• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal employee hiring freeze.

Presidential appointees are not hired. The vast bulk of federal people among those elected, appointed, and hired are permanent federal employees protected under laws that makes firing them extremely difficult. So the only logical way to reduce the federal work force is via attrition. People will retire, quit, move on to other jobs, and they won't be replaced unless they are in critical positions. If there is nobody qualified to promote into those positions, THEN the President leaves open an option for a waiver so that those positions can be filled.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

It looks like the government is being forced to act like most businesses have always had to - the difference being that businesses have to be competitive in order to make a profit to have enough money to pay their bills - employee salaries among them - or they go out of business. The government doesn't seem to have that worry - they can always raise our taxes instead of cutting spending, I guess, because who is their competition? Unfortunately that hasn't worked either, or we would not have a $20 trillion...and climbing... debt to pay.

BTW, what is a permanent federal employee? Would our FBI and employees in departments like that be among that group? I have never heard that term before...
 
economic impact.
Isn't that the pointlessness of it?

And then there is this:


A 1982
General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report on Reagan and
Carter’s hiring freezes found the policy was not an “effective means” of controlling federal
employment “regardless of how well managed.”
GAO said: “The government *wide hiring freezes had little effect on federal employment levels and
it is not known whether they saved money. Because they ignored individual agencies' missions,
workload and staffing requirements, these freezes disrupted agency operations and, in some
cases, increased costs to the government.”
Rather than reducing the cost on labor overall, the auditors found
the administration developed “alternative sources” to get work
done that increased spending.
“Any potential savings produced by these freezes would be
partially or completely offset by increasing overtime, contracting
with private firms, or using other than full*time permanent
employees,” GAO said. “Decreased debt and revenue collections also occurred as a result of hiring
freezes.”
A government wide hiring freeze fails to take into account actual workload, GAO said, and
employee reduction should instead be “targeted to where it can best be absorbed.”

Trump Signs Order to Freeze Federal Hiring - Management - GovExec.com
 
There was a lot of "use it or lose" it when I served in the military too. Unbelievable waste. But I don't know a single politician with the nutsack to even suggest cuts in defense.

You know, last I heard, the US spends more on their military industrial complex than the next 7 nations all put together.

What about this? What say that we only spend more than the next 4 countries combined instead? Take the savings and put it in escrow in case we ever do need to spend more than the next 7 countries? And as the years pass, we take just half of the escrowed savings, that we didn't need to use and spend it on the people instead? Would y'all be cool with that?

That depends on where we cut. If we can cut and maintain our responsibilities, fine. I have my doubts because numerous systems on which we rely are due, and in some cases overdue, for replacement. We are behind both the Russians and the Chinese in certain critical areas, as well.
 
Isn't that the pointlessness of it?

And then there is this:


A 1982
General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) report on Reagan and
Carter’s hiring freezes found the policy was not an “effective means” of controlling federal
employment “regardless of how well managed.”
GAO said: “The government *wide hiring freezes had little effect on federal employment levels and
it is not known whether they saved money. Because they ignored individual agencies' missions,
workload and staffing requirements, these freezes disrupted agency operations and, in some
cases, increased costs to the government.”
Rather than reducing the cost on labor overall, the auditors found
the administration developed “alternative sources” to get work
done that increased spending.
“Any potential savings produced by these freezes would be
partially or completely offset by increasing overtime, contracting
with private firms, or using other than full*time permanent
employees,” GAO said. “Decreased debt and revenue collections also occurred as a result of hiring
freezes.”
A government wide hiring freeze fails to take into account actual workload, GAO said, and
employee reduction should instead be “targeted to where it can best be absorbed.”

