Fiorina: 'I Will Not Replace a Single' Retiring Federal Worker

CNS News.com ^ | August 10, 2015 | Susan Jones

[Hojczyk]

We have never succeeded in shrinking the size of government," Republican Carly Fiorina told "Fox News Sunday." She said she would do it.

"We have a bunch of baby boomers who are going to retire out of the federal government over the next five to six years. I will not replace a single one," she promised.

"And yes, we need to actually get about the business of reducing the size, the power, the cost, complexity and corruption of this federal government."

Host Chris Wallace played a video clip of Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticizing Fiorina for nearly driving Hewlett-Packard, a Fortune 500 company, "into the ground." Schultz noted that Fiorina "fired 30,000 people when she was CEO."

"You know, if you end up as Republican nominee, the Democrats are going to put that in every ad -- she fired 30,000 people," host Chris Wallace told Fiorina. "It's exactly the kind of thing, Ms. Fiorina, that sunk Mitt Romney."

Fiorina said she's "flattered" that the head of the DNC would come after me because it must mean she's "gaining traction."

"It's also true that the vast majority of Americans know that in tough times sometimes tough decisions have to be made. And what they're frustrated by is the federal government never makes a tough decision."

[ColdSteelTalon]

The HP debacle will be hung (and rightfully so) around Fiorina’s neck. She made a huge mess of HP during her tenure. Of course she is a conservative and if she does manage to get the nomination I will certainly support her as she meets all of my requirements for a conservative republican otherwise.

[CA Conservative]

Abolish entire departments would be the best way.

That would have to be done by Congress. Do you think they could get a filibuster-proof majority to eliminate the Department of Education, for example?

[DoodleDawg]

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.

So what she's suggesting is overloading the remaining employees with the work and ensuring that an already inefficient government grinds on even less efficiently. Good plan. </sarcasm>

[Gaffer]

Oh, I understand that is what THIS administration thinks. Somehow I don't think that's what she's talking about.

Either way, I heard something today on the radio, from Cain I think. I paraphrase it as “somebody was asking her about what she felt about her happy hour debate and why/how/what that meant to her.” The response (from her and Jindal I think) basically was “we'll just have to address it and step up our game.” IOW, no blame, just hard work, NTTG, STTW perseverance to do better. No excuses, no blame.

[Starboard]

“And yes, we need to actually get about the business of reducing the size, the power, the cost, complexity and corruption of this federal government.”

****************
She’s right, of course, but its a lot easier said than done. The bureaucracy is a formidable foe that knows well how to protect itself. It has the ferocity of a wolverine when threatened.

She is vastly underestimating the difficulty of dealing with intractable departments and their agencies. These agencies have powerful constituencies and have successfully battled many presidents before. Its going to take one tough, unapologetic, and unmerciful SOB to do this.

[9YearLurker]

Ha ha—there could be a play in a Fiorina/Walker ticket: we’ll fire government workers left and right—and bust the unions of those we don’t fire!

[Not A Snowbird]

Easy to say, but not very smart.

I agree with reviewing every vacancy to determine if it’s critical and should be filled, realigned or done away with; my department already does that. But a blanket “I’m not hiring” is not good policy.

[setha]

She would replace them with an H1-b body shop firm like Tata or Infosys. If questioned, she would point to the firm, which would make up fraudulent qualifications.

[ozarkgirl]

Easy to say, but not very smart.

I understand what you're saying but there are two ways to cut government. Defund and layoff or let attrition take care of it. I would think in most positions there could be retraining rather than hiring new to take the place of a retiree.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

And where is the limit of her plan. If a federal judge retires then will she not replace them? If ten percent of her Secret Service detail retires will she not replace them? How about air traffic controllers, border patrol agents, FBI agents, the staff at the CIA and the NSA and other agencies that contribute to the national defense? Will she replace none of them? That is a rational plan?

H.L. Menken once said that for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. Fiorina takes that to new heights.

[unsycophant]

Exactly.

[CA Conservative]

Why isn't Fiorina advocating that as a solution? Instead of looking at it as a headcount reduction exercise treat it as a eliminating unnecessary services exercise?

What you are proposing is something Congress would have to do. The president can propose such changes, but Congress would have to eliminate any departments deemed unnecessary, since they were established by law. How likely do you think that is?

And in the absence of any such action by Congress, what should the president do? Should they whine about their inability to make any changes? Should they attempt to ignore the law, a la Obama, and try to close the departments anyway? Or should they use what powers are legally and constitutionally available to them to reduce the size and scope of government as much as they can while continuing to try to get bigger changes through the Congress?

[CA Conservative]

Just fire them and don’t replace them.

As has been mentioned numerous times already, it is almost impossible to fire a government worker. If Congress were to cut funding for the positions, yes, you can lay them off. But as long as the funds are appropriated for the position, it is difficult to get rid of them. But the fact that funds are appropriated for the position doesn't mean you are forced to replace someone who quits or retires...

[Starboard]

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.

[mulligan]

What a stupid statement. That would take years to downsize government. Just eliminate many worthless government departments, now.

[freekitty]

Sounds like a idiotic statement. Fiorina is an establishment Republican. We sure don’t need another.

[liberalism is suicide]

Snivel Service... a wholly different world from that of reality. I’ve worked both in the private sector and in the government sector as an Air Force civilian employee. The world of government employment is the closest I’ve been to the Twilight Zone. In nearly 30 years, I can only recall two or three employees that got fired, when there were so many other worthy candidates for dismissal. The union, a refuge for sorry employees has made it almost impossible for Management to discipline those who need it.

[CA Conservative]

If a federal judge retires then will she not replace them?

Do you not understand our government very well? Did you not know that we have three separate branches of government, and that aside from making the initial appointment, the president has no power over the legislative branch? And do you really believe any president would refuse to fill open judicial vacancies, knowing that if he/she doesn't do so, the next president will - and could be someone of the opposite party?

Or are you just making a ridiculous straw man argument?

[tje]

Carly introduce ‘ventilation’ to HP. That is 5% of the workforce is laid off and replaced with new hires.

[DoodleDawg]

Or should they use what powers are legally and constitutionally available to them to reduce the size and scope of government as much as they can while continuing to try to get bigger changes through the Congress?

OK so let's take Fiorina's plan. If 10% of your judges retire then what does that do to trials if you are handling the same caseload with fewer judges? Or fewer prosecutors? If 20% of the air traffic controllers retire then what does that do to the air traffic system in this country? If 15% of Fiorina's Secret Service detail retire then will she limp along with less protection? If 15% of the CIA or the NSA retire then what does that do to our security? If a fifth of your Border Agents retire then how do you seal the border? If 20% of the Department of Defense civilian workforce retire then what does that do to our military preparedness?

It's an asinine plan. It's the plan of the fifteen second sound-bite and not a rational idea for shrinking government. It's the kind of plan one would expect from Carly Fiorina.