Feds- how concerned are you about the possibility of Schedule F?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I think it would be great. If you are in a “policymaking” position, you should be subject to democratic accountability, period. It’s shocking how many people seem to feel like it’s ok that so many critically important decisions are being made by people with zero accountability to the electorate. The administrative state is beyond out of control and needs to be reined in. And “non-political” is a joke, federal civil service personnel are Democrats almost to a person. |
Anonymous
While everyone has personal opinions, we serve the administration. I have worked at three high profile federal agencies - DOS, DOD, and DHS. People all have their own personal opinions but we all make sure the work the administration wants done gets done. I spent three years writing a regulation only to spend the last two years repealing it. No workforce is perfect, but we are very fortunate as Americans to have a professional and well paid civil service that is accountable to its democratically elected leaders. We policymakers see that the administration's policy is implemented, but that it is implemented in accordance with the law. The civil service needs reform but schedule F is just firing people who don't align with your political beliefs and burrowing in your own people. |
Anonymous
| Zero. I came from the private sector and will probably go back, sooner or later. I work in investigations of financial crimes and get constant recruitment emails. |
Anonymous
I don’t know the political leanings of my federal colleagues, but I know that many career employees were concerned about actions by the last administration. Actions that appeared to violate laws, were completely unrealistic, or result in unintended consequences. That doesn’t make them partisan. Schedule F is a threat intended to have a chilling effect so feds don’t voice their opinion, state the adverse consequences of a policy, or speak up when something is illegal. If you think that’s far-fetched, then you work at an agency insulated from this nonsense. |
Anonymous
I promise you the bolded isn't true. Agency policy has to be signed off by the head of the agency, typically one confirmed by the Senate. For Executive Branch agencies (which is most of them), if the White House doesn't want it then you don't even spend time on it. In addition, the vast majority of decisions affecting the public are subject to procedures for public comment, where the agency has to ask for input and then respond to everyone's comments: there is a whole area of law set up to compensate for the fact policy experts aren't elected. Plus, agencies are very sensitive to angry congressmen (and budget decisions) so they do their best to avoid things that make you call your congressman to complain. All of that is at least as much accountability as you get with your Senator coming up for reelection every 6 years. It's untrue that Feds are all Democrats (it's estimated at about 2/3 of Feds, and I am a non-Dem Fed myself) but in my experience the blue-leaning bureaucrats go out of their way to execute smartly on GOP policy just to show how apolitical they are. Feds tend to be rule-following people-pleasers, not radicals. They have fully bought into the system, and the system requires them to carry out the directions of the elected leader no matter what. What would actually happen under Schedule F is the elimination of policy experts -- people with degrees and deep expertise in economics, markets, energy policy, foreign affairs, medicine, transportation, etc. -- in order to replace them with people from the campaign staff and party donors. We already tried this in the Gilded Age and it didn't go well. I don't think most Americans realize how rampant bribery used to be, and still is in other countries that don't have a protected civil service. |
Anonymous
It is for GS. The article said 80% of OMB qualified. |
Anonymous
Yes, I understand the Schoolhouse Rock version of how the system is supposed to work. In the real world, “personnel is policy” and the permanent bureaucracy has a million ways to delay, defer, and subvert policies that they don’t want to see implemented. While it is admittedly true that a political appointee can STOP certain policy initiatives in some cases—a fact that the bureaucracy is increasingly able to circumvent through collusive settlements with sympathetic NGOs—that is quite different than driving affirmative policy changes, which is much harder. It’s quite easy for the bureaucracy to run out the clock on Republican administrations, to game the system by manipulating the timing of decisions to ensure they occur under Democratic rather than Republican politicals, to develop an administrative record that locks the agency in to certain courses of action, etc. Agencies care only about members of Congress who sit on their oversight or appropriating committees, so in almost all cases “calling your congressman” means nothing, and the “whole area of law” set up to deal with the the fact that policy is largely made by unelected bureaucrats defers to agency decisions in all but the most clear cases of agency overreach. None of this is apolitical or objective, although I am sure the permanent civil service believes that they are merely making rational decisions, not political choices. Ideology feels like common sense from the inside. |
Anonymous
I've worked in 3 agencies across 4 administrations and not seen what you describe. You obviously don't want to hear it, though. |
Anonymous
The point is that a lot of career civil servants would lose their job protections so that we could return to the spoils system (which worked SO well the last time). |
Anonymous
| DCUM posts non-stop about how depressing the rest of the country is, how much they hate the South, and how awful “flyover country” is, and then you’re surprised when most of the rest of the country wants the federal bureaucracy tossed on the street. All I can say is that you have it coming, you obnoxious, self-centered twits. |
Anonymous
It sounds like it’s time to take a break from DCUM especially since the people on it are so awful, no? And possibly seek some therapy for your scary anger issues? |
Anonymous
Speaking as a career bureaucrat, we have nearly 0 ability to “manipulate the timing of decisions.” When the politicals want something quickly, we better deliver or we are in deep poo poo up and down the managerial chain. |
Anonymous
NP. I work at a high level at an agency that's very political (our decisions are political). I have absolutely not seen what you're talking about. This sounds like what children think happens in the government. "Run the clock out"- no. Also administrative records don't lock the agency into courses of action. Policies can often do a 180 degree turn and you SEE that in an administrative record. Administrative records are just records, not a guideline or something you follow. They also don't show the future actions, just past actions. I would say also that most feds are very apolitical. Even my most liberal colleagues follow management and do not subvert policy like what you're describing. I am a conservative, there are lots in the government. Most of our mid-level political appointees were just lackeys who worked on political campaigns. I do not want them making policies, please leave that to experts with PhDs and actual experience. |
Anonymous
Like the “experts” oat the FRB? (I know they are not regular federal employees, in fact many of them are more highly trained) How did they do in the run up to the housing crisis or with inflation? And how about elected officials make policy. Not you or the appointees. Your collective job is to execute. |
Anonymous
You’re gonna need to provide some actual evidence to support these claims. |