USAID was a test case. What agencies are next? (after CFPB)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They just reported the department of education.

The Post article makes it clear that Trump really can't do much with the Dept of Ed. Even their functions can't really be transferred, so if he cuts the staff numbers, good luck to all of those kids who need FAFSAs, loans, or IEPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe all of us:

Federal layoffs ‘likely’ if too few employees choose to quit, memo says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/04/federal-government-layoffs-likely-memo/

The article only describes an email asking a portion of GSA to identify 50% of its staff for cuts. It says nothing about the entire federal workforce.

Again, any reorganization on the scale of reducing staff 50% across the board would require Congressional approval. It isn’t happening with the GOP’s narrow majorities.

Yeah right. Congress is paralyzed by fear and doing nothing to stop any of this. If they want 50% across the board, it will be 50%. Sad but true!

If they’re paralyzed, they can’t vote on it, so it won’t happen. If Trump tries anyway, he’ll be sued and stopped.

Let’s hope you are correct. Who will enforce court orders?

Individuals are going to have to think about their futures. Trump is a lame duck, clearly mentally ill and worsening, and has ceded control of the government to a billionaire. He won't be coherent for another term.

Look who is bearing the cost of Trump's earlier misdeeds: Giuiliani, MyPillow, Sydney Powell, etc. Gotta play the long game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At most you could have SEC enforcement folded into DOJ. There are other divisions in the SEC that deal with the capital markets (IM, TM, CF) and those functions wouldn't lend themselves to being within DOJ.

No SEC is going away. Markets can regulate themselves. Anything progressive or put in place after 1929 is gone. FDIC is in the chopping block also.

LOL. History suggests otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just reported the department of education.

The Post article makes it clear that Trump really can't do much with the Dept of Ed. Even their functions can't really be transferred, so if he cuts the staff numbers, good luck to all of those kids who need FAFSAs, loans, or IEPs.

As I understand it, they are cutting any Ed program/department that is not explicitly mentioned in statute. So any part of Ed that derived from an EO will be eliminated.

Ed's most important functions - student loans, funding to low income schools, and special education - have a long statutory history with explicit direction from Congress in the law. They can't "get rid" of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just reported the department of education.

The Post article makes it clear that Trump really can't do much with the Dept of Ed. Even their functions can't really be transferred, so if he cuts the staff numbers, good luck to all of those kids who need FAFSAs, loans, or IEPs.

As I understand it, they are cutting any Ed program/department that is not explicitly mentioned in statute. So any part of Ed that derived from an EO will be eliminated.

Ed's most important functions - student loans, funding to low income schools, and special education - have a long statutory history with explicit direction from Congress in the law. They can't "get rid" of these.

Trump and Musk are clueless. They think feds just sit around on their couches eating bon-bons and should all be fired - they have no idea that federal employees do work that is required by statute.

So clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know what they’re saying for the Small business admin?

[Anonymous]

Are we going full Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At most you could have SEC enforcement folded into DOJ. There are other divisions in the SEC that deal with the capital markets (IM, TM, CF) and those functions wouldn't lend themselves to being within DOJ.

No SEC is going away. Markets can regulate themselves. Anything progressive or put in place after 1929 is gone. FDIC is in the chopping block also.

You don’t seem to understand exactly what the SEC does. Or the 40 act. Or the marketing rule. History has shown the market cannot market itself and regulation is needed. The SEC and FINRA are necessary because people are stupid and greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At most you could have SEC enforcement folded into DOJ. There are other divisions in the SEC that deal with the capital markets (IM, TM, CF) and those functions wouldn't lend themselves to being within DOJ.

No SEC is going away. Markets can regulate themselves. Anything progressive or put in place after 1929 is gone. FDIC is in the chopping block also.

You don’t seem to understand exactly what the SEC does. Or the 40 act. Or the marketing rule. History has shown the market cannot market itself and regulation is needed. The SEC and FINRA are necessary because people are stupid and greedy.

Investors will pull their money out. They want to know about risks and they want good corporate governance. Investors will look to foreign markets if US regulators are dissolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At most you could have SEC enforcement folded into DOJ. There are other divisions in the SEC that deal with the capital markets (IM, TM, CF) and those functions wouldn't lend themselves to being within DOJ.

No SEC is going away. Markets can regulate themselves. Anything progressive or put in place after 1929 is gone. FDIC is in the chopping block also.

Have you not seen all the people who lost money even this year because of no FDIC banks?

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/-no-money-thousands-americans-see-savings-vanish-synapse-fintech-crisi-rcna181419

Now the users didn’t do due diligence to verify it was an FDIC insured institution, but when users have to assess the stability of an uninsured bank?! Chaos.

[Anonymous]

We’re about to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe all of us:

Federal layoffs ‘likely’ if too few employees choose to quit, memo says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/04/federal-government-layoffs-likely-memo/

The article only describes an email asking a portion of GSA to identify 50% of its staff for cuts. It says nothing about the entire federal workforce.

Again, any reorganization on the scale of reducing staff 50% across the board would require Congressional approval. It isn’t happening with the GOP’s narrow majorities.

Except this part says this GSA guy stated across the federal gov’t:

“The assistant commissioner of a division of the General Services Administration told staff early this week that layoffs across the federal government are “likely” after the deferred resignation offer expires Thursday”

Now I don’t know what the asst commissioner of a division actually knows, but it’s enough for a WashPost article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re about to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

I hope that America can find it in itself to not have to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re about to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

I hope that America can find it in itself to not have to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

For decades, active fund managers thought they added a lot of value by picking stocks, but now we know that a simple low-cost index is all we need. Similarly, we are likely to find that we do not need all these agencies. They might have had a purpose once, but now they seem to have become bloated, ineffective, and not worth preserving.

That said, this is not how they should be going about it. They should be treating all the feds with respect and be very generous with severance.

We are a Fed family ourselves. No need to call anyone who thinks the agencies should be vastly truncated and made more efficient to be a MAGA follower, which is what I expect others to call me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re about to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

I hope that America can find it in itself to not have to find out why all these agencies exist in the first place.

For decades, active fund managers thought they added a lot of value by picking stocks, but now we know that a simple low-cost index is all we need. Similarly, we are likely to find that we do not need all these agencies. They might have had a purpose once, but now they seem to have become bloated, ineffective, and not worth preserving.

That said, this is not how they should be going about it. They should be treating all the feds with respect and be very generous with severance.

We are a Fed family ourselves. No need to call anyone who thinks the agencies should be vastly truncated and made more efficient to be a MAGA follower, which is what I expect others to call me.

Uh, not sure your example is generally accepted. At all.
Most people, including feds, do not know what most agencies do and therefore are not well equipped to say what is necessary.
I'd support an overhaul attempt that started with deep research into how everything fits together. I'd support agencies writing up a list of everything they do and why. But I'm pretty dismissive of people who just generally declare there's bloat. Most agencies have run on a shoestring budget for decades, so it's on you to demonstrate there's fat left to trim.