Trump Signs Order to Freeze Federal Hiring - Management - GovExec.com

I believe the point is that if one reduces the overall size of government, fewer employees will be required. And in the astute point you make, it's encouraging to know that the associated loss of federal employees will not significantly harm the economic or employment outlook for the country. I would also note that it is not 1982. The government has grown significantly since then.
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

It looks like the government is being forced to act like most businesses have always had to - the difference being that businesses have to be competitive in order to make a profit to have enough money to pay their bills - employee salaries among them - or they go out of business. The government doesn't seem to have that worry - they can always raise our taxes instead of cutting spending, I guess, because who is their competition? Unfortunately that hasn't worked either, or we would not have a $20 trillion...and climbing... debt to pay.

BTW, what is a permanent federal employee? Would our FBI and employees in departments like that be among that group? I have never heard that term before...

In a nut shell there are temporary positions, WAE (when actually employed) and Permanent jobs within the federal govt.

Temporary positions are generally seasonal work (wildland firefighters, recreational aid, etc). They are not permanent employees.
WAE employees. are jobs that are for a specific time period up yo 11.5 months. WAE positions have more benefits that seasonal.
Permanent or also call Career or Career conditional.

imo, FBI employees are career (permanent) . They all go through a probation period of 1-3 years.

http://www.federalhandbooks.com/fedbooks/Personnel.pdf
"Permanent employees are generally hired into the Federal government under a career-conditional appointment. A career-conditional employee must complete three years of substantially continuous service before becoming a full career employee. This 3-year period is used to determine whether or not the Government is able to offer the employee a career. "
 
In a nut shell there are temporary positions, WAE (when actually employed) and Permanent jobs within the federal govt.

Temporary positions are generally seasonal work (wildland firefighters, recreational aid, etc). They are not permanent employees.
WAE employees. are jobs that are for a specific time period up yo 11.5 months. WAE positions have more benefits that seasonal.
Permanent or also call Career or Career conditional.

imo, FBI employees are career (permanent) . They all go through a probation period of 1-3 years.

http://www.federalhandbooks.com/fedbooks/Personnel.pdf
"Permanent employees are generally hired into the Federal government under a career-conditional appointment. A career-conditional employee must complete three years of substantially continuous service before becoming a full career employee. This 3-year period is used to determine whether or not the Government is able to offer the employee a career. "

Greetings, Mike2810. :2wave:

Thanks! Your explanation, especially about seasonal work, makes sense! :thumbs:
 
Greetings, Mike2810. :2wave:

Thanks! Your explanation, especially about seasonal work, makes sense! :thumbs:

Your welcome.
I worked in the private sector before beginning work in wildland fire on hotshot crews (seasonal work). I eventually was hired as a WAE (9 - 11.5 months) as a fire suppression specialist for a federal agency. That lead to a career (permanent) job with the same agency. Retired 12 years ago after serving 30 years.)
 
I believe the point is that if one reduces the overall size of government, fewer employees will be required.
Yer trying to do it in the opposite way, you are removing employees from a system and expecting the system to still function....but then again....yer ilk doesn't want the system at all, you want it to die, the "starve the beast" idiocy from Raygun. It has ALREADY been whittled down, it is not the employment at the federal level that has caused debt, it has been the declines in wages and the declines in revenue.
And in the astute point you make, it's encouraging to know that the associated loss of federal employees will not significantly harm the economic or employment outlook for the country.
I keep pointing out, it will not cause the savings you guys are expecting to find, but it will be another addition to a slow recovery just as the massive declines in state/local govt employment had very large effects on unemployment and declines in household incomes.
I would also note that it is not 1982. The government has grown significantly since then.
Wrong, we have seen continual declines in the RATIO of federal employment to total employment.
 
That depends on where we cut. If we can cut and maintain our responsibilities, fine. I have my doubts because numerous systems on which we rely are due, and in some cases overdue, for replacement. We are behind both the Russians and the Chinese in certain critical areas, as well.

We could start by eliminating the afore mentioned "use it or lose" it mentality within the ranks.

I understand that a busy sailor is a happy sailor. But there is a lot of "work" created, often at a considerable expense, that isn't necessary at all.

