This is the REAL reason DCUM is in a frenzy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Absolutely. I worked in government for a year and was bored silly without enough to do. The only time I felt fully productive was when my co-.worker went on vacation for a week, and if had to do both her job and mine. It wasn't hard - it was simply a full day. There never should have been two of us doing that work, but my boss was a GS-15 and "rated" two people, so he took it. I'm sure that went on all over the place, with all sorts of unnecessary overstaffing.

Honestly, it sounds like you weren't trusted to do the work. Not everyone is cut out to do government work. People who make flip arguments and don't bother with details about things they think are inconsequential can do a lot of damage that someone else has to fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/

"President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation. Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January. "


Welcome to the world that the private sector has been living in for years now.

Not a federal worker or contract. I am a human being who respects my fellow human beings and expects the same from our President. This one doesn't and that is why I am freaking out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

The "other PP" LOLZ. Your schtick is getting tiresome. The percentage of federal workers in the workforce is at a post-WW2 low. The ones who remain do important work that matters to all of us. Sure, there might be some "deadwood." But by and large this is a dedicated workforce made up of honorable and patriotic people who take great pride in serving their country. Work on your KSAs (and people skills) and you might be able to join.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Absolutely. I worked in government for a year and was bored silly without enough to do. The only time I felt fully productive was when my co-.worker went on vacation for a week, and if had to do both her job and mine. It wasn't hard - it was simply a full day. There never should have been two of us doing that work, but my boss was a GS-15 and "rated" two people, so he took it. I'm sure that went on all over the place, with all sorts of unnecessary overstaffing.

Honestly, it sounds like you weren't trusted to do the work. Not everyone is cut out to do government work. People who make flip arguments and don't bother with details about things they think are inconsequential can do a lot of damage that someone else has to fix.

I wasn't trusted to do the work? Why assume that? The co-worker was there for an entire year, and then they decided they needed another person. The truth is the co-worker wasn't doing a full day's work, so instead of firing her and hiring me (which they would have done in private industry), they KEPT her on and hired me in addition. Until the government can dump their lazy and/or incompetent people, they will always be overstaffed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Absolutely. I worked in government for a year and was bored silly without enough to do. The only time I felt fully productive was when my co-.worker went on vacation for a week, and if had to do both her job and mine. It wasn't hard - it was simply a full day. There never should have been two of us doing that work, but my boss was a GS-15 and "rated" two people, so he took it. I'm sure that went on all over the place, with all sorts of unnecessary overstaffing.

Honestly, it sounds like you weren't trusted to do the work. Not everyone is cut out to do government work. People who make flip arguments and don't bother with details about things they think are inconsequential can do a lot of damage that someone else has to fix.

True. Not everyone can stand the bureaucratic red tape, the redundancy, the waste, and the snail's pace. I quit and started my own business, working seven days a week at the start, and being accountable for my every decision. It was the opposite of government work, and I was thrilled with my venture. Felt I was accomplishing something rather than "hold back" so as not to make my co-worker look bad. She sat there all day, talking to her BF on the phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again. The genius Republicans will outsource government work to private contractors who make nearly twice as much to dong the same job. All in the name of saving money and socking it to those lazy government workers.

It is worse than that. My DH is a government contractor. For every $1 he makes, the head of his beltway bandit corp makes $5. That corp employs about 10 people. Most of the money goes to its 0.1% ceo. The corp that "employs" him does absolutely nothing at all to earn that money, besides bribe the guy who awards the contracts.

[Anonymous]

Meh. I work in finance and am not a fed. Some people here really have a weird axe to grind. I don't have an issue with Feds getting a decent salary and good benefits. That said, I'm also OK making it easier to fire persistent under-performers if its true that it really is difficult to do that under the current system. Thing is, Trump has said that if anything, he wants to increase the military. The DOD and military dwarf pretty much all the divisions of civil service combined. Even if he just completely wiped out the Dept of Education and EPA, those agencies are pretty small anyway. I don't really see that having much of an impact on net gov't spending (esp. if he embarks on an expansion of the military, border patrol, etc. at the same time). Its not draining the swamp, its just increasing spending on those parts of government that the republican base likes (war economy) and choking funding from the regulatory and watchdog agencies that the base hates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

US Census data says 2.7 million federal civilian employees

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

There are 318 million people in the US. 2.7 million is 0.8% of the population. What fraction of the population as federal workers do you think is reasonable? Frankly, I'm suprised we can do all the work the government needs to do with this small force. Must be pretty efficient.

[Anonymous]

I honestly don't think this is why "DCUM is in a frenzy" - because there are very few threads about this topic. And MANY threads about other concerns about a Trump Administration.

Honestly as a fed - I'm not even that worried. I read that my sector is relatively safe and that if they do cut FERS it will be for new hires. While we don't know any of that for sure - I don't think it will be as bad as many people seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

US Census data says 2.7 million federal civilian employees

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

There are 318 million people in the US. 2.7 million is 0.8% of the population. What fraction of the population as federal workers do you think is reasonable? Frankly, I'm suprised we can do all the work the government needs to do with this small force. Must be pretty efficient.

