Submitted by Greg Alderete.
I have seen firsthand how organizations expand rapidly in times of crisis, only to face painful reductions once the mission shifts. In the military, this cycle played out after Vietnam and again after Desert Storm. The post-war drawdowns were necessary but often brutal. However, they were not random. The military has a system—flawed but structured—where reductions are based on performance. Those who excel stay; those who fall short are more likely to be let go. It’s harsh, but at least it follows a logic that prioritizes capability and readiness.
I believe the federal government should take the same approach when downsizing. Too often, workforce reductions are dictated by arbitrary percentage cuts or computer-generated algorithms, with no regard for mission effectiveness or employee merit. This kind of approach weakens institutions rather than strengthening them. If instead we focused on performance and necessity, ensuring that reductions left agencies more effective rather than just smaller, we would be far better off.
One of the biggest dangers of unchecked expansion—whether in the military or civilian government—is that it creates inefficiencies that sustain themselves. I remember seeing organizations balloon during the Iraq War, some growing by over 1,000%. What started as a necessity quickly turned into a self-perpetuating cycle. People justified their existence not by mission need, but by the fact that their jobs had already been created. It reminded me of the old military joke: Why is the artillery by the airfield? To protect the airplanes. Why are the airplanes there? To protect the artillery.
I am not opposed to a reduction in the federal workforce. In fact, I think it is often necessary. But it must be done thoughtfully and methodically, with clear metrics in place to ensure that, at the end of the process, we have a stronger, better-functioning government. Downsizing for the sake of downsizing is foolish. The goal should always be efficiency, not just elimination.
Well said. I believe it is also true that the organizations you’ve referenced do reductions with a grim understanding of the need. Unfortunately, the current administration too often appears to relish and even personally enjoy what they’re doing to the fired people, with zero regard for the organization’s efficiency or embarrassment when critical employees need to be rehired. No doubt they all enjoyed pulling the wings off of flies as children.
It also is concerning that all government data has been freely given to a crew of twenty-somethings techies (with no discernible applicable training or experience) employed by, and loyal to, the richest guy in the world. There has been no attempt at oversight or accountability.
Thanks TK. It is a bit off-putting the fact that they closed the office of consumer protection and shut all employees out – then brought in the wee ones to pound away at the computer- oh by the way, this organization was investigating THREE Musk companies – Uhm, things that make you go UHM! One of the computer guys (I believe he’s 19, maybe 20 now) was let go from a previous company he worked for because he had taken information from his current employer and sold it to a competitor. Oh, BROTHER! If you aren’t outraged, you don’t know history! No one NO ONE should be holding a position that has not been vetted by Congress. We have three systems of checks and balances and they are being skirted big time. BS!!!
Don’t ascribe nefarious intentions to others when you don’t know them. It says more about you than them.
I served 21 years in the US Army and 4+ years as a Lakewood council member so I have an insider view of bureaucracies and how the breed beyond need.
There are several ways to trim the waste, fraud and abuse.
First, across the board cuts. Everyone gets cut a certain percentage either wholesale or targeted by department/function. It’s not as brutal as it sounds since in many cases it is the department/function that does the cutting internally.
Then there is the cut of a department/function entirely or its consolidation with another similar department/function to achieve and economy or scale. Instead of paying for overhead and duplication of effort you only have one entity to look at making accountability easier.
There are also targeted cuts which typically are department/function related as part of prioritization of what’s important. Those functions below the funding line are cut or “squeezed” by cuts elsewhere to pull them above the funding line.
I’m sure there are other ways of “skinning the cat” such a modernization, technology, etc. Ultimately high performance does not rely on more people, money and “stuff”. Rather it requires systemic changes in how you operate and that is what bureaucracies are loathe to do.
Any combination of these several options can form part of a budget reduction strategy to stream line service at a reduced cost. I think that’s what Musk and his “crew of twenty-somethings techies” are trying to do. Sometimes it takes a “disinterested 3rd party” to give you an unbiased objective look at performance.
Mr. Arbeeny,
You are right most statements by an individual say more about the person writing than the subject written about. Across the board cuts assume all departments have equal amounts of overstaffing and wasteful spending. Certainly our health system has eliminated cancers, heart disease, and infectious diseases with plagues and massive outbreaks of diseases no longer requiring research or new therapies. Right. President Trump has the job requirement of protecting freedom of speech, which includes not agreeing with his administration’s actions. Does he do that? I haven’t seen any examples. Oh, BTW I served 40 years in the U. S. Army.
I don’t see where the Trump administration is squashing 1st Amendment rights to free speech or assembly. What I do see is Trump knuckling down on threatening speech and associated violence whether it be antisemitism, objection to his administration policies, acts of domestic terrorism, immigration law violation etc. all of which are illegal. You can disagree all you want and protest but there is a point where protest steps over the legal line. Even the 1st Amendment has limitations: you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater nor threaten to kill ICE and cabinet members without legal consequences.