I think a third party, qualified and trained on military operations, could go in with a sharp pencil and look at it like a profiting business would, and trim a LOT of fat.

Price should never be an option when it comes to the defense and care of our nation. Our soldiers deserve the best we can provide them.

But spending more than the next 7 military's all put together? That includes both Russia and China. Why not 8 times? 10?

Let's start by agreeing on a number. 4? 5? 6? 7? 100? And let's work from there. When will enough be enough? My plan doesn't take the money away. It will always be there. Just, adjust the X's spent, a point or two and rathole the money. If we need it, there it is. If we don't, it draws interest while socked away. After several years with out any major world wars, we would have enough socked away to outspend not just 7 times but 70 times, if need be.

Then we get efficient. Any division, battalion, branch, rank or file, caught wasting material or even hinting a "use it or lose it," mentality, should be addressed harshly.

Seriously, it's been a while since I served. Maybe things have changed. But back in my day, wastefulness was rampant. The thought of conserving never entered our mind really. I have heard tales from my ship mates of unheard of, intentional disposal of perfectly, sometimes new, material in order to keep next year's budget numbers up there.
 
Your welcome.
I worked in the private sector before beginning
work in wildland fire on hotshot crews
(seasonal work). I eventually was hired as a WAE (9 - 11.5 months) as a fire suppression specialist for a federal agency. That lead to a career (permanent) job with the same agency. Retired 12 years ago after serving 30 years.)

That's some rough work.
 
Your welcome.
I worked in the private sector before beginning work in wildland fire on hotshot crews (seasonal work). I eventually was hired as a WAE (9 - 11.5 months) as a fire suppression specialist for a federal agency. That lead to a career (permanent) job with the same agency. Retired 12 years ago after serving 30 years.)

Good for you, Mike! :applaud

My mom, years ago, applied at ToysRus for temporary work at Christmas. She was asked in her interview to gift-wrap some packages as a trial, and she was hired on the spot! She was a whiz-bang at stuff like that, and she enjoyed that job. They wanted her to work full time, but she wasn't interested - she just wanted to be able to earn a little extra money to spend on Christmas that year, so as a gift to her, they let her use the employee discount even though she only worked there a month. She always said that was a win-win for everyone - she spent the money they paid her on toys from their store! Memories... :mrgreen:
 
Yer trying to do it in the opposite way, you are removing employees from a system and expecting the system to still function....but then again....yer ilk doesn't want the system at all, you want it to die, the "starve the beast" idiocy from Raygun. It has ALREADY been whittled down, it is not the employment at the federal level that has caused debt, it has been the declines in wages and the declines in revenue. I keep pointing out, it will not cause the savings you guys are expecting to find, but it will be another addition to a slow recovery just as the massive declines in state/local govt employment had very large effects on unemployment and declines in household incomes.Wrong, we have seen continual declines in the RATIO of federal employment to total employment.

I have an ilk? No, I'm not all about starving the beast. The federal workforce is about the same size it was in 2008. The cost of that workforce has increased significantly since 2000 or shortly before. I'm not concerned with elimination of government agencies. I am concerned with the failure to address things like those mentioned in this article below, as a starting point.

'Tens of Billions of Dollars' Wasted on Duplicate Federal Programs: Report

Given the duplications mentioned above, it would seem those charged with administering those services are somewhat superfluous.

I'm interested in zero based budgeting. That is, justification on a periodic basis for the sums required to operate the agency and fulfill it's mission, and not an indexed automatic increase. As it is now, when we talk about cuts in federal spending, we're talking about decreases in the increase, and not an actual cut. Furthermore, I do have an interest in reducing the scope and reach of the government in the daily lives of our citizens. Examples of the excess in that area abound.
 
We could start by eliminating the afore mentioned "use it or lose" it mentality within the ranks.

I understand that a busy sailor is a happy sailor. But there is a lot of "work" created, often at a considerable expense, that isn't necessary at all.

I think a third party, qualified and trained on military operations, could go in with a sharp pencil and look at it like a profiting business would, and trim a LOT of fat.

Price should never be an option when it comes to the defense and care of our nation. Our soldiers deserve the best we can provide them.

But spending more than the next 7 military's all put together? That includes both Russia and China. Why not 8 times? 10?

Let's start by agreeing on a number. 4? 5? 6? 7? 100? And let's work from there. When will enough be enough? My plan doesn't take the money away. It will always be there. Just, adjust the X's spent, a point or two and rathole the money. If we need it, there it is. If we don't, it draws interest while socked away. After several years with out any major world wars, we would have enough socked away to outspend not just 7 times but 70 times, if need be.

Then we get efficient. Any division, battalion, branch, rank or file, caught wasting material or even hinting a "use it or lose it," mentality, should be addressed harshly.

Seriously, it's been a while since I served. Maybe things have changed. But back in my day, wastefulness was rampant. The thought of conserving never entered our mind really. I have heard tales from my ship mates of unheard of, intentional disposal of perfectly, sometimes new, material in order to keep next year's budget numbers up there.

I'm all for eliminating waste where ever it can be found, and I have no doubt it can be found everywhere in government.
 
I have an ilk?
Yes
No, I'm not all about starving the beast.
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending[1][2][3] by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.

Yes, that is your argument
The federal workforce is about the same size it was in 2008.
Goal post move, it was '82 (Raygun), now it becomes 08.
The cost of that workforce has increased significantly since 2000 or shortly before.
Unsubstantiated...and another "STB" argument.
I'm not concerned with elimination of government agencies. I am concerned with the failure to address things like those mentioned in this article below, as a starting point.

'Tens of Billions of Dollars' Wasted on Duplicate Federal Programs: Report

Given the duplications mentioned above, it would seem those charged with administering those services are somewhat superfluous.
0.065% of the budget. Less than squat.

I'm interested in zero based budgeting. That is, justification on a periodic basis for the sums required to operate the agency and fulfill it's mission, and not an indexed automatic increase. As it is now, when we talk about cuts in federal spending, we're talking about decreases in the increase, and not an actual cut. Furthermore, I do have an interest in reducing the scope and reach of the government in the daily lives of our citizens. Examples of the excess in that area abound.
Starve the Beast argument raises it's head again.
 
Yes "Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending[1][2][3] by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.

I'm familiar with it. Taxes have gone up and down over the years. The size of the federal government remains as it is. That you don't see anything in that is telling.

Yes, that is your argument Goal post move, it was '82 (Raygun), now it becomes 08. Unsubstantiated...and another "STB" argument. 0.065% of the budget. Less than squat.

Oh good Lord. The size of the federal government has gone up and down incrementally over the years. I picked 08 because the numbers nearly matched. If you want to go back far enough, Washington had very few employed. You just have a dispute with Reagan.

Starve the Beast argument raises it's head again.

Only in your mind does reducing the scope and reach of government become starving the beast. It means what it says, and not that broken record you keep playing.
 
I'm familiar with it. Taxes have gone up and down over the years.
Marginal tax rates have gone dropped dramatically since the 70's, don't confuse the point.
The size of the federal government remains as it is.
We are dealing with the size of FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT, that you were horribly mistaken on, it is at less than 2% of total employment....I'm gonna hammer this until you get it.
That you don't see anything in that is telling.
Yer not saying anything.



Oh good Lord.
That was my response when you made a big deal out of a 0.065% portion of the budget.
The size of the federal government has gone up and down incrementally over the years.
Again, you and I were debating the size of the FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.
I picked 08 because the numbers nearly matched.
2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.
If you want to go back far enough, Washington had very few employed.
Now yer changing to nominal numbers, still can't say: 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.
You just have a dispute with Reagan.
No, I don't he is dead and buried.



