Replies

The problem is the growth of government. How many new, private-sector jobs does it take to finance a single government (any level) job? Obama’s administration was gung-ho in launching new regulations requiring more (read: new) gov’t employees. Were new private-sector jobs created to cover the expansion? Nope. We just borrowed more money. Personally, I think there ought to be a limit on how long any hired government employee can work in the government sector.

SInce DoD has had hiring freezes in effect, we actually have cut our government workforce in my organization by ~20%. The difference was made up by contractors and temporary workers, since the workload has increased during this time. The temps have MSc's and PhD's, and get low pay and no benefits. The contractors cost us more than the full time government employees. The answer is to cut departments and agencies, or reduce missions, then make sure to not leave work-arounds or we will just hire contractors or temp-terms.

For example, if the Abrams tank program wants to upgrade their main gun or ammo. They need someone to do a study to show the impact of a new long range gun so they can get Congress to pay for the upgrade, or it won't happen. If the program has the money to do it, they will do it. They will pay an Army analytic agency to do the work for the study; since the money is there it could be used for contractors, temps or to pay full time. If the study says it is a worthwhile investment, they will design, test, fabricate and integrate. Again, the money is there, and someone will get paid to do the work be it government, temporary, or contractor. The only way this changes is if you say no upgrades for anyone.

Trump is talking about building more ships and tanks but cutting workforce; this is not possible unless you cut the fat in other areas or permit us to fire bad employees.