You base that on what?
, get on with the automation of systems (which works a lot better than talking to most civil servants)
You obviously have never seen the government try and automate something.
...and then reduce the role of the Federal Government anywhere that it isn’t necessary
Why not find the unnecessary areas and eliminate them first? Rather than after cutting all those people? 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?
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.