Hiring Freeze

[chadk66]

My wife works for the national park service. She just informed me Trump just signed an EO for a hiring freeze on any new federal employees. :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

My wife works for the national park service. She just informed me Trump just signed an EO for a hiring freeze on any new federal employees. :ThmbUp:

Maybe your wife can explain to you why this is not a good thing. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

First day of swamp draining.
We have far too many federal employees.

[boxcar]

First day of swamp draining.
We have far too many federal employees.

Could probably fire half the force and government operations wouldn't skip a beat and the taxpayers will save money. And the remaining half would finally learn what an honest day's work is. Talk about a win-win situation.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Yes, I saw it on the news. Another Trump promise set in motion.

It would be nice if attrition is all that is needed, but I'm afraid draining the swamp will probably require a stronger pull on the plug.

[NJ Stinks]

First day of swamp draining.
We have far too many federal employees.

I didn't realize Trump wanted to finish off the middle class.

[NJ Stinks]

Could probably fire half the force and government operations wouldn't skip a beat and the taxpayers will save money. And the remaining half would finally learn what an honest day's work is. Talk about a win-win situation.

Boxcar, your views make me sick. Why we have to share the same country is beyond me. And yes, I understand it's a cross we both have to share.

You too, Jesse.

[Clocker]

Maybe your wife can explain to you why this is not a good thing. :rolleyes:

Why is it not a good thing? It is a standard practice by both parties at most levels of government when there is a change of administration, especially a change of party control.

It gives control of staff to the new people who will be running the various sections of government, after they have time to take office and determine the situation.

[NJ Stinks]

Why is it not a good thing? It is a standard practice by both parties at most levels of government when there is a change of administration, especially a change of party control.

It gives control of staff to the new people who will be running the various sections of government, after they have time to take office and determine the situation.

Clocker, aren't you the guy that said before the election that Trump and the GOP were not the enemy of government workers? A hiring freeze and pay freeze on staffs that are already over-burdened because hardly anybody has been replaced for years and years is not the act of a neutral party.

There are at least 3 times as many federal government employees over 60 than under 30. Not replacing people as they retire is absurd unless you don't give a crap about government efficiency.

[Tom]

Clocker, aren't you the guy that said before the election that Trump and the GOP were not the enemy of government workers? A hiring freeze and pay freeze on staffs that are already over-burdened because hardly anybody has been replaced for years and years is not the act of a neutral party.

There are at least 3 times as many federal government employees over 60 than under 30. Not replacing people as they retire is absurd unless you don't give a crap about government efficiency.

So Obama treated his workers like crap, huh?
That bastard!!!!:mad:

[EasyGoer89]

Boxcar, your views make me sick. Why we have to share the same country is beyond me. And yes, I understand it's a cross we both have to share.

You too, Jesse.

You don't have to share, you're free to leave if you want to.

[NJ Stinks]

So Obama treated his workers like crap, huh?
That bastard!!!!:mad:

Yea, Obama did. Only fools in the GOP pretended otherwise.

[Tom]

Cuba is easy to enter these days.

[NJ Stinks]

You don't have to share, you're free to leave if you want to.

Thanks.

[EasyGoer89]

Thanks.

No problem. If you decide to stay I'm going to require you to accept the results of the election and to stop complaining and work WITH the winners and with America. Help out.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You don't have to share, you're free to leave if you want to.

Don't be a total ****face. I'd much rather read something sincere from someone that I disagree with like NJStinks than another gratuitous post saying exactly nothing useful.

[NJ Stinks]

No problem. If you decide to stay I'm going to require you to accept the results of the election and to stop complaining and work WITH the winners and with America. Help out.

Trump on getting rid of free trade agreements and other acts to bring back jobs is great - overdue and great. Just about everything else is typical Republican garbage. I will say what I think is garbage here or anywhere for that matter.

[EasyGoer89]

Don't be a total ****face. I'd much rather read something sincere from someone that I disagree with like NJStinks than another gratuitous post saying exactly nothing useful.

Im sincere. And a blank face. :D

[EasyGoer89]

Trump on getting rid of free trade agreements and other acts to bring back jobs is great - overdue and great. Just about everything else is typical Republican garbage. I will say what I think is garbage here or anywhere for that matter.

Thanks.

[JustRalph]

What happen to the 1/3rd of government employees who said they would quit if Trump won?

[OntheRail]

What happen to the 1/3rd of government employees who said they would quit if Trump won?
Come on JR they would rather be let go then out right quit. That way they can still suck on that unemployment teat for 60 plus months.

[boxcar]

What happen to the 1/3rd of government employees who said they would quit if Trump won?

After the election those wussies discovered just how full of horse manure they are. That's what happened.

[ebcorde]

My wife works for the national park service. She just informed me Trump just signed an EO for a hiring freeze on any new federal employees. :ThmbUp:


what about contractors? trump and his people never provide details.

[ebcorde]

who ruined the USFL and failed in Gaming. good luck with his "beliefs"

[NJ Stinks]

What happen to the 1/3rd of government employees who said they would quit if Trump won?

Chances are these people won't disappoint you, Ralph.
____________________________

The federal workforce is building toward a potential retirement wave in coming years, with more than a third of career federal employees projected to be eligible for collecting their end-of-career benefits by September 2017, compared to just 14 percent at the same time in 2012.

That’s according to a new report on trends in federal civilian employment and compensation from Congress’s nonpartisan investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office. The analysis also found that federal employment, not including the military, grew by 14 percent between 2004 and 2012, with most of the increase coming in the form of jobs that require higher skill and education....

....For what it’s worth, the GAO found that the government’s three largest agencies — the departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security — accounted for 94 percent of the increase in federal employment between 2004 and 2012.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/01/30/fed-worker-retirement-eligibility-to-skyrocket-by-2017-report-says/?utm_term=.c4466704e911

[AndyC]

A hiring freeze and pay freeze on staffs that are already over-burdened because hardly anybody has been replaced for years and years is not the act of a neutral party.

There are at least 3 times as many federal government employees over 60 than under 30. Not replacing people as they retire is absurd unless you don't give a crap about government efficiency.

Perhaps a major overdue pruning of the vast regulations burdening the country will mean a lot less work for government employees.

[wisconsin]

It's a new employee hiring freeze. Jeesh, I was unaware that we did not have enough government workers :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

Clocker, aren't you the guy that said before the election that Trump and the GOP were not the enemy of government workers? A hiring freeze and pay freeze on staffs that are already over-burdened because hardly anybody has been replaced for years and years is not the act of a neutral party.

