How to Actually Drain the Swamp \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

1661 sats \ 58 comments \ @Undisciplined 6 Nov Politics_And_Law

Now that Trump is heading back the White House, once again promising to "drain the swamp", let's consider how that might actually be accomplished.

It's damn near impossible to fire federal employees and abolishing entire agencies is very difficult politically. The later hasn't been done since Jimmy Carter. Of course, I'm all for Ron Paul and Elon Musk pursuing both of those paths, but they'll definitely be ice skating uphill.

There are two proposals that I know will result in massive voluntary resignations, labor savings, and reduction in DC bureaucrats:

Relocate departments and agencies away from the major metropolitan areas
Rescind locality pay for remote eligible workers

The first option was implemented by Trump for a couple of agencies. It was big news in econ world when the USDA was relocated, because hundreds of USDA economists resigned.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement the second idea (perhaps @Cje95 can weigh in), but it would also have a dramatic effect. During the pandemic, the feds followed the trend of making many positions remote work eligible. However, the federal pay scale still grants locality based pay increases for those living in expensive areas. If you are allowed to do your job from anywhere, why should you get an enormous raise (at taxpayer expense) for living in the most expensive place in the country? Pay all remote eligible workers as though they live in rural Arkansas, because they are allowed to do so.

As with the relocation, most workers would probably resign rather than either move or take a huge paycut. And, if they don't, then at least the federal workforce is getting spread out and not costing nearly as much.

What are some other feasible ways to dramatically reduce the federal workforce?

view all related items

328 sats \ 7 replies \ @BlokchainB 6 Nov

Let’s make this fun. Federal workers are not one big blob of people mindlessly working on trying to make America a worse place. For example some agencies do great work with keeping the general public safe (FAA) and others can possibly go away and the majority of Americans wouldn’t even notice (USAID).

So imagine we elected @Undisciplined to Oval Office and he can hire and fire as he wishes add and delete executive branch departments and agencies as he sees fit to run the country.

So if you are up to it @Undisciplined craft your United States Government.

The more detailed you are the more sats I’ll zap.

If you stick to just departments I’ll zap you 10k sats

If you go to departments and agencies I’ll zap you 20k sats

If you do departments, agencies, the number of employed staff currently and how much you would cut that staff down to I’ll zap you 30k sats.

Then let’s have a thought experiment to see how well America will run under an @Undisciplined administration!

Good luck!

177 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

Sorry, I don't believe in central planning. If I had that power, I would dissolve the entirety of the executive branch and make it as difficult as possible to put it back together. I would also pardon everyone in federal prison, nullify every executive order, and repeal every regulation.

I'm not unwilling to play the game you wanted me to play, but that is my answer within the framework you established.

33 sats \ 5 replies \ @BlokchainB 7 Nov

That’s cool. I made an offer you refused. Life goes on.

Based upon your answer law and order has no meaning. You know places like this already exist on earth. You can easily move to location that lays out everything you would do in your objection to central planning.

117 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Nov

I didn't refuse your offer. You asked me a question (essentially) and I answered it honestly.

I believe in law and order, but not that systematic rights violations are required to have it. You don't have make uncharitable assumptions about what I believe. I'm right here, you can just ask.

165 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlokchainB 7 Nov

Yes you answered the question but it ignores how would society function with your actions, the goal was to see what things you would eliminate and what institutions would be impacted. Like getting rid of the FAA. Well what happens when airways are unregulated.

Not making assumptions just trying to understand why Pardon every federal prisoner. What’s the point in doing that? Even those who plead guilty to a crime. Why let them free?

1136 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Nov

Originally, there were only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. I don't think anyone's currently in jail for piracy, I don't believe treason is a legitimate crime, and the government is the primary counterfeiter. All other crimes were intended to be handled at a more local level.

Basically, my position is that no one in federal prison should be in a federal prison. If they committed a real crime, that should have been handled more locally.

As to pleading guilty, feel free to ask Siggy about how perverse our plea system is. That means nothing to me, because those deals are all made under duress.

