterans and interest payments. About 1/4 of the civilian federal workforce is just DoD. Why would you not want to know that, before insisting we start firing people?

I think $20 trillion in debt with rising interests rates demands that we cut where we can, and there aren't a whole lot of sacred cows - a few - but not too many.

Well then, I expect you to be fuming over Trump's policies in a few years.

Despite all the talk of cutting the federal workforce, Trump's policies all but guarantee an increase in the federal deficits and debt. Cutting taxes = reduced revenues = higher deficit. He plans to spend more on defense and infrastructure. He has already ruled out cutting Social Security and Medicare. He can't cut interest payments. Cutting VA will unleash a firestorm. At least 70% of the federal budget is either off limits or pledged to increase.

For 2015, revenues were $3.35 trillion, and spending was $3.8 trillion.

The 2015 deficit was around $480 billion. Trump's policies are going to send it to $1 trillion in a few years. Will you take him to task, if he cuts the non-defense workforce, and spending still goes through the roof, and the federal government doesn't shrink any more than it did under Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43?

 

[humbolt]

It's not my job, but merely stating "CUT CUT" doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned the GAO report. That's the government saying that government spending can be cut.

E.g. 80% of the budge goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, unemployment insurance, Veterans and interest payments. About 1/4 of the civilian federal workforce is just DoD. Why would you not want to know that, before insisting we start firing people?

I've worked for the federal government. Why would you assume that I don't realize that some people and positions must remain? And alternatively, why do you assume that every freaking position within the government is absolutely essential. I know better, and so do you.

Well then, I expect you to be fuming over Trump's policies in a few years.

Despite all the talk of cutting the federal workforce, Trump's policies all but guarantee an increase in the federal deficits and debt. Cutting taxes = reduced revenues = higher deficit. He plans to spend more on defense and infrastructure. He has already ruled out cutting Social Security and Medicare. He can't cut interest payments. Cutting VA will unleash a firestorm. At least 70% of the federal budget is either off limits or pledged to increase.

For 2015, revenues were $3.35 trillion, and spending was $3.8 trillion.

The 2015 deficit was around $480 billion. Trump's policies are going to send it to $1 trillion in a few years. Will you take him to task, if he cuts the non-defense workforce, and spending still goes through the roof, and the federal government doesn't shrink any more than it did under Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43?

I think, given that Trump has been in office for a few days now, we might want to wait and see what is actually proposed rather than jump to conclusions based on, well, nothing more than speculation. I may be fuming over Trump in a year or so. Again, I think I'll wait and see. OTOH, given the notoriety of waste within the federal government, anybody who claims nothing can be cut, including personnel, probably has his or her head where the sun don't shine.

 

[Visbek]

I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned the GAO report. That's the government saying that government spending can be cut.

Not in this thread, not that I can see at any rate.

I've worked for the federal government. Why would you assume that I don't realize that some people and positions must remain?

I did not assume you wanted to cut the federal government to zero.

What I'm saying is: A generic "CUT CUT" is nonsensical. If you say "we should cut X," that at least makes sense.

I think, given that Trump has been in office for a few days now, we might want to wait and see what is actually proposed rather than jump to conclusions based on, well, nothing more than speculation.

Despite Trump's rampant mendacity, my comments are based on the best information available.

- He explicitly promised, repeatedly, not to touch Social Security or Medicare
- He explicitly promised to increase defense spending
- He can't cut interest payments without basically screwing over the global economy
- He already published his tax plans, which have been evaluated: Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan | Full Report | Tax Policy Center

Yes, the final product may be very different. However, it seems very clear that Congressional Republicans will back him on big tax cuts, DoD spending, and passing the buck on SS/Medicare.

Thus, I am quite confident that Trump's policies will send deficits into the stratosphere. We'll see how you feel about it in a few years.

 

[humbolt]

Not in this thread, not that I can see at any rate.

Here's one: Golden Hammer: GAO reports federal government wasted $125 billion in 2014 alone - Washington Times

I did not assume you wanted to cut the federal government to zero.

What I'm saying is: A generic "CUT CUT" is nonsensical. If you say "we should cut X," that at least makes sense.

On the personnel side, I assume those familiar with the workings of the agencies can make the determinations regarding who and what is essential, and who and what is not. I would suggest that the days when mid-level management of agency "X" holds a conference in New Orleans are over. That is no longer necessary. We have other tools now to achieve the same thing at a fraction of the cost.

Despite Trump's rampant mendacity, my comments are based on the best information available.

- He explicitly promised, repeatedly, not to touch Social Security or Medicare
- He explicitly promised to increase defense spending
- He can't cut interest payments without basically screwing over the global economy
- He already published his tax plans, which have been evaluated: Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan | Full Report | Tax Policy Center

Yes, the final product may be very different. However, it seems very clear that Congressional Republicans will back him on big tax cuts, DoD spending, and passing the buck on SS/Medicare.

Thus, I am quite confident that Trump's policies will send deficits into the stratosphere. We'll see how you feel about it in a few years.

I have every hope that Congressional Republicans will back Trump as Congressional Democrats backed Obama, with the exception that if he makes an outrageous proposal, they'll dig in their heels. We can revisit this stuff in a number of years, when there's enough of a record to make a reasonable judgement.

 

[Tangmo]

I think the trump budget is a work in progress

We will need to reduce spending across the board

The broad brush is the cliched mindset that does indiscriminate damage and good. It is a negative and it is a dogma, i.e. banal.

The executive branch issues are discretionary spending by departments, agencies, commissions, boards. Entitlement spending is the other half of the equation.

Entitlement departments such as HHS and VA have strictly written laws, rules and regs that require precision and that have measured formulas. Their spending is tight and relatively efficient. Taking the meat axe to them would be disastrous to the society and to the government.

Discretionary spenders such as HUD, Education, Commerce, Agriculture and a few others have much leeway in how they allocate their funding outlays by the Congress. These are the culprits. They fund their pet projects both political and in the particular area of expertise. These are the guys who throw money around to their lobby groups and interest groups.

Hiring freezes and budget cuts need to be discrete and to be wise. The broad brush is both mindless dogma and harmful slashing and tearing. Distinguishing between the two kinds of executive jurisdiction is necessary and wise. This is why no one in Washington who freezes or cuts knows anything other than the broad brush assault. Dogma is the opposite of wisdom and reality based governance.

And defense spending always needs to be made more efficient. The bigger the defense budget, and it may need increases from time to time, the greater the waste however. This needs to be addressed continually or continuously in the interest of national security and the Pentagon's credibility. Not to mention the pork barrel Congress in their districts and their states.