There are at least 3 times as many federal government employees over 60 than under 30. Not replacing people as they retire is absurd unless you don't give a crap about government efficiency.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I stopped at "Over burdened".....
:lol: :lol:

[EasyGoer89]

what about contractors? trump and his people never provide details.

Why do you think he's not providing details?

[chadk66]

what about contractors? trump and his people never provide details.don't know anything about contractors.

[chadk66]

Maybe your wife can explain to you why this is not a good thing. :rolleyes:it's actually a good thing. we have too many government employees in many of the agencies. in the majority of the cases we don't need anymore new ones. some retirees will have to be replaced but the new admin will assess the needs and go from there.

[ebcorde]

Why do you think he's not providing details?


I watched Spicer's show today. I need details. I heard him say except military but no mention of contractors.

okay, they hire more contractors. My last experience with Fed govt 2 years ago. Contractors do the majority of the actual work. And the govt has been reducing Fed employees with Contractors.


It sounds good. I'll give him that, he knows how to market hinself

[riskman]

You don't have to share, you're free to leave if you want to.

You have some cojones to make that statement.

[EasyGoer89]

I watched Spicer's show today. I need details. I heard him say except military but no mention of contractors.

okay, they hire more contractors. My last experience with Fed govt 2 years ago. Contractors do the majority of the actual work. And the govt has been reducing Fed employees with Contractors.


It sounds good. I'll give him that, he knows how to market hinself

You need details. My question was why do you think he's not providing any?

[EasyGoer89]

You have some cojones to make that statement.

Huh?

[Track Collector]

Looks like government workers are going to join the real world.

Most other jobs have significant employment risks as well.

It is not fun for folks to lose their jobs or are "encouraged" to retire/leave early, but where we are and what skills we have or choose to add are our personal responsibility. (About 9 years ago when I was just 50 years old I was "encouraged" to take a buy-out from a national company that I had worked at for 29 years.). The resulting income drop led to significant change in lifestyle, but I have survived nonetheless and without bitterness.

Call me naive, but I have little trouble in believing that a significant number of waste and duplication exists in government, not to mention appointments to some cushy jobs and salaries for favored friends.

[chrisl]

Oh my goodness a government worker might just have to deal with what most of Americans have to. They can see what unemployment is like. Are they special or something?

[tucker6]

There are at least 3 times as many federal government employees over 60 than under 30.
Tells me that federal jobs are too easy while paying too much in income/benefits. The employee age profile should never look like that in real life. Time to make federal jobs look less enticing.

[chadk66]

Tells me that federal jobs are too easy while paying too much in income/benefits. The employee age profile should never look like that in real life. Time to make federal jobs look less enticing.My guess on that ration being the way it is. There is a preference to past military members. Many do eight to ten years in the military and then get out. Get hired in government and put their twenty or thirty in and retire from government. Thus many get hired in their 30's and 40's so to get thirty in they stay till sixty. But I'd guess there are very few over 65 working in the government.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

My issue is that cuts or increases should be strategic and targeted, not mindlessly across the board. They should be based on policy or studies or something tangible. Otherwise they have as much potential to be harmful as helpful. Overall, there should be a plan to have revenues (with tax cuts included) equal expenditures. By the way, has Trump promised a balanced budget?

[tucker6]

My issue is that cuts or increases should be strategic and targeted, not mindlessly across the board. They should be based on policy or studies or something tangible. Otherwise they have as much potential to be harmful as helpful. Overall, there should be a plan to have revenues (with tax cuts included) equal expenditures. By the way, has Trump promised a balanced budget?
where was this post during Obama's presidency when everything went up willy nilly?

[chadk66]

this is temporary by the way. until they can make a full assessment of governments real needs.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

where was this post during Obama's presidency when everything went up willy nilly?
Yes, that's the important question. Let's debate the Obama administration while he's ridden off into the sunset.

However, I've made the same statement on a number of occasions. There is an amount of government that the people demand, whether they are fully conscious or not. That amount of government has a cost. That cost has to come from the various revenue sources available to the government. Sooner or later the two need to be equal. Here's a news flash for you - Obama will have nothing to do with that.

Perhaps you never worked in a big corporation. Imagine you did and it had 20 divisions. A memo comes down saying there is a hiring freeze. Meanwhile, half of your division quits and you can't meet your responsibilities. Maybe you get a waiver to recover, maybe you don't. Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to decide which divisions need to be cut, and how many positions need to be assigned each division to meet the company goals?

Join us in 2017. These kind of no-thinking gestures give the sycophants masturbatory material, but they are a long way from solving the problem.

[Clocker]

Perhaps you never worked in a big corporation. Imagine you did and it had 20 divisions.

Imagine that you were brought in to run that corporation, or one of its divisions. Perhaps because it was not doing too well. Would you announce a hiring freeze until you could get a good idea of what was going on, or would you trust your as yet unknown subordinates to continue with business as usual?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Imagine that you were brought in to run that corporation, or one of its divisions. Perhaps because it was not doing too well. Would you announce a hiring freeze until you could get a good idea of what was going on, or would you trust your as yet unknown subordinates to continue with business as usual?
I've actually been there. I said that all requests for replacement must be documented as vital and subsequently approved by me just to avoid the problem of arbitrarily crippling a division.

The point is that it may take quite a while to complete a review or do a reorganization. Meanwhile, the business has to continue to serve its clients. That is job 1.

[ElKabong]

Perhaps you never worked in a big corporation. Imagine you did and it had 20 divisions. A memo comes down saying there is a hiring freeze. Meanwhile, half of your division quits and you can't meet your responsibilities.

Join us in 2017. These kind of no-thinking gestures give the sycophants masturbatory material, but they are a long way from solving the problem.

Dude, YOU need to step into reality. I worked for a company that had over 50k employees and they placed a freeze on hiring not once, but twice. When people left, someone had to step up and fill in. It was tough, but that was the way of life. High stress, long hours. It was either that, or hit the road and look for another job (and both timeframes, the economy was very tough)

Seriously, your posts detail someone who doesn't have a grasp of reality when it comes to business. Too much looking in, from the outside.

[AndyC]

I've actually been there. I said that all requests for replacement must be documented as vital and subsequently approved by me just to avoid the problem of arbitrarily crippling a division.

The point is that it may take quite a while to complete a review or do a reorganization. Meanwhile, the business has to continue to serve its clients. That is job 1.

No department of the government will be "crippled" by either a hiring freeze or a 10% budget decrease. If the heads of the departments aren't savvy enough to do what is commonplace in the corporate world perhaps they should be replaced.

Unless a department has no leadership, a review and re-org should happen very quickly.

