Hiring Freeze

[HalvOnHorseracing]

No doubt large private and public corporations have efficiency issues. What they also have is a profit motive which certainly encourages being more efficient. Along with with a reason for being more efficient they usually have peers whereby their efficiencies can be compared. As for Jack Welch, didn't he require that 10% of his workforce be fired each year?

He did, although that had less to do with efficiency than production. It was certainly motivational. I would just say in my experience, big business wasted plenty of money, although it was their money to waste, not the taxpayers, so nobody really gets concerned in the same way they do about the $1,000 toilet seat. Head up to your major CEO office and tell me which government official has that kind of opulence. Dennis Kozlowski spent more money on his office suite than the entire government spends on redecorating. That sounds like inefficiency to me.


Nice story. You have no idea of what my experience is. The fact that I am a Big 8 trained CPA doesn't make me an expert on all government agencies and their financial operations. But your having been a part of a government agency doesn't make you an expert on all agencies either. I am not impressed by your attempts to sway my opinion or make your points with personal putdowns.

I only suggested I know something from personal experience and by your own admission you don't. I also know that my approach worked as a management strategy. I didn't have to know something about all agencies to know there is a smarter way than an across the board freeze.

Yes I know what you suggested and I disagreed with you. As you stated I don't know what the GAO has done to increase efficiency, I just know that government has grown faster than any segment of our economy. If the way we have operated the government forever hasn't worked satisfactorily why on earth would we want to continue on the same course? Jack Welch certainly would approve a hiring freeze or 10% cutback.

Actually, I believe Jack Welch would have agreed with me. And certainly wouldn't have cut 10% without knowing exactly where to excise. That's in his book. Optics are only unimportant to the arrogant.

One of the great myths. The federal government employs fewer people now than at any time since 1966. See the link below. Conclusions based on "alternative facts" or a lack of knowledge are simply valueless. Your assumption that the government has grown faster than any segment of our economy certainly isn't true if we are talking about the number of employees, which has been stagnant or declining. But you tell me. Does that support your conclusion that the way we have operated the government hasn't been satisfactory? And besides that, what evidence do you offer that the government is not carrying out Congressional intent? You may feel it is a putdown, but off the cuff statements backed up by nothing more than the perceptions of anti-government folks don't mean much to me. So maybe the GAO has done a better job than you've given them credit for.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/...le-since-1966/

If you are implying that I am a Trumpetier, you couldn't be more wrong.
I happen to agree with him that the government wastes too much of the taxes we pay.

Easy to agree when you don't know all the facts. There is a big difference between wasting tax money and simply not liking the programs it is spent on, and it appears to me it is the latter that is the issue. If, for example, we spend money on welfare programs and you hate welfare programs, you may categorize that as a waste of money. But, if the program is being implemented efficiently, that is a measure the money is being spent efficiently and as Congress intended.

But I'll throw you a bone on efficiency. The government spends way too much time and money on documenting everything they do down to the smallest detail so they can fight off the continuous attacks from people who believe they are lazy or inefficient. Too many accountants in government if you ask me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by davew

The last great 'constitutional scholar' president has shown the country that a board of directors does not matter. They can make rules/laws and the CEO can say screw the rules, do not charge anyone for breaking this rule that is crap .... they also can make executive orders, which are pretty much directives for rules and regulations to be implemented and upheld at their discretion. The democrat party has taken the box away from the box of worms, and it may take them awhile to understand this and it's implications.

Next time don't ask the question if you don't actually want the answer. I told you how you cut 50%. If you wanted to talk about executive orders - don't kid yourself, Trump has already figured that one out - you should have asked a different question.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

......One of the great myths. The federal government employs fewer people now than at any time since 1966. See the link below. Conclusions based on "alternative facts" or a lack of knowledge are simply valueless. Your assumption that the government has grown faster than any segment of our economy certainly isn't true if we are talking about the number of employees, which has been stagnant or declining.........
....Easy to agree when you don't know all the facts. There is a big difference between wasting tax money and simply not liking the programs it is spent on, and it appears to me it is the latter that is the issue. If, for example, we spend money on welfare programs and you hate welfare programs, you may categorize that as a waste of money. But, if the program is being implemented efficiently, that is a measure the money is being spent efficiently and as Congress intended.

But I'll throw you a bone on efficiency. The government spends way too much time and money on documenting everything they do down to the smallest detail so they can fight off the continuous attacks from people who believe they are lazy or inefficient. Too many accountants in government if you ask me.

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/is-fe...ortant-context

If you are talking about direct government employees, then absolutely there has been little growth. But I didn't make that claim, did I? I said the growth of government. If your facts were complete and you gave an honest assessment you would conclude the same as I did. The federal government spends more on contract employees than it does on public employees. And many of these contract employees are former employees who are currently drawing a government pension for doing the same work they are currently doing.