Fine, we can debate that issue but at least you've stopped falsely claiming 1.5 or 1.8 million. Sheesh. Talk about resisting real world facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

US Census data says 2.7 million federal civilian employees

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

There are 318 million people in the US. 2.7 million is 0.8% of the population. What fraction of the population as federal workers do you think is reasonable? Frankly, I'm suprised we can do all the work the government needs to do with this small force. Must be pretty efficient.

Fine, we can debate that issue but at least you've stopped falsely claiming 1.5 or 1.8 million. Sheesh. Talk about resisting real world facts.

I'm a different person. I'm not the one who quoted a number before Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

US Census data says 2.7 million federal civilian employees

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

There are 318 million people in the US. 2.7 million is 0.8% of the population. What fraction of the population as federal workers do you think is reasonable? Frankly, I'm suprised we can do all the work the government needs to do with this small force. Must be pretty efficient.

Fine, we can debate that issue but at least you've stopped falsely claiming 1.5 or 1.8 million. Sheesh. Talk about resisting real world facts.

So the federal government is far and away the largest employer in the US -- twice as large as #2 Walmart which has 1.4 million US employees.
With 140 million working age individuals in the U.S., the federal government makes up 2 percent of the working population of the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go again. The genius Republicans will outsource government work to private contractors who make nearly twice as much to dong the same job. All in the name of saving money and socking it to those lazy government workers.

This can't be said too often.

Let's not forget that the contractors will also be half as qualified and have the split incentive to ensure they keep getting rehired instead of getting the job done. The latter was what a disgruntled employee at one of the largest, and most respected, contracting firms told DH when he was considering going that route.

The worst part is, when the government tries to cut budgets in the future agencies will give just as much pushback due to contractor layoffs as they do for Fed RIFs. Ask me how I know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/21/trump-republicans-plan-to-target-government-workers-benefits-and-job-security/

"President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation. Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January. "

Welcome to the world that the private sector has been living in for years now.

They need to address clearances to provide more opportunities to fill positions within contracts. They also need to adress this leapfrogging from one contractor to another. Projects take a hit, some much more than others, every time that happens and it costs a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what republicans do when they "cut deadwood"

Fire people at the agency they hate most, usually amounting to small dollars.

Put in some loyalists with know expertise who screw up. Hire contractors to fill the gap.

This will be used as an excuse to expand the military, which is big bucks.

The problem is that the bureaucracy is about 1.5 million jobs nationwide. Many of which are workers you will exclude because they are important to you. . As soon as you do the math, it adds up to symbolic gestures and nothing more.

PP, why are you posting false information? It take 10 seconds to look up the actual number of non-military federal workers and it was 2.8 million as of 2011 according to OPM. Twice the figure you quoted. I've worked in the executive branch, legislative branch and at a independent federal agency, and every one of those organizations I've worked in could cut 15% of their non-performing workforce tomorrow without any loss of capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is so convincing. Thank you for that scientific 15% fact. It contibutes a lot.

By the way, counting the actual number of federal workers is hard. Something far beyond the capabilities of your preferred source, Wikipedia. For example, some of the intelligence agencies do not make their numbers available to the public. There are also part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. How do you count them? Not to mention categories like interns and law clerks. And what about the postal service is that in the number or out? Some sources count reservists as non-military federal workers. And what season do you count in? The beginning of the FY when numbers are higher?

Fedscope is the best source, but using OPM, the real FY 2015 number is 1.8M, which is well under your overblown claim and much closer to the earlier poster's. Why would you cite 5-year old data, anyway, when the real numbers are so easily available. To mislead?

BTW, here's the source
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/sizing-up-the-executive-branch-2015.pdf

You are an idiot. The report you cite only covers CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH employees. It says right on page 3 that the numbers provided in the report "exclude a few major components of the Executive Branch (most notably the Postal Service and many intelligence agencies)."

The Postal Service is over 600,000 employees, so as the other PP stated, the real number of federal employees is actually right about 2.8 million.

US Census data says 2.7 million federal civilian employees

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

There are 318 million people in the US. 2.7 million is 0.8% of the population. What fraction of the population as federal workers do you think is reasonable? Frankly, I'm suprised we can do all the work the government needs to do with this small force. Must be pretty efficient.

Fine, we can debate that issue but at least you've stopped falsely claiming 1.5 or 1.8 million. Sheesh. Talk about resisting real world facts.

So the federal government is far and away the largest employer in the US -- twice as large as #2 Walmart which has 1.4 million US employees.
With 140 million working age individuals in the U.S., the federal government makes up 2 percent of the working population of the U.S.

The smallest percentage of the workforce since WW2, but producing more than ever. In reality, it's quite an American success story. Thanks for pointing it out.