[boxcar]

Dude, YOU need to step into reality. I worked for a company that had over 50k employees and they placed a freeze on hiring not once, but twice. When people left, someone had to step up and fill in. It was tough, but that was the way of life. High stress, long hours. It was either that, or hit the road and look for another job (and both timeframes, the economy was very tough)

Seriously, your posts detail someone who doesn't have a grasp of reality when it comes to business. Too much looking in, from the outside.

HOH has never heard of Parkinson's Law and how most responsible workers' basic instinct of [economic] survival kicks in to seriously mitigate the law's effects.

[fast4522]

Wait and see changes to the post office, will not be in the first 100 days but the moneys to be saved are huge.

[AndyC]

HOH has never heard of Parkinson's Law and how most responsible workers' basic instinct of [economic] survival kicks in to seriously mitigate the law's effects.

Here is a 1955 article that explains Parkinson's Law.

http://www.economist.com/node/14116121

[Inner Dirt]

Wait and see changes to the post office, will not be in the first 100 days but the moneys to be saved are huge.

What do you think they will do? I have used them for most of my shipping over the decades, they don't appear over staffed at the more than a dozen locations I have used on both coasts but their pay and benefits (got this from a neighbor who retired as a supervisor recently) are insane for most of their jobs that require no more education and skills that a McDonald worker. They also get a mileage allowance 50% higher than the I.R.S. for business write off rate for those that use a personal vehicle to deliver mail.

[Clocker]

Wait and see changes to the post office, will not be in the first 100 days but the moneys to be saved are huge.

The postal service is an independent agency, not directly controlled by or answerable to the president.

[chadk66]

The postal service is an independent agency, not directly controlled by or answerable to the president.then just let em go tits up

[davew]

There are at least 3 times as many federal government employees over 60 than under 30. Not replacing people as they retire is absurd unless you don't give a crap about government efficiency.


Where did you get this data? the closest I could find is this report, which does not back up your assertion.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/

[fast4522]

What do you think they will do? I have used them for most of my shipping over the decades, they don't appear over staffed at the more than a dozen locations I have used on both coasts but their pay and benefits (got this from a neighbor who retired as a supervisor recently) are insane for most of their jobs that require no more education and skills that a McDonald worker. They also get a mileage allowance 50% higher than the I.R.S. for business write off rate for those that use a personal vehicle to deliver mail.

I do not understand how or what, I do know if big money is being lost he will be on it. What is the conservative estimate of money being lost every year?

[dartman51]

The postal service is an independent agency, not directly controlled by or answerable to the president.


It IS an "establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States", (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is controlled by Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General. It IS an independent agency, like the CIA or NSA, and it ultimately does answer to the President.

[Inner Dirt]

What do you think they will do? I have used them for most of my shipping over the decades, they don't appear over staffed at the more than a dozen locations I have used on both coasts but their pay and benefits (got this from a neighbor who retired as a supervisor recently) are insane for most of their jobs that require no more education and skills that a McDonald worker. They also get a mileage allowance 50% higher than the I.R.S. for business write off rate for those that use a personal vehicle to deliver mail.



I do not understand how or what, I do know if big money is being lost he will be on it. What is the conservative estimate of money being lost every year?

Last 10 years it lost a combined $62.4 billion according to MarketWatch.com. I would be curious what the losses are attributed to. Using them and UPS and Fedex, first those profitable entities do not deliver letters for 47 cents. Also both UPS and Fedex charge extra for home deliveries and sparsely populated areas USPS doesn't. I have found many a time the Post Office will charge 1/2 of what Fedex and UPS do for a package and get it there faster. About the only thing USPS is more expensive at is insurance, but for that they willingly pay claims where UPS and Fedex try to deny them. I think the losses are attributed to not charging enough and over paying the help for the level of skill and education the job requires. Also I think E-mail and electronic billing and banking costs them a lot.

[NJ Stinks]

Where did you get this data? the closest I could find is this report, which does not back up your assertion.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/

In the first paragraph in the link I provided in Post 25 of this thread.

[NJ Stinks]

Perhaps a major overdue pruning of the vast regulations burdening the country will mean a lot less work for government employees.

I agree. If you don't have laws and regulations you don't need most federal government employees.

[fast4522]

Last 10 years it lost a combined $62.4 billion according to MarketWatch.com. I would be curious what the losses are attributed to. Using them and UPS and Fedex, first those profitable entities do not deliver letters for 47 cents. Also both UPS and Fedex charge extra for home deliveries and sparsely populated areas USPS doesn't. I have found many a time the Post Office will charge 1/2 of what Fedex and UPS do for a package and get it there faster. About the only thing USPS is more expensive at is insurance, but for that they willingly pay claims where UPS and Fedex try to deny them. I think the losses are attributed to not charging enough and over paying the help for the level of skill and education the job requires. Also I think E-mail and electronic billing and banking costs them a lot.

This was from May of last year, I am sure USPS is on Trump's radar.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-post-office-lost-2-billion-in-3-months-2016-05-10

[NJ Stinks]

Looks like government workers are going to join the real world.

Most other jobs have significant employment risks as well.

It is not fun for folks to lose their jobs or are "encouraged" to retire/leave early, but where we are and what skills we have or choose to add are our personal responsibility. (About 9 years ago when I was just 50 years old I was "encouraged" to take a buy-out from a national company that I had worked at for 29 years.). The resulting income drop led to significant change in lifestyle, but I have survived nonetheless and without bitterness.

Call me naive, but I have little trouble in believing that a significant number of waste and duplication exists in government, not to mention appointments to some cushy jobs and salaries for favored friends.

Of course appointments to cushy jobs are out there. That what Trump is doing now with most of his appointments. "Waste and duplication" is a tired expression used by people with an agenda. It has nothing to do with the way things are in real life. Kind of like saying it's time to play hardball with fed employees because Obama didn't. Anybody who understands things for the way they really were understood Obama didn't hire and he didn't dish out raises. But so what.

Like I said - if you have an agenda, you still have to squeeze the square box into a round hole. So let's get those bastards that have been living too high off the government trough. :jump: :jump:

[NJ Stinks]

Oh my goodness a government worker might just have to deal with what most of Americans have to. They can see what unemployment is like. Are they special or something?

Did it ever occur to you that people choose working for the federal government because of the benefits offered?

And guess what, anyone can apply for these jobs! :jump:

(It helps to be "special" or better yet "qualified" for the job if you decide to apply.)