You give Congress way too much credit. They appropriate money but they don't micromanage the expenditures. To say that the money is spent as intended is ridiculous. Perhaps you should get the CAGW newsletter and have your eyes opened.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/is-fe...ortant-context

If you are talking about direct government employees, then absolutely there has been little growth. But I didn't make that claim, did I? I said the growth of government. If your facts were complete and you gave an honest assessment you would conclude the same as I did. The federal government spends more on contract employees than it does on public employees. And many of these contract employees are former employees who are currently drawing a government pension for doing the same work they are currently doing.

You give Congress way too much credit. They appropriate money but they don't micromanage the expenditures. To say that the money is spent as intended is ridiculous. Perhaps you should get the CAGW newsletter and have your eyes opened.

The employee number I gave you did not include Department of Defense.

Again, you have to look at the facts in context. If you look at the period before Medicaid/Medicare government spending for those programs would obviously be zero. A lot of the "growth in government" is due to the addition of programs.

The other thing that is off with your analysis is that it includes Department of Defense. DoD accounted for 70 percent of contracts in 2012, partly because of the rise of spending for the two wars fought during that period. Nondefense agencies with significant contract spending include the Department of Energy, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health.

I'm sure you've looked at all the contracts let my DoD and the other agencies and have some evidence they are just wasting money? Take a check where the contract funding for DOE, Veterans Affairs, State, AID, CDC, Prisons, FAA and Medicaid/Medicare goes.

You're trying to make a convincing argument that government has grown and this somehow indicates inefficiency. Government as grown because Congress has added large programs, we've been constantly fighting wars, we keep adding prisoners at a rate beyond other western countries and so on.

Talk about disingenuous. The thread is about a hiring freeze. That would be about employees, which haven't grown. So you switch to contracts, add in the Dept of Defense and you still don't have much of a point. I looked at the facts, which unfortunately you didn't closely enough. By far the biggest percentage of growth is DoD. Right behind that is money for add on programs like Medicaid/Medicare. That's the beauty of statistics. If you're good and don't mind picking and choosing the facts, you can make them say what you want.

But I get your point. You're like a lot of the knee-jerk people who just think government is too big and must be inefficient, and it must be the fault of the lazy imcompetents that make a career in government. Now, I believe improvements can be made in any organization, and government is no exception. But I also believe that there are good management ways to go about it. And none of them start with misinterpretations of facts. Trump depends on people like you who believe in the inherent inefficiency of government and so he does not have to worry about sense and sensibility in fixing it.

[chadk66]

there are an enormous amount of "job openings" in the government at all times. Right now they just can't fill those positions. And very often those are openings that have been open for a very long time and they just haven't tried to fill em they are just appropriated to that particular agency.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

........ The thread is about a hiring freeze. That would be about employees, which haven't grown...... You're like a lot of the knee-jerk people who just think government is too big and must be inefficient, and it must be the fault of the lazy imcompetents that make a career in government..... Now, I believe improvements can be made in any organization, and government is no exception. But I also believe that there are good management ways to go about it....... Trump depends on people like you who believe in the inherent inefficiency of government and so he does not have to worry about sense and sensibility in fixing it.

A hiring freeze doesn't just mean employees, it also means contractors.
No knee jerk here. I do read what people like Tom Coburn and CAGW publish. Do you think former Senator Coburn was/is a liar and not looking at facts?
Good management ways were put forth in congress and shut down by Harry Reid. Congressman who get re-elected based on what can be spent for their constituents can hardly be depended on vote for any cuts.
Trump is a smart man to believe in the inherent inefficiency of government. He fully understands that he needs to take extraordinary measures to make improvements. He can't worry about criticism from people such as yourself who have been well-fed eating out of the public trough.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by AndyC

A hiring freeze doesn't just mean employees, it also means contractors.
No knee jerk here. I do read what people like Tom Coburn and CAGW publish. Do you think former Senator Coburn was/is a liar and not looking at facts?
Good management ways were put forth in congress and shut down by Harry Reid. Congressman who get re-elected based on what can be spent for their constituents can hardly be depended on vote for any cuts.
Trump is a smart man to believe in the inherent inefficiency of government. He fully understands that he needs to take extraordinary measures to make improvements. He can't worry about criticism from people such as yourself who have been well-fed eating out of the public trough.

Good post! It's the very nature of Big Gov to be inefficient. It appears Mr. Halv has never heard of government bureaucracy. There's an awful lot of it which means a lot of fat could be trimmed. Trump is just the right "butcher" for the job.

[pondman]

Does that mean big mamma ranger, with a degree in marine biology, won't be harassing us for putting out the salt for the cows, because the deer are licking it?