As to the FAA, air-traffic control is perfectly attainable at a more local level. Almost all of the 200 other countries on Earth are smaller than the US and somehow they manage to not have their planes crash into each other regularly. Just because something isn't regulated by the feds doesn't mean it's unregulated.

Like I said, I'm happy to attempt the exercise you were getting at, but it wouldn't be an honest reflection of what Undisciplined would do with unlimited executive power. I do think conversations about downstream effects on institutions are very interesting. I can take another crack at this with the added caveat that I can't just fire everyone and shutdown everything.

6 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 7 Nov

Lately there have been a lot of close call accidents at airports. FAA has not had a good run the last 3 years

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Nov

Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy is a good short book (actually just two essays) about why chaos is not the result of deregulation and why the government is not the best provider of law enforcement/defense.

58 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheMorningStar 6 Nov

I don't think Trump is gonna do any sort of stupidity thus time around. HD knows it's his last chance and even if he does only normal things, he'll get to rule for 4 years from now.

29 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 6 Nov

I have zero hope or close to zero hope that the federal government will retract. But, if I were given the power I would literally shut down whole departments. I would probably be killed by some lone gunman though so it would fail as well.

Call me cynical. I'm a realist.

The bright side is if I'm wrong I'll be happy about it.

I know this isn't answering your question. I just don't think its complicated. I think its just hard to do if not impossible. The state needs to not be able to pay people and it needs to fail under its own weight. I don't see that any time soon and Trump doesn't have the desire or ego to even try to do what Elon is supposedly going to do.

70 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

I'm not particularly hopeful about the possibility of retraction. However, I do feel like the right sort of pitch could grab Trump's attention. Like I said, he already got most of the USDA to quit once, by relocating them, so that's one effective idea he's willing to try.

115 sats \ 9 replies \ @Lux 6 Nov

feasible ways to dramatically reduce the federal workforce

stop paying them usually works, and I mean stop being a taxpayer, not put your faith in a shitcoiner politician

106 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Nov

Exactly and well explained here:

33 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

I'm all for people doing so, but they aren't primarily paid out of taxes. The government is primarily run on money printing. And, yes, I get it: stop using fiat too. Again, I'm all for it.

6 sats \ 6 replies \ @Lux 7 Nov

Money printing means more debt that is repaid trough taxes

24 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Nov

It mostly means more debt that is paid with more debt, until eventually there's a default.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Lux 7 Nov

To be able to print they need the access to the birth cert trust account. All income tax goes directly to finance the interest. They need to close the equation to be able to print. Untill they can tax, there's no ceiling

24 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Nov

To be able to print they need the access to the birth cert trust account.

I've never heard of this requirement and it seems like something they could change easily enough. I doubt it's a real constraint.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lux 7 Nov

27 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 7 Nov

They wouldn't just stop printing money because of some obscure legal technicality. That's not how power works.

view replies

15 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 6 Nov

Step 1: Watch Yes Minister
Now that you understand the swamp prepare to fail

63 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

Even a partial draining helps get some of society back above water. I'm not naive enough to think the NSA, CIA, or FBI can be dealt with this way, but it can be a huge dent in agencies like USDA, FDA, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, etc.

34 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 6 Nov

Those less spookie agencies will not be easy to dismantle. If that is even on the table. I don't think it is. Hope I am wrong. I would not start with the three letter agencies though. I would start with the Dept of Ed. Cut off the head of the serpent. Could easily make a case for that. Then the others you list.

More importantly I don't think people that voted for Trump even want what you and I are describing. Trump said a lot of crap and that's what I think this is. Crap. I'm prepared for it to be some small reduction in growth that will be portrayed as a decapitation.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

If there's a prospect for actually ending an agency, I think Ed is the top of the list.

63 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 6 Nov

It is VERY clear to me that the federal department of education as well as most state level agencies are not only not needed, but are the source of most of our issues in education.

You wanna talk about raising hell. Even talk of this would be like nuking the planet for many people. Even those that voted for Orange Man. There are so many in the system or that benefit indirectly.

Not only are people not ready for it. They don't even want it. They don't even know why they should want it. People aren't ready for the type of slashing that's being talked about. Its a fools dream really. I'd love to see it. But it isn't happening

@remindme in 4 years

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

I did say if.