[fast4522]

This was from May of last year, I am sure USPS is on Trump's radar.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-post-office-lost-2-billion-in-3-months-2016-05-10

And if you look at 2015 it appears they are hemorrhaging money at a faster pace in 2016 than 2015.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/us-postal-service-loses-51b-fy2015-ends-9th-year-red

[davew]

No department of the government will be "crippled" by either a hiring freeze or a 10% budget decrease. If the heads of the departments aren't savvy enough to do what is commonplace in the corporate world perhaps they should be replaced.

Unless a department has no leadership, a review and re-org should happen very quickly.

Yes, but what if they can not meet their responsibilities?

[davew]

And if you look at 2015 it appears they are hemorrhaging money at a faster pace in 2016 than 2015.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/us-postal-service-loses-51b-fy2015-ends-9th-year-red

USPS losses are related to unfunded retirement plan and COLA increases to retirees. Many new employees are now not full time.

An old report describing their great retirement program.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02170.pdf

[AndyC]

Yes, but what if they can not meet their responsibilities?

That's quite a hypothetical because no government agency operates at maximum efficiency.

I'd have to believe that Trump would act pragmatically if essential services were being stopped due to lack of funds or manpower. He won't be petty like Obama was during the sequestration.

[Inner Dirt]

This was from May of last year, I am sure USPS is on Trump's radar.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-post-office-lost-2-billion-in-3-months-2016-05-10

I am pretty sure there is fat that can be trimmed, but with the nature of the beast the post office could never break even. I think rural letter delivery is a killer. Just think if everyone on a route got two 47 cent letters a day in my area a 50 stop route with the houses 1/4 mile plus apart would take an hour at a guess. The same delivery takes 5 minutes at an apartment or town house complex. In one area $47 of mail gets delivered in an hour with $10 tacked on for mileage expense in the other it takes 5 minutes with minimal mileage per letter delivered. To charge actual cost of delivery the pricing on letters would be all over the place.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Apparently not even blocking boxcar can get me away from having to listen to his misinterpretations of academic theories. As I learned from him, start with a ridiculous assumption and any conclusion makes sense.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

No department of the government will be "crippled" by either a hiring freeze or a 10% budget decrease. If the heads of the departments aren't savvy enough to do what is commonplace in the corporate world perhaps they should be replaced.

Unless a department has no leadership, a review and re-org should happen very quickly.
Not worth an argument. The assumption that government always has fat to cut renders any discussion that there are areas where that is not true not worth having.

[Tom]

It is the truth, so yea no reason to debate it.

[AndyC]

Not worth an argument. The assumption that government always has fat to cut renders any discussion that there are areas where that is not true not worth having.

Your argument would be like saying to a doctor "please don't remove that cancerous tumor because you might remove a few non-cancerous cells".

Feel free to name all of the efficient government agencies.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Your argument would be like saying to a doctor "please don't remove that cancerous tumor because you might remove a few non-cancerous cells".

Feel free to name all of the efficient government agencies.
As Tom Peters once quipped, any organization with more than two people is a hopelessly muddled bureaucracy. Public or private.

My argument was never that there wasn't fat to be cut, but as I've learned here at PA, comprehension often plays a poor second to seeing whatever you want.

You completely missed my point. It was not that there is no fat in government. It was simply that there are better ways to accomplish the outcome than a blanket freeze, and I gave you my solution. The blanket freeze is a grandstanding play. What I did - don't call it a freeze, but limit hires to documented essential personnel or emergencies - sounds like management. The other point is that it almost certainly comes out the same way. I did the same thing and sounded thoughtful and not interested in getting workers riled up. One way it sounds exactly like we're going to make things better, the other way it has a ring of we're going to get you lazy, bloated bastards.

My criticism was the methodology. Not the idea he was trying to accomplish, which I'm fine with. Capisce?

[boxcar]

Apparently not even blocking boxcar can get me away from having to listen to his misinterpretations of academic theories. As I learned from him, start with a ridiculous assumption and any conclusion makes sense.

Aww.... :( :(

And by the way, Parkinsons Business Law is a well tested and proven theory. I know from first hand experience of having been in management positions for others. The best way to neutralize or mitigate the law is to pile the workload on as few people as possible. Great bottom line enhancer, as well!

When I hired people, I let them know up front: Multitaskers only to apply.

[boxcar]

Here is a 1955 article that explains Parkinson's Law.

http://www.economist.com/node/14116121

I'm well aware of the law and its pernicious effects to companies who ignore it.

[AndyC]

As Tom Peters once quipped, any organization with more than two people is a hopelessly muddled bureaucracy. Public or private.

My argument was never that there wasn't fat to be cut, but as I've learned here at PA, comprehension often plays a poor second to seeing whatever you want.

You completely missed my point. It was not that there is no fat in government. It was simply that there are better ways to accomplish the outcome than a blanket freeze, and I gave you my solution. The blanket freeze is a grandstanding play. What I did - don't call it a freeze, but limit hires to documented essential personnel or emergencies - sounds like management. The other point is that it almost certainly comes out the same way. I did the same thing and sounded thoughtful and not interested in getting workers riled up. One way it sounds exactly like we're going to make things better, the other way it has a ring of we're going to get you lazy, bloated bastards.

My criticism was the methodology. Not the idea he was trying to accomplish, which I'm fine with. Capisce?

Easy big fella. No point missed here. You are calling for more government to engage in studies of how government is inefficient. How long could that possibly take? Should the group studying the inefficiencies have an equal number of democrats and republicans? Will they each issue their own report after having endless hearings? How about just having the Citizens Against Government Waste come in and decide?

Limit hires to documented essential personnel. Shouldn't that have happened in the first place? Apparently there wasn't any management just mismanagement.

God forbid if some toes are stepped on and workers are riled up. You don't want to mess with the attitudes of those can-do helpful government employees.

[AndyC]

I'm well aware of the law and its pernicious effects to companies who ignore it.

I know you are, it's a perfect explanation. I just thought others might enjoy reading the article.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Easy big fella. No point missed here. You are calling for more government to engage in studies of how government is inefficient. How long could that possibly take? Should the group studying the inefficiencies have an equal number of democrats and republicans? Will they each issue their own report after having endless hearings? How about just having the Citizens Against Government Waste come in and decide?

Limit hires to documented essential personnel. Shouldn't that have happened in the first place? Apparently there wasn't any management just mismanagement.

God forbid if some toes are stepped on and workers are riled up. You don't want to mess with the attitudes of those can-do helpful government employees.

I keep re-reading my stuff to see where I was calling for more government studies. Apparently my posts have more hidden meaning than the Podesta emails allegedly associated with pizzagate. The freeze was meant figure out where savings could accrue. The important points in doing reorganization are to not create fear and panic in the process and to provide the appearance of objectivity instead of ideology. You still have to depend on the people who are left to carry out your policies. Were you just assuming the Trumpeters would just make it up as they went along? This one stays, this one goes? Were you assuming there would be no strategic process? They'd look at an org chart make a couple of doodles and it would all be over in a week? You don't think these things take at least some time to do them right?

