All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Shutdown may shrink government

Civil service protection rules are confusing, convoluted, and the reason so many Democrat moles are able to get away with sabotage against our duly elected president. Americans are ruled by a bureaucracy accountable to no one.

The shutdown, however, may provide an opportunity to eliminate thousands of government jobs permanently, according to some conservative thinkers.

The argument is that if a furlough goes longer than 30 days, the job can be eliminated.

An essay senior official in the Trump administration explained what is going on in an anonymous article in the Daily Caller.

He wrote, "Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily."

This taxpayer-funded sedition is fascist because it allows communists like John Brennan to wield the power of government for political purposes.

However, shutting down the government may allow a massive Reduction In Force -- layoff -- of hundreds of thousands of government employees. Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker reported if the shutdown goes for 22 continuous workdays or 30 calendar days, government workers can be axed. Permanently.

Monday -- Martin Luther King's Birthday celebration -- marks 30 calendar days with no government.

The 22 workdays string will be reached on January 29.

Lifson wrote this may have been President Trump's plan all along, "If this was the plan all along, it would explain why President Trump goaded Chuck and Nancy in his televised meeting with them last year, boasting that he would claim credit for the shutdown.  How could they resist a prolonged shutdown when he made it so easy to blame him?

"President Trump has proven that he is a 'disruptor' who changes the framework of thinking on major issues by refusing to accept the 'givens' – the assumptions of how things always have been done and therefore always must be done."

I would not put this past Trump. The shutdown has laid off 94% of the people at EPA and the Department of Education, 96% at HUD, and 97% at NASA.

But remember, President Trump is a negotiator. And this would not happen overnight. A mass RIF is a huge bargaining chip because it would shutter the top industry in three Democrat strongholds: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC.

Besides, it would be grand policy.

Imagine what a hero President Trump will be if he is willing to rid of us our Bureaucratic Overlords in order to finish the wall. Trade jobs for bricks. (Well, steel posts.)

I know. Let's do both.

26 comments:

  1. Mr. T, you magnificent bastard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The shutdown has laid off 94% of the people at EPA''

      One big happy emogee ..Less government, less bureaucrats >>Yay..

      Delete
  2. Wow! This would be huge.

    I was thinking that the goal was to have people quit to take another job, and thus shrink by attrition - not replacing the roles of people that quit. But if you can eliminate the position, even better.

    I have wanted to see DC suffer a recession the way they inflict it on the rest of the country for a long time. I remember when business was suffering in 2009, I was out visiting customers across the country. Prices on top of the line hotels were dirt cheap, I was staying in 5-star lodging for $90 a night.

    Except for one city. Washington, DC. It angered me at the time.

    They say revenge is a dish best served cold. I do hope that they feel the pain that they inflict on others so callously.

    And NBADJT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It always pissed me off when I went to conferences and had to stay offsite as the conference hotels were way too expensive for the self-employed me. Except for the leetches from Government agencies that stayed there. No hotel or meal was too expensive for them.

      Delete
    2. Typical big hotel chains negotiate a daily room rate with the government that is lower than the customary "rack rate" they charge other customers, so a govt employee may be paying a lower rate for his room than you would pay for the same accommodations. Also govt agencies normally have fixed per diem rates for room and food. If a govt employee goes over the rate for that city, he's on his own and pays the difference out of his pocket. Those govt fixed per diem rates get revised only periodically so they tend to fall behind the times and not reflect the actual higher costs.

      Iapetus

      Delete
    3. I used to travel helping another firm. We got govt per diem to Make it easy on the client. That per diem was always much more than this self employed person would ever spend on himself.

      Delete
  3. Mr. Lifson is wrong. Check out https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf at page 29, which explicitly states RIF furlough regulations are not applicable to shutdown furloughs. However, the shrinking by attrition may still be on the table, though the positions wouldn’t be eliminated, so they would presumably get filled again eventually. So, while it sounds nice, unfortunately it’s not that easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OPM ‘guidance’ can be over-ruled by POTUS; let the unions wrastle in the courts a few years trying to overturn PDJTs actions while union bureaucrats remain unpaid....

      Delete
    2. It may depend on how you define a shutdown. Congress has not sent the president a spending bill. There has been no official word from anyone saying that departments have to be shut down. This could be construed as a furlough, and the results hashed out in the courts. Making thousands of bureucrats defend their "jobs" in court would be entertaining.

      Just like in the movie "Office Space". "Just what is it you actually do around here?"

      Delete
    3. I have come to the belief that the civil service system is unconstitutional to the extent that ties the hands of the only constitutional executive when it comes to firing executive branch employees. This, it seems to me, may force that qhrstion into the courts.

