Posted on Dec 31, 2017
How the Trump era is changing the federal bureaucracy
748
8
11
4
4
0
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 6
I think smaller can certainly be a good thing, but it won't necessarily be better or more efficient unless there is a clear plan, and I certainly hope there is. The challenge is that smaller is not necessarily better, and it's not necessarily smaller: (1) When we've tried getting rid of people before (civil servants), the laws don't let you get rid of the right ones (the non-producers), because they've been around the longest. You end up with people who make operations less efficient. (2) Just cutting out political appointees without a plan hinders the President in carrying out his agenda. For the most part, only a political administration appointee can testify before Congress on things like the budget, and he can't shape an agency by ordering CS around himself. It's way too much micromanagement, and it just doesn't work. (3) In every case when we have cut CS, we have spent that same amount, or more, buying contractors--and that $$ amount will grow every year. Plus there are many things contractors can't do legally. (4) We don't attract and grow the government leaders of tomorrow. In order to do many jobs where you need years to learn, we need to attract and retain the best talent. When you have severe cuts and lose those people you've spent lots of money training (a resource drain), and you don't attract new talent to take their place. Yes we are still functioning, but it's only been a year. We won't see the second and third order effects for some time, IMHO. I used to say we wouldn't have too many people in the Pentagon if they would let me stand at the door at 3:00 and pick out those leaving early! LOL
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
No, smaller isn't necessarily better. I'm not just concerned with reducing the number of federal employees. I'm far more concerned with eliminating functions that exceed the mandate of a limited government. The reduction in numbers of employees should be the natural consequence of closing agencies and departments such as the US Dept of Education, the US Dept of Energy, and so many more. Take a look at the list and choose your own favorites... https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a
(0)
(0)
Susan Foster
CPT Jack Durish - I think my favorites are a few of the committees and boards. I'm not for closing the Dept of Energy or Education, but I would streamline them significantly and ensure they are doing what they are supposed to--(developing policies to increase the education posture and access; and ensure our country's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.) Not sure who would do those things if they weren't there. I don't think either of them are as focused, or as small, as they can be. I know what federal employees do and they keep the government running (you wouldn't get paid without them). But there's a lot of deadwood, time wasted, and functions that if they weren't done, no one would notice.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Susan Foster - Can you provide the Constitutional mandate for the federal government to be involved in education? Energy? Indeed, these departments have a long history of interfering in education and energy to the detriment of America and both spheres of activity.
(0)
(0)
Government in general is bloated with duplication of effort and duplication of failure as well. You have to be blind not to see it at all levels. The actual folks who bust their collective ass are overshadowed by the chair warmers and those who work harder at doing nothing then they would have to if they did their jobs. Government doesn't actually make money, it spends it after taking it from taxpayers.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next