Washington%2C D.C. - 2007 aerial view.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org), Author: .mw-parser-output .commons-creator-table{background-color:#f0f0ff;box-sizing:border-box;font-size:95%;text-align:start;color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .commons-creator-table>tbody>tr{vertical-align:top}.mw-parser-output .commons-creator-table>tbody>tr>t) Details Source DMCA
On January 28, US president Donald Trump made federal government employees an offer that, at least theoretically, they could refuse: "If you choose not to continue in your current role in the federal workforce, we thank you for your service to your country and you will be provided with a dignified, fair departure from the federal deferred resignation program."
The offer included a generous severance package. Those accepting would continue to receive pay and benefits through September.
The employees could accept -- and tens of thousands DID accept -- the offer, apparently by simply replying "resign" to notification emails on or before February 6.
On February 6, a federal judge extended the deadline for several days.
Meanwhile, three unions representing government employees filed suit claiming the offer is "arbitrary and capricious" as well as illegal.
I'm no authority on the legalities here, but I can see why those unions prefer not to lose a bunch of dues-paying members.
Personally, I'm all in favor of the "buyout" -- but only on one important condition: Those employees must not be replaced.
The federal government employs about three million people, not including military personnel (who presumably didn't receive the buyout offer).
Given the limited scope and power of that government, according to its own Constitution, cutting the federal workforce by 90% would probably leave it still much fatter than it has any plausible reason to be.
Not that the federal government considers itself bound to obey that Constitution, of course. It discards the supposed "supreme law of the land" whenever it finds that law inconvenient.
But big, permanent cuts to that workforce size would reduce its ability to "sen[d] hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance," as the Declaration of Independence complained of King George III doing.
They would also reduce government spending, at least once the severance pay and benefits end.
And with unemployment levels continuing at historic lows, sending a bunch of people back to the productive sector might at least partially offset Donald Trump's efforts to deport millions of workers.
OK, probably not enough to stop the big price increases his deportations, tariffs, and trade wars are about to hit our wallets with ... but anything to take the edge off, right?
If the purpose and outcome of the buyout is a substantial reduction in the number of government employees, we'll all be better off.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
