Trump's complete failure to put a dent in the administrative state led many to conclude that it's a hopeless effort. Even Vivek is being too clever by half with the schemes he's concocting.
The main hurdle in significantly scaling down the Federal Government is that it's very difficult to fire anyone. I think most of the employees are unionized and they have all sorts of protections, regardless.
The easiest path is not to fire people, it's to make them voluntarily quit. A few years ago, Trump relocated the USDA to Kansas City. This was big news amongst economists, because so many work for the USDA. The vast majority of USDA economists quit, rather than move to Kansas City. I imagine that was also the case for other USDA employees. If Trump had been smart, he would have taken the opportunity to cut the USDA personnel budget. That would have stopped them from staffing back up, which I imagine they've done by now.
So, the easy to implement plan for draining the swamp is to just move all of the agencies out of DC and into places where snobby elites don't want to live. Then, after the mass resignations, cap the personnel budgets at much lower levels.
There are added governance benefits like making it more difficult to lobby and reducing costs per worker.
Another option that would likely cause mass resignations would be to make all positions remote and then take away cost of living adjustments. Right now, government employees get paid more for living in expensive places. If they were remote, then there's no rationale for keeping that, since they could live in a less expensive place.
I have a better idea. It's one I've heard rumors of from the people terrified of Trump getting back in.
Shut down the whole departments. Department of ed is the one I've heard about. I will be shocked if this happens. I used to say that if Ron Paul was ever elected they would kill him. He promised to eliminate at least half a dozen federal agencies.
I used to work in IT in gov education and the redundancy between federal, state, and local is insane. I'm convinced eliminating the dept of Ed would be a massive win.
reply
Now you're talking
reply
117 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 31 Jul
I can tell you this. If I was ever so dumb as to run for any office and get elected I would only serve one term.
I've joked about running as an anarchist in a local race and just basically say exactly what I think with zero filter. I would be funny for sure.
reply
I’ve thought about that too. I figured that it would be better to at least give people the option.
reply
That is a better idea. It reminds of the time Rick Perry couldn't think of the third federal agency he wanted to shut down and Ron Paul listed off like half a dozen options for him.
One of the problems, though, is that these departments are creations of Congress and I'm not sure a president can unilaterally shut them down.
reply
Speaking of not sending their best. Rick Perry... what a dummy.
reply
He has a good sense of humor. The next day on Letterman, he did top 10 reasons he had a poor debate. One reason was I took a 5 hour energy drink 6 hours before the debate.
I like it when politicians can laugh at themselves.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 31 Jul
Succesful politicians are likable.
reply
reply
That would more than likely free a lot of money. Just imagine how much that would save. If the states had their own, it might be better.
reply
Trump sucks at hiring. He hired people that had made a career of doing what he claimed to want to stop. Trump fans don't like hearing that but he seems clueless to me.
reply
If only by default, he seems to have some savvier people around him, now. If Vivek is anywhere near the levers of power, we might see some real action.
reply
I agree with you there. Vivek seems very competent.
reply
He didnt hire a lot of good people the first round. Many of them ended up in jail. He needs to pick more wisely, or find someone who can help him in that regard. Hiring your own kids doesnt work.
reply
He needs to pull a Milei and just get rid of every department. Argentina recently proved it, now they just need to prove that he can get a few great people in his corner and actually execute on his vision.
He just needs to say, your fired!
reply
That would be ideal, but I'm not sure how much authority the president has to do that. Departments are created and funded by Congress. The president is in charge of running them.
reply
I love this plan!
reply
This is very interesting. It could be possible, but would the unions make it difficult? I feel the unions are just a drain on many corporations, and agencies.
reply
The unions have no say over relocation decisions, but they probably can push back on the cost of living adjustment being abolished.
reply
Pushing them to the middle of nowhere, I bet a lot of people would quit. Just imagine them saying they are going to move the headquarters to alaska. That would be gold!
reply
That would be great for mass resignations, but Alaska is very expensive. Fairbanks is probably miserable enough that everyone would quit, though.
reply
Montana. Just imagine. Or detriot! Just imagine how much good it would do for that city.
reply
Detroit would be great for Department of Transportation.
reply
Can you imagine how many people would ask to work remotely?
reply
I watched a video yesterday where Trump seemingly hired a woman from the crowd while he was campaigning on stage! Initially I didn't realise that it was just a scripted but when he stretched it with his explanation about the woman I got it.
reply
I ran your post into perplexity AI which generated...
Your analysis of the challenges in reducing the size of the federal government and the potential strategies for doing so is insightful. Here's a response addressing the key points you raised:
The difficulty in significantly scaling down the federal government is indeed a major obstacle to reforming the administrative state. You're correct that many federal employees have strong job protections, often through unions, making it challenging to reduce the workforce through direct firings[1].
Your suggestion of inducing voluntary resignations through strategic relocations is an interesting approach that has shown some effectiveness. The USDA relocation to Kansas City that you mentioned did result in significant staff departures, particularly among economists[2]. This strategy of moving agencies to less desirable locations for DC-based employees could potentially lead to substantial reductions in personnel.
However, there are some important considerations and potential drawbacks to this approach:
  1. Expertise loss: Mass resignations could result in a significant loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, potentially hampering agency effectiveness[2].
  2. Legal challenges: Such relocations might face legal opposition from unions and affected employees[1].
  3. Political backlash: There could be resistance from Congress members representing areas losing federal jobs.
  4. Cost implications: While long-term savings might be realized, initial relocation costs could be substantial.
Your suggestion to cap personnel budgets after relocations to prevent restaffing is a logical follow-up to ensure long-term reductions. However, this would likely require congressional approval, which could be challenging to obtain[1].
The idea of making positions remote and eliminating cost-of-living adjustments is another creative approach to induce resignations and reduce costs. This could indeed lead to departures among employees unwilling to accept lower effective wages. However, it might also face union opposition and could potentially impact recruitment and retention of skilled personnel in the long term.
While these strategies could potentially reduce the size of the federal workforce, it's important to note that they may face significant political, legal, and practical challenges. Additionally, the impact on government effectiveness and service delivery would need to be carefully considered.
Ultimately, any major reform of the administrative state would likely require a combination of executive action, legislative support, and careful planning to navigate the complex legal and political landscape surrounding federal employment[1][3].
reply