To: RoosterRedux
1.8% cut is draconian? Only in Washington D.C.
5 posted on
03/13/2017 6:58:32 AM PDT by
VRWCarea51
(The Original 1998 Version)
To: VRWCarea51
Yeah, 1.8% is a joke. So much needs to be cut WAAYYYY back...like cleaning at the IRS, EPA, etc. So much more. All of the useless, liberal bureaucracy that Obama created and inflated.
9 posted on
03/13/2017 7:04:41 AM PDT by
EagleUSA
To: VRWCarea51
When DC doesn’t get even its projected INCREASE, they call it ‘draconian.’
That word, whoever and whichever effing ghoul thought it up, should have trademarked it or something. These a$$holes use it any time a Republican tries to control costs.
I doubt they even know the origin of the word and got it from some dame game they were playing on the computer pretending to be working.
12 posted on
03/13/2017 7:08:04 AM PDT by
Gaffer
To: VRWCarea51
"1.8% cut is draconian? Only in Washington D.C."
I spent most of my career in local government, and during the financial crisis of 2007-2009 the city (Seattle) was able to accommodate similar reductions through retirements alone. The remaining staff easily picked up the slack. I would guess that targeted reductions of 3-5% (or more) could be accomplished without any impairment of vital programs. But even holding the workforce at the current level would be a step in the right direction, as opposing to increasing the workforce every year.
To: VRWCarea51
Cut every agency by 5 percent.
Do it again.
26 posted on
03/13/2017 7:24:42 AM PDT by
Eric in the Ozarks
(Baseball players, gangsters and musicians are remembered. But journalists are forgotten.)
To: VRWCarea51
If you’re making $100k a year, which many would consider a comfortable income, a 1.8% cut is $1,800 a year. That is a mild budget cut . . . comparable to saving just under $5.00 a day (one of your two or three daily Starbucks White Chocolate Mocha venti made with soy milk if you are the typical metrosexual). FedGov should cut much deeper than that, but it’s a start.
27 posted on
03/13/2017 7:26:53 AM PDT by
Pollster1
("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
To: VRWCarea51
IF it is a real cut, 1.8% reduction in existing employees, it is, by DC standards, “draconian.”
Remember, our nation's mis-managers call it a ‘cut’ when the rate of increase is reduced. Actually cutting existing personnel is “Inconceivable!”
28 posted on
03/13/2017 7:28:42 AM PDT by
Little Ray
(Freedom Before Security!)
To: VRWCarea51
That’s not 1.8% of the Federal work force. It’s 1.8% of the entire D.C. area employment base. That would be a huge number.
32 posted on
03/13/2017 7:49:58 AM PDT by
Alberta's Child
(President Donald J. Trump ... Making America Great Again, 140 Characters at a Time)
To: VRWCarea51
From the folks who cheer on businesses having to absorb greater cuts and increased costs...
34 posted on
03/13/2017 7:54:52 AM PDT by
Bogey78O
(So far so good.)
To: VRWCarea51
Imagine if Obama could have created that kind of job growth or GDP per quarter or year???
64 posted on
03/13/2017 10:45:48 AM PDT by
Jumper
To: VRWCarea51
I’ll take it but it’s not near enough!
I hope Trump can bull it through Congress! It’s going to be a fight with the Liberals in Both parties!
84 posted on
03/13/2017 4:05:23 PM PDT by
Cen-Tejas
(it's the debt bomb stupid)
To: VRWCarea51
"1.8% cut is draconian? Only in Washington D.C." It was a projected reduction in regional (DC) employment of 1.8%. Not everybody in DC works for the government, so that's not even a measure of regional cuts.
The word "draconian" was not used in the article.
95 posted on
03/14/2017 9:38:08 AM PDT by
mlo
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson