Executive Order on RIFs coming today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

The whole “we’re going to RIF everyone who’s not essential in a shutdown” is more of their BS. Good luck with that. Elon’s delulu, as the youth say.

I'm a little confused -- the EO doesn't quite say RIF everyone who is not essential in a shutdown. It states that the RIF plans should include such people. But aside from that, I don't quite get why the sentiment is that 70-90% of Feds at some agencies will be RIFd (700K across all agencies per the Biden guidance preparing for possible lapse in 2023).

All indications from the budget framework in Congress is that they are looking for 2T in spending reductions over 10 years. That is a modest 200B/year. Most of these will come from discretionary spending (Medicaid, food stamps, IRA provisions, student loans, Medicare site neutral payments etc.). The gimmick in this math is that Republicans want to use current policy as the baseline (i.e. TCJA is current policy and extending it doesn't change the current baseline nor add to the deficit). The 2T in spending cuts will offset the other tax cuts the Republicans want to enact, i.e. resetting SALT deductions to pre-2017 levels and the SS and tipped wage tax exemptions. There will be a more modest trimming of other discretionary spending but likely not more than 10% of current levels, because no committee chair wants to preside over a committee that appropriates any money.

So, if most discretionary programs maybe see a 10% cut (about the same size as sequestration, for those who remember), then the agencies will still need staff to administer the programs. Yes, some of this work might flow to contractors, but contractors will take time to set up and implement systems. There is already talk of Wall Street administering some of USAID programs.

So something doesn't add up. I am not going Chicken Little yet.

""appropriates any money."" - appropriates NO money

It is more ridiculous than I thought. The House only mandates 1.5T in spending cuts (most of it from Medicaid and food stamps) and proposes 4.5T in tax breaks. There is a phantom 2T reduction in mandatory spending, which likely means SSI and some Medicare adjustments. All of this over 10 years. Nothing else! That still means a bulk of discretionary spending is intact. How will this run if there is no agency staff?

AI

I thought this for a week but it's not happening. The private sector, which definitely has more incentive to do this than the govt, has not implemented mass AI takeover. Even space X and Tesla have plenty of humans still working there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don’t want to go to Congress. They don’t even actually want to RIF us. They want us to quit or be fired. They are hoping the threats of RIF make us take the fork.

I would like to read some good articles about what happened during the Clinton RIFs but from what I’ve always heard, they took years to complete and were such a disaster that no president has tried it since.

One way or another, the undeniable fact is that the federal government needs to become more efficient.

Yea I also haven't heard a good argument for why efficiency is king...isn't accurate good too? I would certainly think so when we're talking about trillions of dollars and people's lives. But oh right, it's a game to you and your kin. People are pesky emotional, complex things. Not to be dealt with other than slashed and moved around like in a video game.

Perhaps, have you thght about why you LOVE efficiency so much? And you call us brainwashed 😂😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

The whole “we’re going to RIF everyone who’s not essential in a shutdown” is more of their BS. Good luck with that. Elon’s delulu, as the youth say.

I'm a little confused -- the EO doesn't quite say RIF everyone who is not essential in a shutdown. It states that the RIF plans should include such people. But aside from that, I don't quite get why the sentiment is that 70-90% of Feds at some agencies will be RIFd (700K across all agencies per the Biden guidance preparing for possible lapse in 2023).

All indications from the budget framework in Congress is that they are looking for 2T in spending reductions over 10 years. That is a modest 200B/year. Most of these will come from discretionary spending (Medicaid, food stamps, IRA provisions, student loans, Medicare site neutral payments etc.). The gimmick in this math is that Republicans want to use current policy as the baseline (i.e. TCJA is current policy and extending it doesn't change the current baseline nor add to the deficit). The 2T in spending cuts will offset the other tax cuts the Republicans want to enact, i.e. resetting SALT deductions to pre-2017 levels and the SS and tipped wage tax exemptions. There will be a more modest trimming of other discretionary spending but likely not more than 10% of current levels, because no committee chair wants to preside over a committee that appropriates any money.

