Trump team prepares dramatic cuts

[mystery-ak]

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts
By Alexander Bolton - 01/19/17 06:00 AM EST

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.

The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

more
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

[Night Hides Not]

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts
By Alexander Bolton - 01/19/17 06:00 AM EST

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.

The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

more
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

 888ohnoes

:hard crying:

Over a third of the federal civilian workforce is over 55. Toss in a few incentives for people to retire, and most of them will retire.

[CSM]

I sincerely hope that this is true, and that it is only one step of many required to reduce the size of the Fed gov't.

[Just_Victor]

I sincerely hope that this is true, and that it is only one step of many required to reduce the size of the Fed gov't.

Reducing the number of employees is not the same thing as reducing the size.  To be clear, what I as a conservative want, is a reduction in the scope of the government.  That may or may not require reducing the number of employees.  Hopefully, that is what Trump is doing.

[corbe]

   Now that perry is head of energy, he doesn't want to get rid of it-he got Trumped, again.

[bilo]

   Now that perry is head of energy, he doesn't want to get rid of it-he got Trumped, again.

I can't help but wonder if a lot of the Cabinet nominees are just saying things to not be controversial and are really being nominated to eliminate depts and cut the scope of these agencies. Right now all we have is speculation. We will have a good idea in 6 months about the real direction things will go.

I am pretty disappointed in the Pubs though. These nominations shouldn't have been allowed to be slowed by the Rats.

[LMAO]

 This is good news if this turns out to be true. However, the  long-term problem is still the so-called entitlements.

But this is a good start provided these are real cuts and  not just simply slowdowns in the rate of growth

[Suppressed]

This is good news if this turns out to be true. However, the  long-term problem is still the so-called entitlements.

But this is a good start provided these are real cuts and  not just simply slowdowns in the rate of growth

Yup!

[geronl]

Trillion dollar "stimulus" and a nuclear arms build-up

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

888ohnoes

:hard crying:

Over a third of the federal civilian workforce is over 55. Toss in a few incentives for people to retire, and most of them will retire.

It would actually cost us Less to retire these people at full pay than it would to keep them on the job wreaking havoc on all sectors of the economy with regulation after regulation.

[truth_seeker]

Reducing the number of employees is not the same thing as reducing the size.  To be clear, what I as a conservative want, is a reduction in the scope of the government.  That may or may not require reducing the number of employees.  Hopefully, that is what Trump is doing.

As a former budget director for a Fortune 500 Corp, I assure you that measurements like money, headcount, etc. define the size and scope of activity.

The departments and agencies of government are self-sustaining, when unchecked.

First comes the political will, to check them. Stop them. Shrink them.

Howard Jarvis, co-author of Prop. 13 in Calif. was NT a political figure. He was a businessman. He concluded the ONLY way to limit government, was to limit their funding.

Trump is on the right path. Don't quibble and parse every word and sentence.

[Just_Victor]

As a former budget director for a Fortune 500 Corp, I assure you that measurements like money, headcount, etc. define the size and scope of activity.

The departments and agencies of government are self-sustaining, when unchecked.

First comes the political will, to check them. Stop them. Shrink them.

Howard Jarvis, co-author of Prop. 13 in Calif. was NT a political figure. He was a businessman. He concluded the ONLY way to limit government, was to limit their funding.

Trump is on the right path. Don't quibble and parse every word and sentence.

The government is not a corporation.  Reducing headcount does not change the reach of the bureaucracy into our daily lives.  That requires a change in the law, or a major shift in policy.  I expect that is where Trump is heading, but we got into this in the Clinton administration when he claimed to have reduce government because the bureaucratic headcount was down.  There was no reduction in the influence of government.  As long as there is any uncertainty as what Trump is doing, I will parse his words.  So far so good, but without a strong guidance of principles, Trumps motives may not lead him to conservative choices.  I will not be silent.

[dfwgator]

The government is not a corporation.  Reducing headcount does not change the reach of the bureaucracy into our daily lives.  That requires a change in the law, or a major shift in policy.  I expect that is where Trump is heading, but we got into this in the Clinton administration when he claimed to have reduce government because the bureaucratic headcount was down.  There was no reduction in the influence of government.  As long as there is any uncertainty as what Trump is doing, I will parse his words.  So far so good, but without a strong guidance of principles, Trumps motives may not lead him to conservative choices.  I will not be silent.

It sure is better than what we would have had with Hillary.

[endicom]

Over a third of the federal civilian workforce is over 55. Toss in a few incentives for people to retire, and most of them will retire.

That could be costly at the outset but would reduce spending, long term.

[Just_Victor]

It sure is better than what we would have had with Hillary.

No argument there, but if we have to push Trump to be conservative (more conservative maybe?), then let's push.

[Sanguine]

....

Over a third of the federal civilian workforce is over 55. Toss in a few incentives for people to retire, and most of them will retire.

And, make those positions go away.  Don't refill them.

[Hoodat]

Cutting government spending is my core issue.  If Trump had campaigned on this, I would have gladly voted for him.

I have since learned to stop listening to what Trump says, and instead watch what he does.  That applies here as well.

[dfwgator]

No argument there, but if we have to push Trump to be conservative (more conservative maybe?), then let's push.

I'd have to say, so far, so good, on that front.  Hopefully he'll keep it up.