It’ll never happen.
If they slashed it by 50% through attrition it might be a help.
No more hiring until the 50% figure is reached.
>> year by slashing the federal workforce by 10 percent
I’d like to see every single employee of the EPA slashed.
Preferably literally, but I’d settle for the figurative meaning if I have to. :-)
They’ve probably even labeled it “our first counteroffer”, as in “this is for our base”, we of course don’t expect or want you to actually accept it.
Stupid party does it again. They bought it. Now they own it!
Nuts. The House has already passed a bill on how to handle the sequestration cuts. Why are they negotiating with themselves again? Let Obama come up his proposal.
Why even negotiate? Damn the GOP is so stupid!
What’s to negotiate??? Wasn’t sequestration the result of negotiation??? Let sequestration set in —
RE: a gradual reduction in the federal workforce
Why can’t sequestration achieve the same result?
Unless they specify that cuts must be in non-defense departments, this is a fools gambit. 0 will agree and start reducing the troops (rat wet-dream).
Eight Deuce on the loose
The Reduction in Force was last implemented under Eisenhower in the 50s to reduce bloat caused by massive increases in government jobs due to WWII and Korea.
Not only did they reduce employment hiring to replace workers, almost all civil service employees got ‘bumped’ down a notch or two in their pay grade.
My mother worked for the 4th Army in San Antonio, and someone with more senior status took her job and she had to move down to a lower paying job and grade. In personal terms for our family it was a financial hardship.
It can be done if Congress has the will and a President who will agree. Probably a dead issue because of Obama and his debts to the government employees unions.