People will act like the sky is falling over any of these departments being eliminated, but I think there are more people who understand how bad Education is than most of the others.

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 6 Nov

Rescind locality pay for remote eligible workers

So I like the idea and would love it to go into effect but it cant. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 requires that "public works" workers make a prevailing wage.

I think it would be better to continue the relocation idea. With the House, Senate, and Presidency he can actually get things passed through that would take care of this. I also would not be opposed to offering out to various layers of the government and departments/agencies. Kinda like the whole thing companies do just pay the cost upfront now and let them then go. Long term you would save a hell of a lot more

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

A slight tweak then, would be to tie pay to the locality adjustment of their agency's HQ.

135 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 6 Nov

Elon and Vivek have both suggested just buying them off.....

The offer would be this: You keep your pension + healthcare + get 5 year salary upfront, and in return go away.

This would be expensive, but probably is the only workable solution on how to do this.

67 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

I had thought about that, too, but didn't realize it had been proposed.

I'd do the relocation idea first, to see who just quits on their own, then buyout the rest. In the long run, that kind of buyout would be much cheaper.

105 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 6 Nov

Yea, a combo Carrot + Stick is probably best option.

24 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 6 Nov

Pay them in Bitcoin.

The ones who figure it out and accept are the ones we want to keep.

The ones who can't figure it out or don't want it will be forced to resign.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

That does not strike me as feasible, but I do like it.

15 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 6 Nov

Relocate these agencies to the middle of nowhere! Drain the swamp! He made a lot of promises, dont know if he will be able to keep many of them.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

This was something his administration was actually doing and probably would have kept doing in a second term.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Satosora 6 Nov

I dont know if they would have actually gone through with it. He was busy trying to keep his office.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

I'm not sure what you mean. He did go through with it. Biden moved the USDA back to DC, but it had been moved to KC.

11 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 6 Nov

Really like the first idea. Where should they relocate these agencies to?

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

USDA was relocated to KC, but then Biden sort of undid that, as I understand it. I think Department of the Interior may have been the other one, but I don't remember where it went. Denver, maybe.

The point is mostly to put them in minor or mid-metros, because those are so much cheaper, but still have sufficient office space to accommodate the move. If there's some sort of mission overlap with an area, may as well take advantage of that.

One that came to mind was St. Louis for the Department of Commerce, because one of the main Federal Reserve branches is located there and it's historically a major center of commerce.

176 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 6 Nov

Don’t want to move too many departments to KC. One thing the world definitely doesn’t need more of is Chiefs fans.

45 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

These snooty bureaucrats are above such common pastimes as watching sports. It's not like they're Redskins fans, after all.

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 6 Nov

Valid point

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 6 Nov

I think these promises are hard to keep. When you start stirring up the hornets' nest, they start to sting. Maybe eliminate some agencies that don't serve much purpose, or maybe merge agencies.

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Nov

Relocation is a great idea!

Long overdue!

105 sats \ 12 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Nov

Alll bla bla bla without any essence.

What are some other feasible ways to dramatically reduce the federal workforce?

The essence: fuck'em'all.

All so called "libertarians" are nothing else than other fucking statists, without balls.

106 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

You get that there will be some process for getting rid of these rulers. Why is it statist to propose ways to get rid of these parasites?

144 sats \ 10 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Nov

You cannot get rid of them by putting others in power.

Is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

It all goes to this simple fact:

Do you want more? Here, remember this? It will happen again and again and again until you will die

11 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

"Power" isn't just the elected figure head. I'm proposing reducing the number of people in power, not replacing them.

200 sats \ 0 replies \ @javier 6 Nov

It's impossible. Every state will grow and grow until total collapse. You just can't fire people at will, otherwise they won't vote you.
Even if you manage to reduce them, in 4 years the next guy will increment them.
Less people in power is more centralization of power, which leads to despotism.

126 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Nov

THAT IS PURE STATISM

104 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 6 Nov

Reducing the state is statism, increasing the state is statism, keeping the state the same size is statism.

Statism doesn't seem like a very useful word.

5 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 6 Nov outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.