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 ...
Actually, I hear this not as a direct one-for-one replacement based on some specific position but as one of total numbers across the entire government workforce - which I think I’d agree with. I’m not a supporter of hers, but I can understand what she’s saying.
To me, this would force the government to decide what part of its workforce it values the most and make them go through the actions to counteract the attrition of needed functions. To me this would begin to erase the “government job entitlement” practice that has happened these last few decades.
This is the federal government. What "best people"? ;)
This approach is purely pragmatic, not ideological. It is a virtual impossibility to fire a government employee, but you have a lot more flexibility in who you hire, or more to the point, don't hire.
No, half of these people aren’t working anyway. Let the retirees retire, get on with the automation of systems (which works a lot better than talking to most civil servants) - and then reduce the role of the Federal Government anywhere that it isn’t necessary.
I think you are losing it, if you think she would not appoint judges, etc...
She is talking about shrinking the size of government through attrition. I thought as conservatives we all wanted to make government smaller?
A president cannot eliminate entire departments established by law on his/her own - Congress has to do that. But what he/she CAN do on their own is determine the level of staffing for each department, up to the level that Congress will fund. In other words, Congress can appropriate the money for 20,000 new IRS agents, but the president doesn't have to actually hire them. Congress can appropriate the money to replace retiring federal workers, but the president doesn't have to actually replace them.
It is actually a very practical way of shrinking the government that does not rely on getting past any Dem filibusters against "cutting" government spending. It also skirts the problems you run into with Civil Service protections that make it difficult to fire or lay off federal workers. Whether she would actually follow through is an open question, but the idea itself is actually a good one.
Federal workers - a lot of that "work" isn't real work or is spread out over too many people to justify keeping more people hired. You could cut 'em 25% or more before you had to worry about overloading anyone with actual work.
It's not shrinking government, it's shrinking headcount. The same programs will need to be administered, the same regulations enforces, the same services provided. The only difference is that you have fewer people to perform the work.
She said not one retiree would be replaced.
Maybe the quote was wrong?
Then again she also said there was no honor in defunding ObamaCare
And how are you going to determine when that is the case and when it is not?
You could cut 'em 25% or more before you had to worry about overloading anyone with actual work.
You could say that about where you work as well. What to see them try it?
This is a good line and a good approach. Much of the government is overreaching, if you cut the workforce they will have to prioritize and focus on what they are actually supposed to be doing.
And in short order we’ll see which functions we really need.
This is not enough, there are whole departments of government that need to be eliminated, but its one approach.
Of course what they agencies will do is slow-walk the things they are supposed to do until they get the funding and personnel they want, so you have to have a strong person at the helm who isn’t afraid to confront them.
I always love the so-called “government shutdowns” where they only fund the “necessary” agencies for a few days; for anyone paying attention its wonderful political theater that shows anyone paying attention that the world does not end when these guys don’t come to work.
Based on her record, one has to wonder whether her plan is simply to switch to H1-B contractors.
We know who they value least: soldiers
No, since HP is not a government agency, she was able to actually lay off the excess workforce. You can't do that with federal workers.
Gee, how did that work out?
Actually, fairly well. Even after laying off 30K employees, revenues went up (not just profits), and even after the dot com bust, the recession and the economic problems after 9-11, HP stock had recovered to its pre-recession levels (accounting for stock splits and dividends) by the time she left. It took many other tech companies much longer to recover, and many just went under.
I am not saying she was the greatest CEO ever - but she did a lot better than many others, and the company was larger and stronger when she left than before she took over.
(BTW, I worked for HP and was one of the 30K that got laid off. I didn't like it, but I only had a couple of years on the job, and they were downsizing! That is business.)
give it up carly...
This is an excellent idea. I saw this in state government in Missouri and they simply didn’t fill positions until there were sufficient funds. Missouri cannot run a deficit. It’s in the constitution.
Another thing is to suspend all pay raises. That’s been done in state government as well. They may not like it but few resign for other jobs.
Fiorina is onto something here. This is called responsible management.
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?
You can do that in private business - you can't do that in government. A president cannot close a department established by law - Congress has to do that. And civil service protections make it very difficult to get rid of federal workers.
Many need to be fired.
Just fire them and don’t replace them.
It would be far quicker.
You're right. But the problem is that in our system of government, it is Congress that makes the determination if a department gets eliminated, not the president. What Carly is suggesting in just about the limit of what a president can do on his/her own. Anything more would require action by Congress.
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.