Reply to NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned.  What would it mean for the already riffed?[/quote]

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations.  That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.[/quote]

It is pretty popular outside of DC.[/quote]

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.[/quote]

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.[/quote]

These perceptions are because we all live in our own echochambers these days.  Some people only know/watch media supporting RIFs.  Others, the opposite.  FWIW, the polling I've seen shows it to be quite unpopular in national polls, but polls can change over time.  As a practical matter, there are certainly some red states/districts where they are unpopular, so it seems likely that at least a few repubs in both house and senate won't want to be on the record voting for rifs.

I never understand what can qualify for reconcliation, but this seems very budget-related. Why would they exclude it?  My thought is that they put this in somewhat broad language into reconciliation (tying the language to cost savings) so it only needs 50% in the Senate and is broad language that gives them cover on the 'consulting Congress' provision yet doesn't provide quotable attack adds for republicans.  [/quote]

Totally get the instinct—reconciliation sounds like a logical vehicle since the RIFs aim to cut costs. But under the Byrd Rule, it’s not enough for something to be budget-related. To qualify for reconciliation, the provision’s primary purpose must be fiscal, and any policy impact has to be merely incidental. That’s a really high bar.

The kind of broad language you’re describing—tied loosely to cost savings—would likely get struck by the Senate Parliamentarian if it’s really doing structural or programmatic work, like reorganizing agencies or gutting staffing for statutorily mandated services. Parliamentarians have blocked things far milder than that.

Even if they slipped it through, it wouldn’t necessarily count as a valid congressional “blessing” in court. Vague language won’t cure the APA or separation-of-powers issues if the RIFs hollow out legal mandates without statutory change. And politically, local impacts from layoffs or closed offices are always quotable—especially in a tough election cycle.

So yeah, reconciliation is tempting, but legally and procedurally, it’s a shaky path for this.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics