Posted on 08/10/2015 10:19:40 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Okay, let's say you are president. How are you, on your own, going to legally eliminate departments that have been established by law?
She’s getting a lot of attention because she speaks well and is decisive. Unfortunately, she’s overconfident of her own intellectual ability, and she’s demonstrated that in the past and most recently when she knee-jerked and attacked Trump for what he supposedly meant. Since when do we condemn people for what we thought they really meant, rather than what was actually said?
Obama showed that the President can do ANYTHING by EO.
I understand it very well. I'm wondering if Fiorina does.
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?
Correct me if I'm wrong but did not Fiorina say that she would not replace a single retiring federal worker? Are not judges federal workers? They may be presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, but they are still federal employees and, I assumed, subject to the same promise. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that she balks at that and keeps appointing judges, what about federal prosecutors? U.S. Attorneys? If you keep your bench stocked with judges but reduce those who bring the cases before you by a significant amount, and let those who support the courts administratively dwindle away, then how does your judiciary continue to function?
I've already addressed this ridiculous straw-man argument. Congress determines the number of Article 3 judges - the president doesn't have to appoint them, but will know if he/she doesn't, the next president gets to.
It's the plan of the fifteen second sound-bite and not a rational idea for shrinking government.
Okay then. You tell me what YOU would do as president, on your own and within the constraints of the law and the Constitution, to decrease the size and scope of the federal government.
You base that on what?
I have worked federal and state level. We could easily cut 25% or one in four workers and not be overworked ourselves. Some departments the cuts could be larger. This was years ago when there were less government workers than today. I appreciate your defense of the government worker. Sorry it won’t fly.
I started and I had to “slow down” as I was working too fast.
We had to make the work “last”. I didn’t stay too long but I learned to take long lunches etc.
Judges don't work for the executive branch. You are working this point hard, but it doesn't work for you. You are really stretching, perhaps because you don't like Carly. If her idea a total solution? Of course not. Can it be applied as a blanket solution in every case? Of course not. Is it a starting point? Of course! At least she is suggesting ideas on what she could do within the bounds of the law, the Constitution and political reality to actually start reversing the growth of government. If you have better ideas, why not post them?
Yeah, and I noticed that you ignored the rest of my questions on what happens to air traffic control, the Secret Service, federal prosecutions, national security agencies like the CIA and the NSA, the Border Patrol, and the Department of Defense, the Department of Veteran's Affairs, and other vital government functions if you allow all those to see ten or fifteen or twenty percent of their people retire and go unreplaced? What is your answer for that? Or do you agree with Fiorina that that would be a good thing to have happen?
I freely admit that I am not impressed with her. At all.
Can it be applied as a blanket solution in every case? Of course not.
But that is what she is saying. She will not replace a single, solitary retiring government worker, is her position. It's not "I won't replace a single retiring government worker...unless they are in air traffic control or the Border Patrol or the Secret Service or work for the VA, etc., etc. She is advocating a blanket solution. And I'm calling her out on it and saying it is idiotic. But entirely in keeping with her campaign.
From she who really does know how to do a layoff or reorg.
Pathetic.
It worked at HP!
Didn’t it? /s
It's the President's job to determine how many employees are needed to do as Congress directs. That implies he also has the job of determining how many are not needed.
That. . . .and a several-year-freeze on new hires. Period.
If you’re not joining the Military. . . .look elsewhere for a job. . .
Federal workers weren’t going to vote for her anyway.
That is true. And when the president submits his/her budget to Congress, he/she can specify the staffing level they would like to have in each department.
Here is where it gets tricky, though. If the president requests a lower staffing level than currently exists and Congress appropriates budget for that staffing level, then the president can eliminate (lay off) the positions that were not funded. But if Congress ignores the president's budget request and funds all existing positions, it is almost impossible for the president to lay off or fire anyone to get down to the level he/she thinks is needed. The only option then is attrition - not replacing those who retire or quit.
You can't just lay off government workers, sadly. Not unless the budget for the department is cut by Congress.
When a Republican candiate doesn't have the courage to speak their mind, let's offer "What Would Donald Say?"
I this case:
Donald: "If elected President, I'll fire 30K on day one!"
Chris Wallace frowns.
I call bull.
Get back to us when you cap ALL federal pensions at 50K, including prez, sens, reps and judges.
Which is why Fiorina's statement is gutless. I'd like to see the courts try to specify how many people I need to "protect" the desert tortoise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.