Trump Tells Team to Target 10% Spending, 20% Fed Workers Cuts

[Weatherman2020]

Now we get to hear from the left that millions of orphans will be dying of starvation in the streets.

Good to see him working on what got him the job.



Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.

Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.

At least two so-called “landing teams” in Cabinet agencies have relayed the call for cuts as part of their marching orders to shrink the flab in government.

The cuts would target discretionary spending, not mandated programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the sources said.

The spending reductions are expected to be used to help pay for Trump’s plan to boost the Pentagon’s budget, tax cuts and some pet projects, potentially including the anti-immigration wall on the nation’s southern border.

The teams also are looking at staffing cuts over four years through attrition, a hiring freeze and reorganization.

Keep reading…

 

[IcebergSlim]

Now we get to hear from the left that millions of orphans will be dying of starvation in the streets.

Good to see him working on what got him the job.



Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.

Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.

At least two so-called “landing teams” in Cabinet agencies have relayed the call for cuts as part of their marching orders to shrink the flab in government.

The cuts would target discretionary spending, not mandated programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the sources said.

The spending reductions are expected to be used to help pay for Trump’s plan to boost the Pentagon’s budget, tax cuts and some pet projects, potentially including the anti-immigration wall on the nation’s southern border.

The teams also are looking at staffing cuts over four years through attrition, a hiring freeze and reorganization.

Keep reading…

Knowing that you are a cretin, I will point out that the net effect on spending will be ZERO....

also, switching discretionary spending from social support to lard the Pentagon slop bucket will result in LOWER macroeconomic multipliers....

Don't ask......I can't hope to live long enough to teach you...

 

[DGS49]

Having gone through numerous corporate reorganizations in my career, I have seen many instances when "Management" dictated spending and staffing cuts in this order of magnitude. In the private sector (unlike the public sector), managers who did not get on board were quickly removed...sent off to pursue "other interests."

In most cases, the staffing and spending cuts were done, with minimal disruptions. In fact, six months later the survivors were wondering what (the fuck) all those people were doing that was so important.

In the public sector, it is very, very rare that anyone actually loses their job. Their position may be cut, but they hang around for an indefinite period of time until they secure another sinecure with another office or agency, and never actually are removed from the government's teats. The only actual reduction in force occurs through retirements, when those people are not replaced.

The last time a President went on such a campaign (Clinton), the result was that hundreds of thousands of Fed employees moved to the other side of the table, working for "Consultants" who charged the government three or four times as much to do the same meaningless jobs they were doing while on the Government payroll.

It is often said that there is nothing so permanent as a "Temporary Government Program." Coming in a close second is a government job. Good luck, Donald. The number of employees might come down but we the taxpayers will continue spending more and more every year for the services we don't want, don't need, and absolutely don't want to pay for.

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

 

[IcebergSlim]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

 

[Moonglow]

Now we get to hear from the left that millions of orphans will be dying of starvation in the streets.

Good to see him working on what got him the job.



Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.

Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.

At least two so-called “landing teams” in Cabinet agencies have relayed the call for cuts as part of their marching orders to shrink the flab in government.

The cuts would target discretionary spending, not mandated programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the sources said.

The spending reductions are expected to be used to help pay for Trump’s plan to boost the Pentagon’s budget, tax cuts and some pet projects, potentially including the anti-immigration wall on the nation’s southern border.

The teams also are looking at staffing cuts over four years through attrition, a hiring freeze and reorganization.

Keep reading…

The Democrats , Republicans and DOD didn't like the effects of sequestration...

 

[Claudette]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

They should trim the bloated Fed Govt. Loads of waste there.

 

[eflatminor]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

 

[NightFox]

They should trim the bloated Fed Govt. Loads of waste there.

What do you mean "trim"? Be bold; Get rid of all of 'em except for two people, one to turn out the lights and the other to fire him when he's done turning them off.

 

[IcebergSlim]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

My bad......I was addressing this

Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt

​

on the admittedly naive assumption that you bothered to type it for a reason....

​

But hey, if you think that the rate of growth of federal spending is irrelevant to that.......I'm guessing you are a Recidivist Supply Side Voter....

 

[Moonglow]

Now we get to hear from the left that millions of orphans will be dying of starvation in the streets.

Good to see him working on what got him the job.



Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.

Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.

