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.
Isn't that the pointlessness of it?economic impact.
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?
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
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. "
Greetings, Mike2810. :2wave:
Thanks! Your explanation, especially about seasonal work, makes sense! :thumbs:
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 believe the point is that if one reduces the overall size of government, fewer employees will be required.
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.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.
Wrong, we have seen continual declines in the RATIO of federal employment to total employment.I would also note that it is not 1982. The government has grown significantly since then.
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.
Your welcome.
I worked in the private sector before beginning(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.)work in wildland fire on hotshot crews
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.)
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.
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.
YesI have an ilk?
"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.No, I'm not all about starving the beast.
Goal post move, it was '82 (Raygun), now it becomes 08.The federal workforce is about the same size it was in 2008.
Unsubstantiated...and another "STB" argument.The cost of that workforce has increased significantly since 2000 or shortly before.
0.065% of the budget. Less than squat.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.
Starve the Beast argument raises it's head again.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.
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.
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.
Starve the Beast argument raises it's head again.
Marginal tax rates have gone dropped dramatically since the 70's, don't confuse the point.I'm familiar with it. Taxes have gone up and down over the years.
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.The size of the federal government remains as it is.
Yer not saying anything.That you don't see anything in that is telling.
That was my response when you made a big deal out of a 0.065% portion of the budget.Oh good Lord.
Again, you and I were debating the size of the FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.The size of the federal government has gone up and down incrementally over the years.
2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.I picked 08 because the numbers nearly matched.
Now yer changing to nominal numbers, still can't say: 2% of the TOTAL WORKFORCE.If you want to go back far enough, Washington had very few employed.
No, I don't he is dead and buried.You just have a dispute with Reagan.
Yer arguing 6, I'm saying it is a half dozen. Yer just playin semantics and will not stay on topic.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.
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?
Marginal tax rates have gone dropped dramatically since the 70's, don't confuse the point.
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.
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 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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?