Decent post but this is missing what government capabilities were hindered by the workforce reduction. By not including that, this post implicitly treats a 10% headcount reduction as a free lunch when I doubt that was the case.
Government is a political institution that exists to bring people to justice, and provide for the common defense. Anything that the government does that falls outside of that scope is a duplication of private effort, while the things that the government does inside that scope are purely consumptive. It's not a coincidence that the best year for the American economy in the last century was 1946.
Meh. I can maybe get behind some limited version of what you're saying, but populists, socialists, and especially the Median Voter all heavily disagree with the notion that the government should be limited. Also, federal headcount is a much worse way to gauge how limited the government is than outlays.
Because most federal government "capabilities" today are destructive of American freedom and prosperity, it is quite likely that their hindrance by a 10% headcount reduction paid dividends not visible in the lack of spending reductions.
IOW, the cuts might prove to be even better than a free lunch.
A lot of the cuts were to things like basic science research and statistical collection. It's really hard for me to see how those types of jobs are "destroying American freedom".
Decent post but this is missing what government capabilities were hindered by the workforce reduction. By not including that, this post implicitly treats a 10% headcount reduction as a free lunch when I doubt that was the case.
Government is a political institution that exists to bring people to justice, and provide for the common defense. Anything that the government does that falls outside of that scope is a duplication of private effort, while the things that the government does inside that scope are purely consumptive. It's not a coincidence that the best year for the American economy in the last century was 1946.
Meh. I can maybe get behind some limited version of what you're saying, but populists, socialists, and especially the Median Voter all heavily disagree with the notion that the government should be limited. Also, federal headcount is a much worse way to gauge how limited the government is than outlays.
Because most federal government "capabilities" today are destructive of American freedom and prosperity, it is quite likely that their hindrance by a 10% headcount reduction paid dividends not visible in the lack of spending reductions.
IOW, the cuts might prove to be even better than a free lunch.
A lot of the cuts were to things like basic science research and statistical collection. It's really hard for me to see how those types of jobs are "destroying American freedom".
Sorry, but the "hostage puppy" tactic isn't gonna work any more.
And in any case, politicized science paid for by funds forcibly extracted from the populace is indeed destructive of American freedom.
Re: the chart: "The size of the federal workforce is getting smaller under Donald Trump"
What does the Blue line represent?
The Red line?
What are the X & Y axis units?
This chart is VERY confusing.
Otherwise, the article is very informative and helpful. Love all the comparison charts for modern presidential terms on fed. employment!!!!!!