That is a typical, clueless, CEO answer to the problem. Cut headcount and you shrink the size of business. Except that you don't do away with the work, you just do away with the number of people doing the work. A rational, well-though-out solution would require determining if the function performed is actually necessary, and if not then doing away from it. But that doesn't make a good sound-clip and Fiorina doesn't care if it's necessary or not so long as she can reduce the headcount.
No, half of these people aren’t working anyway. Let the retirees retire, get on with the automation of systems (which works a lot better than talking to most civil servants) - and then reduce the role of the Federal Government anywhere that it isn’t necessary.
Federal workers - a lot of that "work" isn't real work or is spread out over too many people to justify keeping more people hired. You could cut 'em 25% or more before you had to worry about overloading anyone with actual work.
You're right. But the problem is that in our system of government, it is Congress that makes the determination if a department gets eliminated, not the president. What Carly is suggesting in just about the limit of what a president can do on his/her own. Anything more would require action by Congress.
You make a good, rational point. To that I would add that sometimes the employee headcount is reduced but outside contractors are brought in to fill the gap. So its a shell game.
Also, in my opinion, not replacing retiring employees may leave you with a far less capable work force. Given today’s diminished work ethic, that’s posing a real challenge already. And when threatened, the agencies will immediately cut the most visible services. Its viscous political gamesmanship.