So, if most discretionary programs maybe see a 10% cut (about the same size as sequestration, for those who remember), then the agencies will still need staff to administer the programs. Yes, some of this work might flow to contractors, but contractors will take time to set up and implement systems. There is already talk of Wall Street administering some of USAID programs.

So something doesn't add up. I am not going Chicken Little yet.

Are Republicans really on board with extending SALT deductions beyond what they are now? I thought they changed them to get at blue states/cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They don’t want to go to Congress. They don’t even actually want to RIF us. They want us to quit or be fired. They are hoping the threats of RIF make us take the fork.

I would like to read some good articles about what happened during the Clinton RIFs but from what I’ve always heard, they took years to complete and were such a disaster that no president has tried it since.

+1. They are making all sorts of threats, but they do not want to have to follow the process. And where they have acted, courts are pushing back. We need to stay strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This EO will be caught in lawsuits like all of them. What I want to know is if they want to make cuts why not go through the regular/legal channels. They have both houses of Congress - and Congress can authorize RIFs. Why aren't they doing that?

Because they are both ignorant and stupid.

Quite the opposite, imo. I think they know something we don’t.

Meaning you think they know that Congress won't support it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This EO will be caught in lawsuits like all of them. What I want to know is if they want to make cuts why not go through the regular/legal channels. They have both houses of Congress - and Congress can authorize RIFs. Why aren't they doing that?

Because they are both ignorant and stupid.

Because they’ll never be able to get it through Congress. Too many pressure points.
Quite the opposite, imo. I think they know something we don’t.

Meaning you think they know that Congress won't support it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the very end: “ This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Translation: they can’t do 99% of what they propose.

wink wink. They’ll try but they’ll fail in court bc of this little thing call the Constitution.

In the end, it's possible, but when they tell you you are RIFed, lock you out of your office, block access to your computer/system, and don't pay you, will it really matter?

That’s not how RIFs work. Moreover, you honestly think they’re going to try to fire to 80% of the federal workforce? The federal government, unlike Twitter/X does things people actually care about. If those things go away, it’s going to be very bad.

Elon is beyond grandiose. That doesn’t mean he can do all the things he fantasizes about.

yeah I don’t get it. I literally had industry in my office yesterday complaining how short staffed we are. We perform a story function but are not “essential” in a shut down.

The whole “we’re going to RIF everyone who’s not essential in a shutdown” is more of their BS. Good luck with that. Elon’s delulu, as the youth say.

I'm a little confused -- the EO doesn't quite say RIF everyone who is not essential in a shutdown. It states that the RIF plans should include such people. But aside from that, I don't quite get why the sentiment is that 70-90% of Feds at some agencies will be RIFd (700K across all agencies per the Biden guidance preparing for possible lapse in 2023).

All indications from the budget framework in Congress is that they are looking for 2T in spending reductions over 10 years. That is a modest 200B/year. Most of these will come from discretionary spending (Medicaid, food stamps, IRA provisions, student loans, Medicare site neutral payments etc.). The gimmick in this math is that Republicans want to use current policy as the baseline (i.e. TCJA is current policy and extending it doesn't change the current baseline nor add to the deficit). The 2T in spending cuts will offset the other tax cuts the Republicans want to enact, i.e. resetting SALT deductions to pre-2017 levels and the SS and tipped wage tax exemptions. There will be a more modest trimming of other discretionary spending but likely not more than 10% of current levels, because no committee chair wants to preside over a committee that appropriates any money.

So, if most discretionary programs maybe see a 10% cut (about the same size as sequestration, for those who remember), then the agencies will still need staff to administer the programs. Yes, some of this work might flow to contractors, but contractors will take time to set up and implement systems. There is already talk of Wall Street administering some of USAID programs.

So something doesn't add up. I am not going Chicken Little yet.

Are Republicans really on board with extending SALT deductions beyond what they are now? I thought they changed them to get at blue states/cities.

My understanding was the SALT deductions were bait to get Dem congressmen in rich districts to go along with other tax cuts.