The hiring freeze for federal employees is concerning as well.
One of the major issues is that we've had several hiring freezes in the US civil service in recent decades. It causes a bathtub effect. You do reduce the workforce through attrition, but eventually you have to hire again and hire almost exclusively junior people (< 25 or 30). So you end up with a massive gap spanning around 15-20 years of age and experience.
You lose a great deal of institutional knowledge (particularly critical for civil service which has many long running programs (for various reasons both good and bad)). Contractors don't really suffice in this regard because they (the employees, not necessarily the companies) tend to move much more frequently. It's going to be a problem.
> You lose a great deal of institutional knowledge (particularly critical for civil service which has many long running programs (for various reasons both good and bad)).
NASA and DoD research labs are still dealing with the experience and cultural gaps from the hiring freezes of the 90s. I think for a lot of Americans it's easy to think of the "lazy bureaucrats" of the federal government (which definitely exist) and see a freeze or Reduction in Force as an overall good thing. However, every freeze and RIF has long lasting damage in the federal scientific community.
Yep. I've worked on projects that were clearly impeded by a lack of understanding of how things were done (by the new people, myself included at times), and how things needed to be updated (primarily by the older people, strong resistance to changing processes (sometimes a good thing, often bad when done as a blanket policy)).
> You do reduce the workforce through attrition, but eventually you have to hire again and hire almost exclusively junior people (< 25 or 30).
This wouldn't be true if government pay was competitive (low pay partially offset by, particularly, pension benefits means entering government mid-career except as a box-checking thing to move to a private position leveraging the knowledge of government is discouraged, but entering at a junior level for a full career is less discouraged.)
Of course, the kind of people embracing starve the beast aren't going to mitigate the skill impact by improving pay.
Low pay and hiring freezes are two sides of the same coin though -- these processes both transfer employees into contractor roles where private companies can charge double for the same worker and pocket the difference.
Contract workers are actually much cheaper. When I worked on a government contract we were loaded at 1.85 and the civil servants (who made more money to start with) were loaded at 2.25.
Total compensation for civil servants is quite a bit higher.
Not necessarily. And even if just in raw pay/year, the institutional effect of outsourcing is still incredibly costly in the end. And this neglects the bonus payouts negotiated into most contracts that don't occur in organic projects.
There isn't much institutional effect of outsourcing if you keep outsourcing. Where I worked there were people who'd been in the same job for decades, even though they'd technically worked for a half dozen different employers during that time. And all the contract payouts were built into the load - if I made $10/hr the government paid $18.50 for each hour.
Working as a civil servant is much nicer, but it's not cheaper for the government.
Not a chance in hell this is true for engineering / computer science / tech type positions. If you are talking about janitorial staff or something that doesn't require an advanced degree like basic clerical work then you maybe correct but it isn't a private sector vs. government efficiency issue it is a matter of the government overpaying employees in low skill jobs.
That's one of the things that would help. Particularly for scientists and engineers. The salaries are way below what they could achieve in the private sector (often doing the same or similar work with contractors, in the defense industry).
Depends on your area of the country. In tech-dense areas with high costs of livings, the adjusted cost of living to federal civilian salary doesn't nearly catch up. However, there are many, many bases in suburban and rural areas where an early career income is over twice the median income and you get a lot for the money.
I'm all green peace and pro-nature, but is it really such a bad thing? I have no idea, what that money is actually spent on, and UN seems to be pretty... well, pretty useless organization, to be honest. To what extent do these billions prevent/slow down melting of ice caps and drough? If they don't, then what's the matter? It seems to be better to spend money ob the lesser something, than on greater nothing.
On the flip side, Trump is putting a Climate Change-denier in charge of the EPA, and has promised to 'gut' the EPA... so I wouldn't necessarily trust judgement there on how effective the UN climate change projects are (instead of them just being opposed to them on principal, "Climate change is a hoax, so all climate change spending is wasted").
- Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
- Yes. Too many regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have one clear and meaningful regulation than two "up for random interpretation."
- Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
- Massive immigration changes? Not really. The pamphlet seems to enforce existing laws regarding criminal illegals.
> Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
Tax cuts are all well and good in a vacuum, but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?
Some people say we can cut all of this government bureaucracy to make up for tax cuts but we'd have to take a figurative axe to all of our federal agencies to get to a point where we can afford a massive tax cut and pay down the national debt.
Otherwise we'd have to enact big cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, defense, and Social Security as well, which people seem loathe to stomach.
> but how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt when we enact a massive tax cut on top of a tax rate that is already at historically low levels?
Here's a hint: we're not going to pay down the debt anytime soon. I would expect the debt to increase by $8-$12 trillion over the next decade if Trump gets all the tax cuts and programs in his agenda.
The electorate hates taxes. At the same time it loves government spending. There is no political will to cut spending in any meaningful way. The last Republican vice president declared that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - a line that Trump has echoed.
>how are we realistically going to pay down the national debt
We don't want to pay down the national debt. Each treasury note is a promise to provide the holder with real goods and services later, and we need to make those promises to our aging citizenry. We do this in part with the intra-governmental debt that the Social Security Trust Fund holds. Regular citizens also save for retirement, and they hold and demand Treasury bonds as well.
Yes, we should pay down the national debt. Why would we want to pay interest on outstanding debt when we could lower taxes or increase services instead?
You don't have to buy Treasuries to save for retirement. There are all sorts of bonds, foreign and domestic.
If people need to save, someone has to borrow. So where should all that money saved in USD go? The high risk stock market? The reason the US dollar is so powerful in the world is that there is always a safe place to park a large amount of them (the US gov) when you need to use them later. Take that away, and the dollar becomes much less appealing internationally. Treasury rates (what you call interest) are actually negative ATM when inflation is considered (we make money by borrowing it).
We should be spending more wisely, but debt economics is not as simple as it seems.
Wait, you want to raise taxes or reduce services now so that we can pay down the debt so that we can lower taxes or increase services later? At near-zero interest rates?
Medicare and Social Security are funded through their own dedicated payroll tax, not the general income tax. Roosevelt intentionally did it this way to make it impossible to repeal.
My working assumption is that the military is mismanaged, and spends trillions of dollars on wasteful projects. I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.
> I think you can get a pretty big tax cut by just managing the military better.
I find it interesting that in the US people are comfortable discussing improving military efficiency, yet its taboo to discuss reducing the size of the military.
With a concerted effort it would be a major accomplishment to improve military efficiency by 5-10%. Or you could cut the military budget by 40% and still outspend every other nation's military. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a candidate suggest reducing the military's budget. Hell even after the cold war didn't spending go up after a brief decline?
You're right. A small percentage of a massive industrial complex is actually a ton of money.
There are some situations where US aircraft will fire half-million-dollar heatseeking missiles at empty sky, just in case enemies fire SAMs. That's an expensive habit.
The military doesn't constrain itself financially unless it's forced to. They care more about the mission and the warfighter, as they should. But the guys in Congress who are tasked with constraining the military are too chicken to endanger their support from active duty, veterans, and their friends and families.
The US is a superpower because of our military might. A lot of the technological achievements were due to military research. If we reduce our military size to be `reasonable` we loose our status as a super power.
> The US is a superpower because of our military might.
IMO, the causality is Economic might --> military might + "soft power" --> superpower (look at how China's trajectory). Prioritising military over economy in peace times seems short-sighted
I didn't miss it, but here are some things I've heard him say on that issue:
The first method is to control costs on military projects, and audit their finances. I think he'll do fine on this boring executive work, though I don't think better project management alone is going to get a 35% tax cut on the middle-class.
Second, there are foreign members of NATO that are supposed to pay 2% of GDP for a defense pool that are not doing this. He wants to pressure them into paying their share for protection. Since he's mentioned this, supposedly some countries have started paying into it.
Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.