At least two so-called “landing teams” in Cabinet agencies have relayed the call for cuts as part of their marching orders to shrink the flab in government.

The cuts would target discretionary spending, not mandated programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the sources said.

The spending reductions are expected to be used to help pay for Trump’s plan to boost the Pentagon’s budget, tax cuts and some pet projects, potentially including the anti-immigration wall on the nation’s southern border.

The teams also are looking at staffing cuts over four years through attrition, a hiring freeze and reorganization.

Keep reading…

If it includes wages of Congress members, I am all for it..

 

[AntonToo]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are floating in pie-in-the sky fantasies.

It is not realistic to expect reduction in nominal$ government spending amid ever expanding, aging population.

it is especially not possible with all the military and stimulative government spending (now with a side of puny discretionary spending cuts) Trump ran on.

 

[danielpalos]

Having gone through numerous corporate reorganizations in my career, I have seen many instances when "Management" dictated spending and staffing cuts in this order of magnitude. In the private sector (unlike the public sector), managers who did not get on board were quickly removed...sent off to pursue "other interests."

In most cases, the staffing and spending cuts were done, with minimal disruptions. In fact, six months later the survivors were wondering what (the fuck) all those people were doing that was so important.

In the public sector, it is very, very rare that anyone actually loses their job. Their position may be cut, but they hang around for an indefinite period of time until they secure another sinecure with another office or agency, and never actually are removed from the government's teats. The only actual reduction in force occurs through retirements, when those people are not replaced.

The last time a President went on such a campaign (Clinton), the result was that hundreds of thousands of Fed employees moved to the other side of the table, working for "Consultants" who charged the government three or four times as much to do the same meaningless jobs they were doing while on the Government payroll.

It is often said that there is nothing so permanent as a "Temporary Government Program." Coming in a close second is a government job. Good luck, Donald. The number of employees might come down but we the taxpayers will continue spending more and more every year for the services we don't want, don't need, and absolutely don't want to pay for.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, would complement a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and solve this dilemma, on an at-will basis.

 

[IcebergSlim]

We'll see I guess. Sounds like a good start, but we'll only know for sure after time has past and we can actually see less, or more, overall spending/debt and whether government grows or shrinks. I sure as hell am hoping for the latter, but again, we'll see.

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Not interested in your trivia. Not interested in slowing the growth of federal spending, I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

I'm interested in shrinking government to the confines of the Constitutional powers it was originally granted.

Classic tell...
Might as well sport a conical chapeau in neon...

 

[Tom Horn]

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Uh, Gerald Ford?

 

[danielpalos]

let's end the drug war.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Under which POTUS did we see the lowest annual rate of growth of federal spending since 1960?

Uh, Gerald Ford?

no.....

 

[danielpalos]

There is no, "department of homeland security" in our Constitution. We already have a department of defense.

 

[imawhosure]

If he cuts 10% of real spending, good for him! If he cuts 5%, good to. If he cuts 1%, that is even a hurray! Why? Because the annual budget has a raise in spending of at least 3% a year, so any cut, is better than no cut at all. And even if he cuts it from some departments, anything is better than nothing, since getting the size and spending of government under control is paramount.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Having gone through numerous corporate reorganizations in my career, I have seen many instances when "Management" dictated spending and staffing cuts in this order of magnitude. In the private sector (unlike the public sector), managers who did not get on board were quickly removed...sent off to pursue "other interests."

In most cases, the staffing and spending cuts were done, with minimal disruptions. In fact, six months later the survivors were wondering what (the fuck) all those people were doing that was so important.

In the public sector, it is very, very rare that anyone actually loses their job. Their position may be cut, but they hang around for an indefinite period of time until they secure another sinecure with another office or agency, and never actually are removed from the government's teats. The only actual reduction in force occurs through retirements, when those people are not replaced.

The last time a President went on such a campaign (Clinton), the result was that hundreds of thousands of Fed employees moved to the other side of the table, working for "Consultants" who charged the government three or four times as much to do the same meaningless jobs they were doing while on the Government payroll.

It is often said that there is nothing so permanent as a "Temporary Government Program." Coming in a close second is a government job. Good luck, Donald. The number of employees might come down but we the taxpayers will continue spending more and more every year for the services we don't want, don't need, and absolutely don't want to pay for.

I was thinking the same thing, she is a beast... God help him.