      Delete
    4. Tom, is that law you're quoting, or policy?

      Delete
    5. It’s guidance based on the laws and regulations in effect. FWIW, Mr. Lifson addresses this in a subsequent post (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/omb_issues_guidance_on_reduction_in_force_layoffs_due_to_partial_shutdown.html) where he acknowledges this but still holds out hope RIFs could happen, but I think he’s grasping at straws.

      I agree the federal workforce should be greatly reduced (and for all departments, not just those shut down), but I wouldn’t bet so much as a nickel on Mr. Lifson’s scenario playing out. The best hope here is that a sizable number leave of their own volition and ultimately don’t get replaced.

      All this is a long way of saying: don’t get your hopes up (on this, at least; I’m optimistic Trump will ultimately get his funding for the wall)

      Delete
    6. Mr. Lifson’s article was based on an article in the daily caller written by an anonymous Senior Trump official. If that is true (and DC contends it is), would he/she have published this without the blessing of PDJT?

      https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/14/smoke-out-resistance/?fbclid=IwAR1-jlTvUE-hzV_m_528Xr7cp-ZjbuO7UTOlhZX6-Q5JRdUPkoqSzkiiEBk

      Delete
  4. “Let’s do both”.
    Reminds me of Ernie “Let’s play two” Banks.
    PDJT can be the Ernie Banks of hardball politics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They took the bait, didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The book, "The Peter Principle", made a huge splash back when I was in college, and now it's generally accepted wisdom that people rise to their level of incompetence.

    A far more profound, and humorous, book went virtually unnoticed. That was "Parkinson's Law" by British academic and wag C. Northcote Parkinson.

    There were actually several laws, each one presented with an understated but droll bite to it. A few of them pertained to life in a bureaucratic hierarchy.

    1. In a hierarchy, people multiply subordinates, not rivals.
    2. The job expands to fit the time allotted for it.

    Those are the two I remember off the top of my head.

    Parkinson was a keen observer of bureaucracy. He noted that the civilian workforce for the British navy doubled in size between the World Wars, even though the number of ships dwindled to half.

    I must be a rotten bureaucrat. Fifteen years ago, I told my boss there was too much technical work for me to accomplish and if they could swing it, they should hire another techie. So they did -- and I had a rival.

    What you do, Parkinson explains, is ask for tow assistants. That's the first step toward building your own empire. Before you know it, ten people will be doing the job of one.

    The legendary (among trumpet players) principal trumpet of the Chicago Symphony, Bud Herseth, held that esteemed position from 1947 to about 2002. He was the best of the best of the best. But he'd smile and say, "My son thinks I'm a failure -- I've never been promoted."

    I know what he means. As a DBA (database administrator), I'm as high as you can go in my organization without managing anyone. Been in this position for twenty years. I love it. I hate managing other people. Just let me do my work and slide a meal under the door once in a while, and I'm happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoken by a truly happy man! (Are we allowed to be happy? Do I care what the feminists think? I think you know my answer.) Stay happy everyone.

      Delete
  7. Wouldn't it be great if President Trump decides to eliminate jobs and nancy and smuck come crawling in and Trump says the new fence must be totally funded for 1954 miles. What a negotiating chip he'll have.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I really don't think Trump's plan has been to do a massive "work"force reduction, but wish it had been. I will be more than mildly pleased to see it happen.

    Ann Coulter points to the flow of illegal drugs across the Southern border. Which would you rather not have -- illegal drugs flowing in unchecked, or the gift shop at Yosemite?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good. With about 800,000 non-essentials the bloated government can and should be reduced in numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If this RIF actually happens, I suspect it will become a regular occurrence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The EPA? The ones that banned DDT when Africa was down to 50,000 malaria deaths per year? Now were back to the organic and "natural" 1-2 million malaria deaths per year.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If cutting the government employee workforce is Trump's plan then I say hooray! Of course the majority of government employees are utterly unemployable in the private sector. But even if they all went on the dole, it would still cost taxpayers far less money.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Shh, Don -- you might be ruining it! This was the perfect heroic Trump action to take, firing them all after they've been out 30 day, which would make him a HUGE hero to those unsure in 2020.

    I'm sure Trump is clearly remembering, they're over 90% Dems, and they were not going to vote for him no matter what.

    What a nice fantasy!

    (Reality -- the Dems will cave and give Trump the cash, in return for DACA or some other bad stuff, plus full back for Fed workers, and maybe other worse stuff. Expecting this, not quite the worst of the concessions without the Wall; still, hoping for a best even better than I previously thought).

    ReplyDelete