> Third, he doesn't actually want to go to war. War is pretty expensive, so building up a military to project strength without actually using it could be cheaper if we pull out of all on-going wars.
But... it's already by far the most well funded and advanced military in the world with a navy that ensures the US can deploy strength anywhere quickly.
And building our stuff without our EPA regs. I'm not sure how they can "clean up their own mess" while basically being an outsourcing arm for all our emissions. It's like we have this magical factory with a really long smokestack. Don't shut down the factory just tell someone else to fix the smoke.
"Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
-"
The issue with climate change is that the people making the bess are not the same ones who suffer from the mess. So our mess isn't just ours. And their mess isn;t just theirs.
> - Yes. Tax cuts for all working people. Let people decide what to do with their own money (spend, save, donate, etc.). The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.
A family of 4 with a median household income of $50k/yr pays close to nothing in federal taxes. Tax cuts don't help the people that need it.
Tax cuts for all means reducing government resources, which means increasing the power of huge corporations. This is a hostile takeover of the American government.
Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
Near-zero chance that Trump will clean up any of America's environmental mess. Near-certain chance that he will significantly add to America's environmental mess.
> Cancel UN climate payments, use money instead on America water and environmental issues. Sounds good to me. Let China and India clean up their own mess, while we clean up our messes.
He didn't make a point, just an ignorant statement. Which I responded to by pointing out that it was very ignorant.
If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.
If you care to make a point worth replying to about 'china and India cleaning up their own messes' (despite the US having the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the world by a huge margin, over 2x that of China's and nearly 10x that of India's, and for a far far far longer time) then be my guest.
Wait, so you agree with him then, that US has a waaaay bigger mess than china(1/2) and india(1/10), and that the US should clean up its own (biggest) mess first, before the other two?
Nobody is going to clean up anything. Trump's a climate septic, hes got another one in line to head the EPA. Hes stopping these payments whilst simultaneously wanting to increase production of domestic "clean coal", natural gas and shale oil.
Your country has historically contributed far more than its fair share of greenhouse gasses, and these small payments (from the richest country in the world) help other countries reduce emissions and show that you recognise that.
But nope. Let's drop all that so we can prop up some failing coal towns for a while longer.
or for ballooning the size and complexity of each regulation, as each new regulation has to fold into itself two existing regulations that need to be removed for the sake of this plan.
That's been happening forever. Have you ever wondered why the law that says you can keep your healthcare when you leave your job is called the Combined Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)?
It's not cheaper for your employer. Your employer will typically cover some of the cost of health care then leave the rest for you to cover. When you leave a job, you have to pay both the premium you've been paying plus the premium your former employer had been paying. COBRA is not a free lunch. It just means you're allowed to order off of the same menu as your former employer.
Maybe I just don't understand how light touch government works, but wouldn't removing two regulations per new regulation help special interest groups in a lot of cases?
Hopefully Trump will not be able to bankrupt the government in 4 years. Filibuster in the Senate is an option for 2 years and maybe there will be some shift in 2018.
The bad news is that the filibuster is very likely to be done away with because it is the only thing stopping the Republicans from doing literally anything they want. And the map in 2018 doesn't look good for the Democrats.
No, they won't do away with the filibuster. Filibusters are theater - they allow Senators in the majority party to kill a bill and support it at the same time. Conversely, they allow people in the minority party to insure a bill passes and vote against it.
We've seen this over and over from Senators in both parties. The filibuster is dumb as a procedural tool, but as a political tool it's invaluable for Senators who want to make a career out of the Senate.
One of the major issues is that we've had several hiring freezes in the US civil service in recent decades. It causes a bathtub effect. You do reduce the workforce through attrition, but eventually you have to hire again and hire almost exclusively junior people (< 25 or 30). So you end up with a massive gap spanning around 15-20 years of age and experience.
You lose a great deal of institutional knowledge (particularly critical for civil service which has many long running programs (for various reasons both good and bad)). Contractors don't really suffice in this regard because they (the employees, not necessarily the companies) tend to move much more frequently. It's going to be a problem.