In government the GAO does these sort of studies regularly. If you don't trust them, hire one of Big 4 accounting firms. No politics. No Republicans and Democrats. No hearings. No idea where you ever got the idea I was looking for a Hollywood production. You produce an objective analysis and implement the recommendations. You define the mission, cut the fat that needs to be cut and save the muscle. I'd have to guess you've never been in the position of running a large implementing agency.

It's hard to explain the concept of strategy to one of the pitchfork and axe handle crowd. As someone once said, if your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like a nail.

[AndyC]

I keep re-reading my stuff to see where I was calling for more government studies. Apparently my posts have more hidden meaning than the Podesta emails allegedly associated with pizzagate. The freeze was meant figure out where savings could accrue. The important points in doing reorganization are to not create fear and panic in the process and to provide the appearance of objectivity instead of ideology. You still have to depend on the people who are left to carry out your policies. Were you just assuming the Trumpeters would just make it up as they went along? This one stays, this one goes? Were you assuming there would be no strategic process? They'd look at an org chart make a couple of doodles and it would all be over in a week? You don't think these things take at least some time to do them right?

In government the GAO does these sort of studies regularly. If you don't trust them, hire one of Big 4 accounting firms. No politics. No Republicans and Democrats. No hearings. No idea where you ever got the idea I was looking for a Hollywood production. You produce an objective analysis and implement the recommendations. You define the mission, cut the fat that needs to be cut and save the muscle. I'd have to guess you've never been in the position of running a large implementing agency.

It's hard to explain the concept of strategy to one of the pitchfork and axe handle crowd. As someone once said, if your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like a nail.

If the GAO does "these sort of studies regularly" why haven't the inefficiencies been largely wrung out of the government? Your called-for objective analysis has already been done! Time to implement! A move to zero-base budgets and getting rid of base-line budgets would also help.

Thankfully I have never been in the position of running a large implementing agency. I don't find bureaucracies to be an attractive place to want to spend time.

[chadk66]

Like I said, my wife works for the feds. For twelve years now. She is a budget/admin type. Trust me when I tell you that shaving ten percent off all the dept's budgets won't cause one ounce of harm to them. In fact, most are trying to spend all their surplus money by fiscal year end or they won't get that much the next year. It's assinine.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If the GAO does "these sort of studies regularly" why haven't the inefficiencies been largely wrung out of the government? Your called-for objective analysis has already been done! Time to implement! A move to zero-base budgets and getting rid of base-line budgets would also help.

Thankfully I have never been in the position of running a large implementing agency. I don't find bureaucracies to be an attractive place to want to spend time.
You have no idea what improvements have been implemented as a result of GAO audits, although they have been myriad. You also assume government is more inefficient than any other organization with a very large number of employees. Go to any large private corporation and you see the same sorts of issues. Asking why the inefficiencies haven't been wrung out of government shows an ignorance of the basic nature of huge corporations. Don't believe me? Ask Jack Welch.

In graduate school I was teaching a 100 level course. A student asked where I was from and I said NY. The student said something like, I can't believe anybody would live in NY. I said, what happened to you in NY that would make you feel that way. The student said, I've never been to NY, I'd never go to such a terrible place.

Amazing how often someone with no experience in a particular area knows more than the people with experience. Of course, it doesn't stop them from being a critic.

Try to remember this started with me saying it was fine for Trump to examine ways to "make government more efficient" whatever that means. I just disagreed with the use of a hiring freeze as a first salvo. I suggested something that was the equivalent of a freeze but that sounded more like management. The Trumpeters have so deified dear leader that anything that doesn't sound like complete agreement with his policies is seen as treasonous.

[davew]

Halvs, if you want to cut the number of employees in half, what is the best way to do it?

[boxcar]

. The Trumpeters have so deified dear leader that anything that doesn't sound like complete agreement with his policies is seen as treasonous.

Someone needs to tell Halv that he needs to grow thicker skin and get on some meds that will effectively treat his delusions. "Deified dear leader..."? :rolleyes:

And according to Halv, if anyone dares question the inefficiencies of Big Government, this somehow betrays that person's ignorance of the nature of Big Business? What manner of convoluted logic if this!? The major reason for inefficiencies in either the public or private sector is the size -- it's unnecessary bloat (key term here is "unnecessary"). It is precisely because officers and managers in either sector don't know how or don't want to trim the fat! They don't know, for the sake of argument, on how to get the same workload processed in the same amount of time with 20% fewer people! In other words, they don't know how or don't want to mitigate the force of Parkinsons Law.

Additionally, I would argue that due to the NATURE of the public sector, there is appreciably less incentive for government managers to concern themselves too seriously with Parkinsons Law. Bonuses aren't usually awarded to department heads for operating below budget. In fact if anything, a manager who wants to cut operating expenses of his department, he would more likely than not be excoriated by other managers and those in his department. The rank and file love their cushy government jobs for the security they provide, the pensions down the road and the benefits they reap now. They love having a job in which it is all but impossible for them to be terminated! Moreover, politicians love to over-fund these departments which further encourages a blind eye to Parkinsons Law, while simultaneously ingratiating themselves with government employees with a view, of course, to eliciting future votes from them when needed. Most of us know that "office politics" is alive and well in large corporations; how much more, therefore, in the public sector do politics influence policy decisions with respect to federal employees?

[Inner Dirt]

You also assume government is more inefficient than any other organization with a very large number of employees.

You don't need to assume, it is fact. A person just needs a lick of common sense to understand. Pretty sure almost everyone in here has known or knows someone who has been a government employee. The big difference between working for the government and the private sector is job security. A simple one is attendance rules, any combination of 3 lates or absences in a month unless you have a doctor's note gets a written warning when I worked for the man. Repeat that again in a set time frame and you get suspended without pay for 3 days, do it again and YOU'RE FIRED. I have a friend who worked for the State of California mental hospital system, he was probably late to work more often then not and called in sick once a week. He made it 7 years till he exaggerated a work place injury and got a medical retirement. In the private sector he would have been fired his first month.

My friend is not the exception to the rule, I have personally known city, county, state and federal workers. They all complain about co-workers not pulling their weight and since they pretty much have a job for life nothing can be done about it. Human nature dictates a lot of people will work no harder than they have to. In the private sector if you don't perform YOU'RE FIRED!

