5
5
0
When I went to work for the Federal Government (Social Security) in the early 1960s, the attraction wasn't pay. It was benefits and job security. "It'll take an Act of Congress to fire you," we quipped. We also called payday, "The day the eagle shits." Both were metaphors, not literally true. Well, it seems that there are those who want to make them literal truths with the minor modification that "the eagle shits gold." I doubt any sane person would argue on behalf of the bloated monster that now inhabits federal offices (though I know a few here on RP will). Go for it...
Just a moment...
Posted from pjnewsletter.comPosted in these groups: 
Civil Service
Civil Service
Posted 8 mo ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
Actually, until now the federal government’s workforce has remained largely unchanged (slightly smaller, in fact) in size for over 50 years, even as the U.S. population has grown by 68% and federal spending has quintupled. But what did grow is outside contractors - they outnumber government employees by 2 to 1. Things about contractors is - they have to be watched. In government that is literally called a "surveillance plan," which is to say - how will you - the government office using contractors, supervise their work to ensure they actually provide the deliverables of their contract. This is no easy thing, I know. Much easier just to put them on "autopilot." It takes time & effort to "outsource" missions & functions. If there's a problem with "government" efficiency, this is where I'd look.
(4)
(0)
SGM Jeff Mccloud
My only experience with contractors are those sitting in cubicles right next to the federal employees who are all doing the the same kind of jobs.
And we supervised them exactly the same.
There was the upside with contractors of getting a replacement in weeks, vs getting a replacement fed employee in months.
I can understand the concerns with farming out work to a contract that is completely off-site.
And we supervised them exactly the same.
There was the upside with contractors of getting a replacement in weeks, vs getting a replacement fed employee in months.
I can understand the concerns with farming out work to a contract that is completely off-site.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Now that I have your attention, let's compare the federal workforce when I worked at Social Security with the federal workforce of today. In 1960, there were approximately 1.99 million. Today, it's 2.99 million. Also, when I worked in the federal workforce, as I mentioned, you weren't there to grow rich. Indeed, I was hired when JFK challenged America to "Ask not what your country can do for you..." When he was elected, most of the senior federal workers who were hired following WWII, were retiring, and they sought the brightest and best to accelerate through the ranks to replace them. A special exam was administered. Again, not for the money, but rather to serve the nation. Then, you could count on your fingers and toes the number of federal employees earning more than $100,000. Today, about 25% of the federal workforce, more than 500,000 of them, earn more than $100,000. Finally, the most significant change in federal service between then and now, has been the evolution of the Administrative State. The culmination of President Wilson's dream, unelected "civil servants" are now dictating our laws, administering them, and adjudicating disputes between the government and We the People. In other words, the functions of all three branches of government rolled into one. Are you happy with all that? I'm not.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Can't speak for the whole government but on the surface that would appear to be the case. For Social Security, workers contributing to the program is growing more slowly than the number of beneficiaries receiving monthly payments. In 1960, there were 5.1 workers per beneficiary; that ratio has dropped to 2.8 today.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"Ever feel like the government in Washington is a giant machine that just keeps growing, no matter what? "
Not really, we have less federal employees today than we had in 1990.
Since 1990, our served population has grown by 100M people, and the budget they have to manage has grown by $5T.
If anything, that kind of growth in responsibilities and duties without a growth in workforce is the opposite of bloat, and more like the "doing more with less every year" that I increasingly experienced in 30 years of active duty with increasing tasking without the matching increase in resourcing.
Not too long ago DOGE fired one of their engineers for disclosing to the public that he did not find anywhere near the waste and bloat we all would have expected to find based on the incessant rhetoric (and memes).
https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-5417994
Not really, we have less federal employees today than we had in 1990.
Since 1990, our served population has grown by 100M people, and the budget they have to manage has grown by $5T.
If anything, that kind of growth in responsibilities and duties without a growth in workforce is the opposite of bloat, and more like the "doing more with less every year" that I increasingly experienced in 30 years of active duty with increasing tasking without the matching increase in resourcing.
Not too long ago DOGE fired one of their engineers for disclosing to the public that he did not find anywhere near the waste and bloat we all would have expected to find based on the incessant rhetoric (and memes).
https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-5417994
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Exactly! But the Trump/Fox/MAGA narrative depends on these kinds of mis-guided notions. This one is a lynchpin in their misinformation campaign to justify their P2025 goals.
(1)
(0)
SGM Jeff Mccloud
COL (Join to see) - It's an easy meme to sucker in the faithful.
Everyone has had an experience or more likely heard a story of some inefficient fed employee.
What better way to sell the meme than just say they are all like that?
Play to the emotions, specifically hate and anger, and like the "stolen election" or every other story, no need for evidence.
Everyone has had an experience or more likely heard a story of some inefficient fed employee.
What better way to sell the meme than just say they are all like that?
Play to the emotions, specifically hate and anger, and like the "stolen election" or every other story, no need for evidence.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Now that I have your attention, let's compare the federal workforce when I worked at Social Security with the federal workforce of today. In 1960, there were approximately 1.99 million. Today, it's 2.99 million. Also, when I worked in the federal workforce, as I mentioned, you weren't there to grow rich. Indeed, I was hired when JFK challenged America to "Ask not what your country can do for you..." When he was elected, most of the senior federal workers who were hired following WWII, were retiring, and they sought the brightest and best to accelerate through the ranks to replace them. A special exam was administered. Again, not for the money, but rather to serve the nation. Then, you could count on your fingers and toes the number of federal employees earning more than $100,000. Today, about 25% of the federal workforce, more than 500,000 of them, earn more than $100,000. Finally, the most significant change in federal service between then and now, has been the evolution of the Administrative State. The culmination of President Wilson's dream, unelected "civil servants" are now dictating our laws, administering them, and adjudicating disputes between the government and We the People. In other words, the functions of all three branches of government rolled into one. Are you happy with all that? I'm not.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google