If you've ever been near a Federal Employee, you'd be asking how they got the job. Because I've never really met one that could actually be employed in an industry.

[chrisl]

Pondman: Well said.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

A hiring freeze doesn't just mean employees, it also means contractors.
No knee jerk here. I do read what people like Tom Coburn and CAGW publish. Do you think former Senator Coburn was/is a liar and not looking at facts?
Good management ways were put forth in congress and shut down by Harry Reid. Congressman who get re-elected based on what can be spent for their constituents can hardly be depended on vote for any cuts.
Trump is a smart man to believe in the inherent inefficiency of government. He fully understands that he needs to take extraordinary measures to make improvements. He can't worry about criticism from people such as yourself who have been well-fed eating out of the public trough.

You're so all over the place it really is hard to keep up. Being a CPA I'd have expected you to be a little more linear. I explained the growth in government argument, including contractors. Perhaps it slipped by you, but the primary reason for the increase in government is (1) the military and (2) the addition of entitlement programs. Most existing programs have not grown beyond inflationary increases. And one reason that you can't cite is the growth in employment. How many definitive numbers do you need before the picture becomes clear? Rampant government inefficiency is a myth not borne out by any systemic measure. The best people come up with is out of the ordinary anecdote. It is simply as inefficient as most entities with a huge number of employees. And if you were paying attention, I was fine if the Trump horde finds that inefficiency and fixes it. Of course where I expect we depart on the meaning of inefficient. In my case it signifies a poorly run program. I suspect in your case it is a program you don't like.

It kind of struck me that if you were actually working today, you certainly wasted more time than most government workers did. Unless you were counting this as employee training.

For a supposed numbers guy, you aren't very impressive with statistics.

Tom Coburn. That explains a lot. He's not the farthest of the far right - well he's at least within sight of them - but he is a member of the bat-shit conservative wing.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You're so all over the place it really is hard to keep up. Being a CPA I'd have expected you to be a little more linear. I explained the growth in government argument, including contractors. Perhaps it slipped by you, but the primary reason for the increase in government is (1) the military and (2) the addition of entitlement programs. Most existing programs have not grown beyond inflationary increases. And one reason that you can't cite is the growth in employment. How many definitive numbers do you need before the picture becomes clear? Rampant government inefficiency is a myth not borne out by any systemic measure. The best people come up with is out of the ordinary anecdote. It is simply as inefficient as most entities with a huge number of employees. And if you were paying attention, I was fine if the Trump horde finds that inefficiency and fixes it. Of course where I expect we depart on the meaning of inefficient. In my case it signifies a poorly run program. I suspect in your case it is a program you don't like.

It kind of struck me that if you were actually working today, you certainly wasted more time than most government workers did. Unless you were counting this as employee training.

For a supposed numbers guy, you aren't very impressive with statistics.

Tom Coburn. That explains a lot. He's not the farthest of the far right - well he's at least within sight of them - but he is a member of the bat-shit conservative wing.

still butt hurt over the election eh?

As for efficiency arguments, would you agree that less govt is more efficient for an economy than a larger one, all other things being equal?

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by pondman

Does that mean big mamma ranger, with a degree in marine biology, won't be harassing us for putting out the salt for the cows, because the deer are licking it?

If you've ever been near a Federal Employee, you'd be asking how they got the job. Because I've never really met one that could actually be employed in an industry.

for the most part that is very true. most couldn't find their ass with both hands in the real world.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by tucker6

still butt hurt over the election eh?

As for efficiency arguments, would you agree that less govt is more efficient for an economy than a larger one, all other things being equal?

No, not hurt at all. For the...I believe 47th time...I was never a Hillary fan. I frankly don't think most of the politicians understand Trump because that is not how politics have been done in the past. For example, when he says 20% border tax, he means, this is my opening gambit on imports. But most people see it as a line in the sand and react to it as such. The question is whether he will be able to smoothly back away from the 20% if it becomes a liability. If I disagree with things like the border tax it is because I don't believe it will ultimately be in the best interest of U.S. consumers, not because I don't like Trump. The Trumpeters have a difficult time separating out disagreement about policy with dislike of the person. Don't like the border wall? You must still be hurt about the election and hate Trump. It's absurd to make every disagreement with policy about the election results and dislike of Trump. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.

What I've said, and what I believe is the most intelligent approach to government is to look at the programs that need to be funded and determine the revenue sources that will fund the programs. Audits and other mechanisms can be used to ensure the programs are running efficiently. If the Congress wants to cut programs, that's part of their job. There is a balance between too much government and not enough government (think about cutting your police force in half, or never inspecting food service facilities, or cutting half of the ICE staff).

The right size government is best for the economy, and that size should be related to the programs Congress believes should be implemented.