[AndyC]

You have no idea what improvements have been implemented as a result of GAO audits, although they have been myriad. You also assume government is more inefficient than any other organization with a very large number of employees. Go to any large private corporation and you see the same sorts of issues. Asking why the inefficiencies haven't been wrung out of government shows an ignorance of the basic nature of huge corporations. Don't believe me? Ask Jack Welch.

No doubt large private and public corporations have efficiency issues. What they also have is a profit motive which certainly encourages being more efficient. Along with with a reason for being more efficient they usually have peers whereby their efficiencies can be compared. As for Jack Welch, didn't he require that 10% of his workforce be fired each year?

In graduate school I was teaching a 100 level course. A student asked where I was from and I said NY. The student said something like, I can't believe anybody would live in NY. I said, what happened to you in NY that would make you feel that way. The student said, I've never been to NY, I'd never go to such a terrible place.

Amazing how often someone with no experience in a particular area knows more than the people with experience. Of course, it doesn't stop them from being a critic.

Nice story. You have no idea of what my experience is. The fact that I am a Big 8 trained CPA doesn't make me an expert on all government agencies and their financial operations. But your having been a part of a government agency doesn't make you an expert on all agencies either. I am not impressed by your attempts to sway my opinion or make your points with personal putdowns.

Try to remember this started with me saying it was fine for Trump to examine ways to "make government more efficient" whatever that means. I just disagreed with the use of a hiring freeze as a first salvo. I suggested something that was the equivalent of a freeze but that sounded more like management. The Trumpeters have so deified dear leader that anything that doesn't sound like complete agreement with his policies is seen as treasonous.

Yes I know what you suggested and I disagreed with you. As you stated I don't know what the GAO has done to increase efficiency, I just know that government has grown faster than any segment of our economy. If the way we have operated the government forever hasn't worked satisfactorily why on earth would we want to continue on the same course? Jack Welch certainly would approve a hiring freeze or 10% cutback.

If you are implying that I am a Trumpetier, you couldn't be more wrong.
I happen to agree with him that the government wastes too much of the taxes we pay.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halvs, if you want to cut the number of employees in half, what is the best way to do it?
Not exactly the right question.

You have a specific Congressional mandate - think of them as your board of directors - to complete certain things in certain ways.

You have a couple of obvious ways to complete them - hiring workers or contracting for services. You develop a plan to complete them using your options, assign a cost for that plan and ask for an appropriation.

The Board (Congress) has it's own staff of fiscal experts. They review the request and make a recommendation on funding. Eventually the Board gives you the money, or not. If they don't, you don't implement that part of the mandate.

You would only cut the number of employees in half if you decided to substitute contractors for regular employees, in which case your cost saving would not always be large, or if you decided not to do some of the things you are required to do, or if you were happy with having the remaining employees do a less than competent job.

Assume that the employees in this case are football referees. Say there are seven officials on the field plus a replay official. Say we get rid of four of them. We could still have a game, but it wouldn't be very well officiated. That would be what it is like to arbitrarily cut staff by 50%.

[Clocker]

As you stated I don't know what the GAO has done to increase efficiency, I just know that government has grown faster than any segment of our economy.

Most of the discussion in this thread and elsewhere is based on the question of whether or not government workers are efficient at doing their jobs. I have worked in the public and private sector, and have found competent and incompetent people in both. The discussion ignores the threshold question of whether or not that job should be done at all.

The way to streamline the government is to start with the jobs, not with the people. I think that most people will do their jobs well given a rational structure, leadership, and culture. It doesn't matter how efficient someone is if they are doing "work" that is better off left undone.

[Clocker]

Assume that the employees in this case are football referees. Say there are seven officials on the field plus a replay official. Say we get rid of four of them. We could still have a game, but it wouldn't be very well officiated. That would be what it is like to arbitrarily cut staff by 50%.

No problem, just cut the number of rules by 50%. :cool:

[chadk66]

No problem, just cut the number of rules by 50%. :cool:headed that direction at the EPA

[Track Collector]

Given that it is easier to not hire than to layoff employees, the decision to an immediate hiring freeze first makes the most sense IMO. To do so otherwise could tempt existing department heads (some of whom secured their positions via democrat appointments) to rush the filling of open positions knowing that then shortly thereafter laying off such new hires could be used as political fodder for those opposed to the Trump administration.

Even without any political motivations, how sick it would be to get hired, only to be let go a month later.

I see Trump as someone who would make exceptions IF the facts pointed to an understaffed department.

[davew]

Not exactly the right question.

You have a specific Congressional mandate - think of them as your board of directors - to complete certain things in certain ways.

You have a couple of obvious ways to complete them - hiring workers or contracting for services. You develop a plan to complete them using your options, assign a cost for that plan and ask for an appropriation.

The Board (Congress) has it's own staff of fiscal experts. They review the request and make a recommendation on funding. Eventually the Board gives you the money, or not. If they don't, you don't implement that part of the mandate.

You would only cut the number of employees in half if you decided to substitute contractors for regular employees, in which case your cost saving would not always be large, or if you decided not to do some of the things you are required to do, or if you were happy with having the remaining employees do a less than competent job.

Assume that the employees in this case are football referees. Say there are seven officials on the field plus a replay official. Say we get rid of four of them. We could still have a game, but it wouldn't be very well officiated. That would be what it is like to arbitrarily cut staff by 50%.

The last great 'constitutional scholar' president has shown the country that a board of directors does not matter. They can make rules/laws and the CEO can say screw the rules, do not charge anyone for breaking this rule that is crap .... they also can make executive orders, which are pretty much directives for rules and regulations to be implemented and upheld at their discretion. The democrat party has taken the box away from the box of worms, and it may take them awhile to understand this and it's implications.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

No doubt large private and public corporations have efficiency issues. What they also have is a profit motive which certainly encourages being more efficient. Along with with a reason for being more efficient they usually have peers whereby their efficiencies can be compared. As for Jack Welch, didn't he require that 10% of his workforce be fired each year?

He did, although that had less to do with efficiency than production. It was certainly motivational. I would just say in my experience, big business wasted plenty of money, although it was their money to waste, not the taxpayers, so nobody really gets concerned in the same way they do about the $1,000 toilet seat. Head up to your major CEO office and tell me which government official has that kind of opulence. Dennis Kozlowski spent more money on his office suite than the entire government spends on redecorating. That sounds like inefficiency to me.


Nice story. You have no idea of what my experience is. The fact that I am a Big 8 trained CPA doesn't make me an expert on all government agencies and their financial operations. But your having been a part of a government agency doesn't make you an expert on all agencies either. I am not impressed by your attempts to sway my opinion or make your points with personal putdowns.

I only suggested I know something from personal experience and by your own admission you don't. I also know that my approach worked as a management strategy. I didn't have to know something about all agencies to know there is a smarter way than an across the board freeze.

Yes I know what you suggested and I disagreed with you. As you stated I don't know what the GAO has done to increase efficiency, I just know that government has grown faster than any segment of our economy. If the way we have operated the government forever hasn't worked satisfactorily why on earth would we want to continue on the same course? Jack Welch certainly would approve a hiring freeze or 10% cutback.

Actually, I believe Jack Welch would have agreed with me. And certainly wouldn't have cut 10% without knowing exactly where to excise. That's in his book. Optics are only unimportant to the arrogant.

One of the great myths. The federal government employs fewer people now than at any time since 1966. See the link below. Conclusions based on "alternative facts" or a lack of knowledge are simply valueless. Your assumption that the government has grown faster than any segment of our economy certainly isn't true if we are talking about the number of employees, which has been stagnant or declining. But you tell me. Does that support your conclusion that the way we have operated the government hasn't been satisfactory? And besides that, what evidence do you offer that the government is not carrying out Congressional intent? You may feel it is a putdown, but off the cuff statements backed up by nothing more than the perceptions of anti-government folks don't mean much to me. So maybe the GAO has done a better job than you've given them credit for.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/

If you are implying that I am a Trumpetier, you couldn't be more wrong.
I happen to agree with him that the government wastes too much of the taxes we pay.

Easy to agree when you don't know all the facts. There is a big difference between wasting tax money and simply not liking the programs it is spent on, and it appears to me it is the latter that is the issue. If, for example, we spend money on welfare programs and you hate welfare programs, you may categorize that as a waste of money. But, if the program is being implemented efficiently, that is a measure the money is being spent efficiently and as Congress intended.

But I'll throw you a bone on efficiency. The government spends way too much time and money on documenting everything they do down to the smallest detail so they can fight off the continuous attacks from people who believe they are lazy or inefficient. Too many accountants in government if you ask me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The last great 'constitutional scholar' president has shown the country that a board of directors does not matter. They can make rules/laws and the CEO can say screw the rules, do not charge anyone for breaking this rule that is crap .... they also can make executive orders, which are pretty much directives for rules and regulations to be implemented and upheld at their discretion. The democrat party has taken the box away from the box of worms, and it may take them awhile to understand this and it's implications.
Next time don't ask the question if you don't actually want the answer. I told you how you cut 50%. If you wanted to talk about executive orders - don't kid yourself, Trump has already figured that one out - you should have asked a different question.

[AndyC]

......One of the great myths. The federal government employs fewer people now than at any time since 1966. See the link below. Conclusions based on "alternative facts" or a lack of knowledge are simply valueless. Your assumption that the government has grown faster than any segment of our economy certainly isn't true if we are talking about the number of employees, which has been stagnant or declining.........
....Easy to agree when you don't know all the facts. There is a big difference between wasting tax money and simply not liking the programs it is spent on, and it appears to me it is the latter that is the issue. If, for example, we spend money on welfare programs and you hate welfare programs, you may categorize that as a waste of money. But, if the program is being implemented efficiently, that is a measure the money is being spent efficiently and as Congress intended.

But I'll throw you a bone on efficiency. The government spends way too much time and money on documenting everything they do down to the smallest detail so they can fight off the continuous attacks from people who believe they are lazy or inefficient. Too many accountants in government if you ask me.

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/is-federal-civilian-workforce-really-growing-some-important-context

If you are talking about direct government employees, then absolutely there has been little growth. But I didn't make that claim, did I? I said the growth of government. If your facts were complete and you gave an honest assessment you would conclude the same as I did. The federal government spends more on contract employees than it does on public employees. And many of these contract employees are former employees who are currently drawing a government pension for doing the same work they are currently doing.

You give Congress way too much credit. They appropriate money but they don't micromanage the expenditures. To say that the money is spent as intended is ridiculous. Perhaps you should get the CAGW newsletter and have your eyes opened.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/is-federal-civilian-workforce-really-growing-some-important-context

If you are talking about direct government employees, then absolutely there has been little growth. But I didn't make that claim, did I? I said the growth of government. If your facts were complete and you gave an honest assessment you would conclude the same as I did. The federal government spends more on contract employees than it does on public employees. And many of these contract employees are former employees who are currently drawing a government pension for doing the same work they are currently doing.

You give Congress way too much credit. They appropriate money but they don't micromanage the expenditures. To say that the money is spent as intended is ridiculous. Perhaps you should get the CAGW newsletter and have your eyes opened.
The employee number I gave you did not include Department of Defense.

Again, you have to look at the facts in context. If you look at the period before Medicaid/Medicare government spending for those programs would obviously be zero. A lot of the "growth in government" is due to the addition of programs.

The other thing that is off with your analysis is that it includes Department of Defense. DoD accounted for 70 percent of contracts in 2012, partly because of the rise of spending for the two wars fought during that period. Nondefense agencies with significant contract spending include the Department of Energy, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health.

I'm sure you've looked at all the contracts let my DoD and the other agencies and have some evidence they are just wasting money? Take a check where the contract funding for DOE, Veterans Affairs, State, AID, CDC, Prisons, FAA and Medicaid/Medicare goes.

You're trying to make a convincing argument that government has grown and this somehow indicates inefficiency. Government as grown because Congress has added large programs, we've been constantly fighting wars, we keep adding prisoners at a rate beyond other western countries and so on.

Talk about disingenuous. The thread is about a hiring freeze. That would be about employees, which haven't grown. So you switch to contracts, add in the Dept of Defense and you still don't have much of a point. I looked at the facts, which unfortunately you didn't closely enough. By far the biggest percentage of growth is DoD. Right behind that is money for add on programs like Medicaid/Medicare. That's the beauty of statistics. If you're good and don't mind picking and choosing the facts, you can make them say what you want.

But I get your point. You're like a lot of the knee-jerk people who just think government is too big and must be inefficient, and it must be the fault of the lazy imcompetents that make a career in government. Now, I believe improvements can be made in any organization, and government is no exception. But I also believe that there are good management ways to go about it. And none of them start with misinterpretations of facts. Trump depends on people like you who believe in the inherent inefficiency of government and so he does not have to worry about sense and sensibility in fixing it.

[chadk66]

there are an enormous amount of "job openings" in the government at all times. Right now they just can't fill those positions. And very often those are openings that have been open for a very long time and they just haven't tried to fill em they are just appropriated to that particular agency.

[AndyC]

........ The thread is about a hiring freeze. That would be about employees, which haven't grown...... You're like a lot of the knee-jerk people who just think government is too big and must be inefficient, and it must be the fault of the lazy imcompetents that make a career in government..... Now, I believe improvements can be made in any organization, and government is no exception. But I also believe that there are good management ways to go about it....... Trump depends on people like you who believe in the inherent inefficiency of government and so he does not have to worry about sense and sensibility in fixing it.

A hiring freeze doesn't just mean employees, it also means contractors.
No knee jerk here. I do read what people like Tom Coburn and CAGW publish. Do you think former Senator Coburn was/is a liar and not looking at facts?
Good management ways were put forth in congress and shut down by Harry Reid. Congressman who get re-elected based on what can be spent for their constituents can hardly be depended on vote for any cuts.
Trump is a smart man to believe in the inherent inefficiency of government. He fully understands that he needs to take extraordinary measures to make improvements. He can't worry about criticism from people such as yourself who have been well-fed eating out of the public trough.

[boxcar]

A hiring freeze doesn't just mean employees, it also means contractors.
No knee jerk here. I do read what people like Tom Coburn and CAGW publish. Do you think former Senator Coburn was/is a liar and not looking at facts?
Good management ways were put forth in congress and shut down by Harry Reid. Congressman who get re-elected based on what can be spent for their constituents can hardly be depended on vote for any cuts.
Trump is a smart man to believe in the inherent inefficiency of government. He fully understands that he needs to take extraordinary measures to make improvements. He can't worry about criticism from people such as yourself who have been well-fed eating out of the public trough.

Good post! It's the very nature of Big Gov to be inefficient. It appears Mr. Halv has never heard of government bureaucracy. There's an awful lot of it which means a lot of fat could be trimmed. Trump is just the right "butcher" for the job.

[pondman]

Does that mean big mamma ranger, with a degree in marine biology, won't be harassing us for putting out the salt for the cows, because the deer are licking it?

If you've ever been near a Federal Employee, you'd be asking how they got the job. Because I've never really met one that could actually be employed in an industry.

[chrisl]

Pondman: Well said.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

A hiring freeze doesn't just mean employees, it also means contractors.
No knee jerk here. I do read what people like Tom Coburn and CAGW publish. Do you think former Senator Coburn was/is a liar and not looking at facts?
Good management ways were put forth in congress and shut down by Harry Reid. Congressman who get re-elected based on what can be spent for their constituents can hardly be depended on vote for any cuts.
Trump is a smart man to believe in the inherent inefficiency of government. He fully understands that he needs to take extraordinary measures to make improvements. He can't worry about criticism from people such as yourself who have been well-fed eating out of the public trough.
You're so all over the place it really is hard to keep up. Being a CPA I'd have expected you to be a little more linear. I explained the growth in government argument, including contractors. Perhaps it slipped by you, but the primary reason for the increase in government is (1) the military and (2) the addition of entitlement programs. Most existing programs have not grown beyond inflationary increases. And one reason that you can't cite is the growth in employment. How many definitive numbers do you need before the picture becomes clear? Rampant government inefficiency is a myth not borne out by any systemic measure. The best people come up with is out of the ordinary anecdote. It is simply as inefficient as most entities with a huge number of employees. And if you were paying attention, I was fine if the Trump horde finds that inefficiency and fixes it. Of course where I expect we depart on the meaning of inefficient. In my case it signifies a poorly run program. I suspect in your case it is a program you don't like.

It kind of struck me that if you were actually working today, you certainly wasted more time than most government workers did. Unless you were counting this as employee training.

For a supposed numbers guy, you aren't very impressive with statistics.

Tom Coburn. That explains a lot. He's not the farthest of the far right - well he's at least within sight of them - but he is a member of the bat-shit conservative wing.

[tucker6]

You're so all over the place it really is hard to keep up. Being a CPA I'd have expected you to be a little more linear. I explained the growth in government argument, including contractors. Perhaps it slipped by you, but the primary reason for the increase in government is (1) the military and (2) the addition of entitlement programs. Most existing programs have not grown beyond inflationary increases. And one reason that you can't cite is the growth in employment. How many definitive numbers do you need before the picture becomes clear? Rampant government inefficiency is a myth not borne out by any systemic measure. The best people come up with is out of the ordinary anecdote. It is simply as inefficient as most entities with a huge number of employees. And if you were paying attention, I was fine if the Trump horde finds that inefficiency and fixes it. Of course where I expect we depart on the meaning of inefficient. In my case it signifies a poorly run program. I suspect in your case it is a program you don't like.

It kind of struck me that if you were actually working today, you certainly wasted more time than most government workers did. Unless you were counting this as employee training.

For a supposed numbers guy, you aren't very impressive with statistics.

Tom Coburn. That explains a lot. He's not the farthest of the far right - well he's at least within sight of them - but he is a member of the bat-shit conservative wing.
still butt hurt over the election eh?

As for efficiency arguments, would you agree that less govt is more efficient for an economy than a larger one, all other things being equal?

[chadk66]

Does that mean big mamma ranger, with a degree in marine biology, won't be harassing us for putting out the salt for the cows, because the deer are licking it?

If you've ever been near a Federal Employee, you'd be asking how they got the job. Because I've never really met one that could actually be employed in an industry.for the most part that is very true. most couldn't find their ass with both hands in the real world.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

still butt hurt over the election eh?

As for efficiency arguments, would you agree that less govt is more efficient for an economy than a larger one, all other things being equal?
No, not hurt at all. For the...I believe 47th time...I was never a Hillary fan. I frankly don't think most of the politicians understand Trump because that is not how politics have been done in the past. For example, when he says 20% border tax, he means, this is my opening gambit on imports. But most people see it as a line in the sand and react to it as such. The question is whether he will be able to smoothly back away from the 20% if it becomes a liability. If I disagree with things like the border tax it is because I don't believe it will ultimately be in the best interest of U.S. consumers, not because I don't like Trump. The Trumpeters have a difficult time separating out disagreement about policy with dislike of the person. Don't like the border wall? You must still be hurt about the election and hate Trump. It's absurd to make every disagreement with policy about the election results and dislike of Trump. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.

What I've said, and what I believe is the most intelligent approach to government is to look at the programs that need to be funded and determine the revenue sources that will fund the programs. Audits and other mechanisms can be used to ensure the programs are running efficiently. If the Congress wants to cut programs, that's part of their job. There is a balance between too much government and not enough government (think about cutting your police force in half, or never inspecting food service facilities, or cutting half of the ICE staff).

The right size government is best for the economy, and that size should be related to the programs Congress believes should be implemented.