Only in your mind does reducing the scope and reach of government become starving the beast. It means what it says, and not that broken record you keep playing.
Yer arguing 6, I'm saying it is a half dozen. Yer just playin semantics and will not stay on topic.
 
The federal hiring freeze in now in effect.
The question I have is who is considered a federal employee? Federal judges? Supreme court? The Presidents appointees? The Presidents staff?

I don't really see a problem with that. Agencies have to validate their grants, so now they'll have to do it in other ways. It should be interesting to see how this all plays out.
 
Marginal tax rates have gone dropped dramatically since the 70's, don't confuse the point.

You ssem to select a date which suits you. I don't think I'm confusing anything here, but you are.

We are dealing with the size of FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT, that you were horribly mistaken on, it is at less than 2% of total employment....I'm gonna hammer this until you get it. Yer not saying anything.

I've already apologized once. That's all you're ever going to get from me. What you're not getting and likely will never get, is that in an age of increased automation, the idea that it's absolutely necessary to maintain the same number of employees as we had even 10 years ago to administer programs is just inane and abjectly stupid. Furthermore, the idea is to cut spending, and when you cut spending, you don't need as many people administering programs shrinking in size, and that is the core notion you don't like, and you know it as well as I do. So you've resorted to hyperbole, invoking Reagan and starving the beast.

That was my response when you made a big deal out of a 0.065% portion of the budget.Again, you and I were debating the size of the FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE. 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE. Now yer changing to nominal numbers, still can't say: 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.No, I don't he is dead and buried.



Yer arguing 6, I'm saying it is a half dozen. Yer just playin semantics and will not stay on topic.

The work force is going to be cut, and spending is going to be cut to various agencies, as well. In short, spending will be cut wherever it can be, including the federal workforce. The costs of that workforce have increased rather dramatically over the past two decades. I don't care if you don't like it. It's going to happen.
 
The federal hiring freeze in now in effect.
The question I have is who is considered a federal employee? Federal judges? Supreme court? The Presidents appointees? The Presidents staff?

It is laid out in the order. It exempts military and critical positions. It is exactly what I would have done in his shoes. We really need to start trimming government.
 
imrs.php
 
Maybe Trump would like to lead by example and put a hiring freeze on himself and his cronies in the cabinet including his son in law

Federal work force has been stable or dropped since like 2000, yet he makes it sound like runaway nepotism (see: hiring son in laws) and mafia style "protection" contracts. It's just like he whines over the "depleted military" that's still the most absurdly bloated on the planet. The fact is despite his antics, he does not want to 'starve the beast' as the loss of a million well paying jobs would be very bad politics. Cutting some low funded crap like federal arts spending is as far as it will get
 
A Potus is either foolish or cynical in ordering an across the board hiring freeze regardless of who the Potus is or when. This is because a critical dichotomy needs to be made that isn't ever done.

During 13 years in Washington I found the agencies and employees that administer entitlement programs do their jobs well and abide by the rules and laws that are precise and, in a word, strict. Fundamentally, you either qualify or you don't. Agencies and employees that administer discretionary funding outlays are more freewheeling and politically oriented...these need to be reduced in size and scope in almost every respect.

While all agencies and employees operate by specific laws of the USC, entitlement programs are precise and exact. Discretionary grants and funding is where the worst abuses lie.

Examples of agencies and employees that do entitlement programs -- a mass of 'em -- are in Departments of: Health and Human Services, also, Veteran's Affairs.

Examples of those with a lot of discretionary spending are: HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Interior, Transportation, Labor.

Others are in between to varying degree, such as Justice, State, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy among the several. Each of 'em has must-do obligations while also having grants authority they can throw around as they please depending of pressures from the White House but buy, er, by Congress especially. For instance, some don't like when Justice funds a program to find out how many unarmed black guys are killed by police, while conversely, others don't like when the Energy bureaucrats and assistant secretaries fund projects Exxon properly should be doing, or to find out how many barrels of oil might be under Mt. Rushmore in one form or another (few to none).

