Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

AI doesn't work. Have any of you tried to use it? It's right about 80% of the time, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Tell that to Musk because he has stated he wants to implement AI for some offices govt tasks

Anonymous wrote:

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

AI doesn't work. Have any of you tried to use it? It's right about 80% of the time, sometimes more, sometimes less.

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.

But he’s doing it. And nobody is stopping him. Until someone physically stops him, he will push on. Congress won’t. The courts can’t. The executive branch is the only branch and it won’t.

The only laws that truly exist are the ones that are enforced. Otherwise is just words on a piece of paper.

None of that is true. Unelected individuals do not have the power you suggest.

+1, from the PP that response was directed to.

He’s NOT “doing it.” They have NOT fired 80% of Feds, nor will they. Stop believing he has the power to do these things, because he doesn’t. Stop believing that the legislative and judicial branches will never do anything. Have some faith, FFS - don’t give up this early.

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.

But he’s doing it. And nobody is stopping him. Until someone physically stops him, he will push on. Congress won’t. The courts can’t. The executive branch is the only branch and it won’t.

The only laws that truly exist are the ones that are enforced. Otherwise is just words on a piece of paper.

None of that is true. Unelected individuals do not have the power you suggest.

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

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.

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?

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.

But he’s doing it. And nobody is stopping him. Until someone physically stops him, he will push on. Congress won’t. The courts can’t. The executive branch is the only branch and it won’t.

The only laws that truly exist are the ones that are enforced. Otherwise is just words on a piece of paper.

None of that is true. Unelected individuals do not have the power you suggest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The number of federal employees is the same as it was 50 years ago. RIFs are not the solution.

Even if the number of federal employees has remained constant, that doesn’t mean a reduction in force (RIF) isn’t necessary. Advances in technology and process improvements should allow for a leaner and more efficient government

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.

But he’s doing it. And nobody is stopping him. Until someone physically stops him, he will push on. Congress won’t. The courts can’t. The executive branch is the only branch and it won’t.

The only laws that truly exist are the ones that are enforced. Otherwise is just words on a piece of paper.

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.

Anonymous wrote:OPM is overwhelmed. I put my date for retirement to occur one day after my eligibility date, February 28th. I completed the paperwork in December 2024 and still have yet to receive my exit papers. My agency has not sent my paperwork to OPM because my agency HR office is understaffed. OPM's understaffing is far worse than my agency's staffing. They do not have enough people to handle this deluge of retirements. And now add in these imminent forks in the road resignations followed by RIFs, unimaginable for an HR person. If DOG(ee) is attempting to rid OPM of 70% of the federal government Human Resource personnel, who will be left to handle all these exits from the government? And when will people like me receive our first retirement checks?

Anonymous wrote:OPM is overwhelmed. I put my date for retirement to occur one day after my eligibility date, February 28th. I completed the paperwork in December 2024 and still have yet to receive my exit papers. My agency has not sent my paperwork to OPM because my agency HR office is understaffed. OPM's understaffing is far worse than my agency's staffing. They do not have enough people to handle this deluge of retirements. And now add in these imminent forks in the road resignations followed by RIFs, unimaginable for an HR person. If DOG(ee) is attempting to rid OPM of 70% of the federal government Human Resource personnel, who will be left to handle all these exits from the government? And when will people like me receive our first retirement checks?

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.