The war on feds

[Anonymous]

Republicans are pandering to their populist base and have no understanding of what feds do. They’ll get what’s coming for them when they replace fed’s with Trump’s buddies. Like the spoils system? Hope so.

[Anonymous]

Are there any specifics here? Is this regarding return to office? Very vague.

[Anonymous]

Wut

[Anonymous]

Huh? Newsflash, the feds have no idea what feds do. I worked for a think tank that helped the feds over different administrations. It's not a D or R issue, it's an overarching issue. The words fed agencies and efficient are not synonymous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Newsflash, the feds have no idea what feds do. I worked for a think tank that helped the feds over different administrations. It's not a D or R issue, it's an overarching issue. The words fed agencies and efficient are not synonymous.

So.. your salary depended on fed agencies needing your help and.. you concluded fed agencies need your help. Lol. I've seen this first hand because I used to work at such a think tank. The cool aid was that fed agencies are clueless compared to us, the truth is we offered solutions that wouldn't work because of constraints we didn't understand.

From the outside fed agencies may seem inefficient, and a lot of how gov runs is actually inefficient, but it's the legal and political constraints that are inefficient. Lots of paperwork, procedures, and audits. But those constraints are there to avoid a bribery and graft. The alternative is administrative corruption.

It's like the joke about democracy being the worst form of gov, except for all the others. Because a dictatorship can keep the trains running on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Newsflash, the feds have no idea what feds do. I worked for a think tank that helped the feds over different administrations. It's not a D or R issue, it's an overarching issue. The words fed agencies and efficient are not synonymous.

So.. your salary depended on fed agencies needing your help and.. you concluded fed agencies need your help. Lol. I've seen this first hand because I used to work at such a think tank. The cool aid was that fed agencies are clueless compared to us, the truth is we offered solutions that wouldn't work because of constraints we didn't understand.

From the outside fed agencies may seem inefficient, and a lot of how gov runs is actually inefficient, but it's the legal and political constraints that are inefficient. Lots of paperwork, procedures, and audits. But those constraints are there to avoid a bribery and graft. The alternative is administrative corruption.

It's like the joke about democracy being the worst form of gov, except for all the others. Because a dictatorship can keep the trains running on time.

Democracies can also keep the trains running on time. And dictatorships can also totally mess up the trains.

[Anonymous]

I mean the Republicans gutting safety regs to help their CEO friends take home tens of millions in pay and then when disaster strikes redirecting anger and blame by saying the agencies should have stopped it and the victims would have been treated better if they weren’t white is at once not surprising and totally revolting.

[Anonymous]

WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

The IRS does not need tens of thousands more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

The IRS does not need tens of thousands more people.

They do over a ten-year period, assuming you want an agency that functions well. If you want an agency that functions badly, then yes, you would want to keep it as short-staffed as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

The IRS does not need tens of thousands more people.

What are you basing that on? Have you studied the staffing? Do you know 50% of the staff will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

The IRS does not need tens of thousands more people.

What are you basing that on? Have you studied the staffing? Do you know 50% of the staff will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years?

They can replace them. They do not need 87,000 more employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

The IRS does not need tens of thousands more people.

What are you basing that on? Have you studied the staffing? Do you know 50% of the staff will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years?

They can replace them. They do not need 87,000 more employees.

They do over the next ten years. It has been understaffed and underfunded for decades.

[Anonymous]

I'm not understanding what OP is alleging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo article this morning says the Rs are unhappy the IRS hasn’t been answering the phones but also they want to cut the funding that makes it possible for them to answer the phones.

Also they apparently want to subpoena mid level career staff. 🙄

The IRS does not need tens of thousands more people.

What are you basing that on? Have you studied the staffing? Do you know 50% of the staff will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years?

They can replace them. They do not need 87,000 more employees.

No they can’t, not without serious pay increases, which I am guessing you’re opposed to.