Separately, there are 'independent' commissions or boards, such as the FCC, FTC, NLRB, EEOC and the like. These among almost all the others like it are generally and perpetually understaffed.

Size of a budget and the number of personnel do matter in taxation, however, while size may be relevant, it isn't always determinative or dispositary. HHS for instance needs all the employees it can get, as does EEOC. So does Justice to name another. Conversely, HUD hacks need to be hacked off and away, as do the mass of agronomy solicitors in Agriculture and 'innovaters' at DeptEducation.

We don't need a Rick Perry to try to remember a who what or why of it either. I don't say abolish or cripple the hack departments or commissions, but rather than to give 'em a good weight reduction program. (Change a bunch of laws too but then there is the Congress as always where no person's tax dollar is safe while the House is in session.)

So the starting gate never opens on a Potus who does not have any cognition of the dichotomy. Congress itself spends too much time hollering about entitlement programs while fattening up agribusiness and doling out such items as low media visibility county road contracts and building new courthouses as well as state and county jails.

It's like in the Congress where a dichotomy exists between category of professional staff employee. In the House and the Senate, you're either employed in the personal office of a Congress person in the House or a Senator, or you're employed by a committee staff of either chamber. Members of the Senate and the House can use every body in their office that can fit into the space. Committee staff however, while more professional at the higher levels, have many employees dividing labor between ordering paper clips to being personal assistant to a chairman of the committee or of one of its subcommittees, meaning you carry the luggage at the airport to the hotel or back in Washington you take the chairman's dog to the vet (on your way to an official meeting of course).

(Still, however, nearly every member of the House and the Senate pack their offices so thick with staff and interns you can't move without bumping into somebody.) MSM journalists either aspiring to greatness or enjoying greatness are not interested in the outrageous and self-serving laws Congress passes that give it 30 professional staff and 30 interns.)

This post covers a lot of ground somewhat didactically but it's meant to do that.
 
OK, there are contracts in place now.

At the very least there will be no new contracts in the future so sooner or later the payoff will be realized



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. But only some, which some would argue is better than nothing. After another several years the freeze would of necessity be frozen as all would get back to normal. Potus come and Potus go.

It is anyway a weak argument given the research findings presented to the thread that it's not a straight up measurement, i.e., there are myriad factors and effects that do not manifest in simple reductions of personnel data. What's pointedly saved in direct labor costs and benefit programs gets eaten up in other labor costs and in government efficiency costs in every department, agency, commission, board. When one does the work of three people while being paid as one person -- or less than -- very much gets lost in services provided and in efficiency to include career retention.

That bureaucracy is a fact of modern life does not mean we have to bloat it. Nor does it mean we should or could start setting arbitrary numbers, i.e., politically exploitative or cynical ones. If we want seriously to reduce significantly the bureaucracy then we'd have to reduce the general population and thus the GDP also. Repealing Obamacare probably addresses the former while the latter would be no less insane to consider.
 
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.

But only some, which some would argue is better than nothing. After another several years the freeze would of necessity be frozen as all would get back to normal. Potus come and Potus go.

It is anyway a weak argument given the research findings presented to the thread that it's not a straight up measurement, i.e., there are myriad factors and effects that do not manifest in simple reductions of personnel data. What's pointedly saved in direct labor costs and benefit programs gets eaten up in other labor costs and in government efficiency costs in every department, agency, commission, board. When one does the work of three people while being paid as one person -- or less than -- very much gets lost in services provided and in efficiency to include career retention.

That bureaucracy is a fact of modern life does not mean we have to bloat it. Nor does it mean we should or could start setting arbitrary numbers, i.e., politically exploitative or cynical ones. If we want seriously to reduce significantly the bureaucracy then we'd have to reduce the general population and thus the GDP also. Repealing Obamacare probably addresses the former while the latter would be no less insane to consider.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom