11 Comments
User's avatar
NothingButNet's avatar

Excellent analysis! 👍 It’s a shame that every federal employee can’t be a Schedule F employee! It’s quite telling that the federal workforce has shrunk by hundreds of thousands during Trump’s second term, yet there is no evidence that this has created a problem. It makes me wonder just how many more could be eliminated without anyone noticing they were gone 🤔🤔 I suspect 30-50% of the federal workforce could be eliminated and no one would notice. The remaining employees should have their compensation reduced to private sector equivalents. Yeah, fantasy 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Rod D. Martin's avatar

What's worse: when Trump came back into office, only 6% of the entire federal civilian workforce was coming into the office. This is years after the pandemic. When Elon put a stop to that, they sued. Ridiculous.

Article 2, Section 1 is clear: the executive power is vested in a President of the United States. Not the Pendleton Act. Not union contracts. Not Humphrey's Executor. The President, which is to say, the voters. If the President can't hire and fire, then we have a government acting unconstitutionally and the voters have little real say. It's really very simple. And I've been beating this drum for a long time.

Fortunately, so is Donald Trump.

Three Big Lies's avatar

Jeffery Tucker hits another home run. He’s one of my favorites. Two questions: In the chart, what are the spikes every 5-10 years? And can we get south of the 1960 number by the end of the term?

Rod D. Martin's avatar

Primarily census workers. And as to pre-1960, that probably depends on the midterms. But yes.

Three Big Lies's avatar

Ahh, those pesky midterms! We need to flip the momentum!

Three Big Lies's avatar

Another good step would be a law eliminating Federal Public Sector Unions. I’d love to see that at the state and local level as well.

Rod D. Martin's avatar

Even FDR and George Meany were against public sector unions. This shouldn't be controversial. But since they're one of the chief funding and organizing conduits for the Democrats, it is.

nancy barker's avatar

Sounds great, until the rogue judges rule against every single episode of a separation of employment

Rod D. Martin's avatar

This is going to be a straightforward constitutional issue. The litigation is already going on. Most likely, the President loses in the district court (D.C.) and possibly the court of appeals (also D.C.), and then wins at the Supreme Court.

Now of course this assumes they're going to overturn Humphrey's Executor. If not, this gets more difficult. But if so, this is a no-brainer.

Doctor Mist's avatar

Also, what keeps it in place next time a Democrat is in the White House? Doesn't "a similar executive order from late in his first term — promptly reversed by President Joe Biden" show that an Executive Order is a dumb and fragile way to solve this problem?

I mean, sure, it may be the only way available. But it seems pollyannaish to treat it like some big sea change that's going to give us back the nation the Founders bequeathed us.

Richard Amerling, MD's avatar

Amen. Let the housecleaning begin!