[robertpaulsen]

"They might be in favor of it based on arguments that department B is unnecessary."

Necessary. Unnecessary. Whatever. If department B goes, there's more money for department A.

"I seriously doubt they'd support arguments of eliminating department B on grounds that it's claimed Constitutional authority is flawed if department A claims authority on the same basis."

I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating departments even if they're constitutionally sound. Aren't you?

The bottom line is that government employees may favor a reduction in government and/or a reduction in government spending, as long as it's not their department.

[tacticalogic]

The bottom line is that government employees may favor a reduction in government and/or a reduction in government spending, as long as it's not their department.

If they may, then they also may not, so the fact that they may is not the bottom line.

[dcwusmc]

"I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating departments even if they're constitutionally sound. Aren't you?"

I'm with you, Bobby. Let's start by eliminating the BATFags and the DEA, for openers. Then we can eliminate the Labor Department, the EPA, "Education" department, Commerce, Social Insecurity, Energy, Interior, HHS, Homeland "security" and so forth. Remove custome, border patrol and INS and set them up as they once were. Then tear down all those buildings (along with the UN) and sow the ground with salt. If we can eliminate at least 90 percent of FedGov, I will consider that a good start!