4 ms·

> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is bud

by csa 2y ago

> this was never authorized by congress, Correct. > so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best Incorrect. The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). The money is or will be there. Historically, even if there is a furlough, this money is backfilled and folks are paid. Note that there will probably be riots if lengthy furloughed folks don’t get back pay. > So there's a very real chance at this deal offering something closer to ~1 month of pay before it suddenly gets dropped due to budget negotiations. Correct. The speculation is that: 1. The “resign” folks will be put on admin leave in March 1 (or earlier). 2. Budget impasse in mid-March. Furlough ensues. 3. Folks on admin leave just end up getting cut, or not paid, and/or not back paid due to peculiarities of admin leave. > It would be an incredibly generous and nice buyout package, but obviously if it gets torn up after a month it's not that great of a deal. I think it’s above average, but not “incredibly generous”. People get $25k VSIP and VERA offers all the time. This may not seem like a lot, but many fed employees live in low COL areas and/or earn relatively low wages. The best parts of the package, assuming they deliver, would be things like insurance (for non-retirees) and possibly TSP contributions and matching (if those are allowed). If they want the numbers they say that they want, I think something near this level of package is necessary.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They're mostly on board for this bullshit aren't they?
- csa 2y ago
  > If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? It would be Trump/Elon. Someone told me the details of how they could not pay people. It’s administrivia. It will go unnoticed by most just like how the twitter folks not getting paid went unnoticed by most. > And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They give zero fucks about fucking over feds or former Feds, as they are (allegedly) all lazy and useless. The end result will be less money spent (trivial, but still) and a lower head count moving forward. The Republican rhetoric on this largely doesn’t jibe with reality. Yes, there are underemployed people in the federal government (as exist in any large org). Identifying that slack and cutting it is not something that can be done with laser shots from space. They can only be done from the ground, imho. The current way they are doing things is going to end with a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Unfortunately, a big part of the Republican playbook in the last decades has been to intentionally cripple government institutions so that they can then claim that the institutions are not working well and thus should be entirely dismantled. This is done either to remove institutions that are regulating business (currently happening with the CFPB) or to replace institutions which are helping people so that private companies can step in (one of the main reasons for attacking the ACA aka Obamacare). The idea in Project 2025 is mostly to take this to a whole new level and apply it to the majority of the federal government.
    - andriesm 2y ago
      It's not widely accepted by people on the right that "Project 2025" is the official playbook for the Republican party though?
- sitkack 2y ago
  Nothing looks bad to them, so it doesn't matter. Looking bad isn't a deterrent any more.
  - normalaccess 2y ago
    I don't think that's ever really been a problem for Trump. Everyone I talk to who supports him expects him to be a hail-mary grenade thrown into DC—a big middle finger to the powers that be. They feel completely disenfranchised and want a shake-up. Amazingly, so far, it hasn't hurt his approval numbers.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      The numbers are irrelevant. It is a second term presidency. What matters are the numbers for those facing reelection in less than a couple years. Even the burn down crowed don't want to remain on a wagon heading for a cliff in four years.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        Given the levels of turmoil and also the levels of power grabbing, I think the president's approval ratings are very relevant. For one, if they dip as low as they might given the expected economic hardship and the other cultural issues, you might start seeing rioting. For another, I don't think it's a given this is Trump's final term. There already is a congressman trying to get in legislation to change the constitution to allow a third term. Even if that fails, the SCOTUS has already taken some egregious decisions in relation to Trump (full presidential immunity even for political assassinations) - what they might think they can get away with in the next four years is anyone's guess.
        int_19h 2y ago
        FWIW the constitutional amendment to enable a third term for Trump is guaranteed to fail. No matter how it is drafted, even if they do a convention, the ratification still requires 3/4 of state legislatures to vote in favor. And Republicans don't have 38 states. They won't have them even if every single state with split legislature goes full red.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Nothing ever looks bad for Trump. His followers will always make excuses for him. The latest is that Trump campaigned on “America First” and isolationism and now MAGAs are cheering his ideas of using American troops to take over the Gaza Strip and making it a tourist destination.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  I guarantee Trump and his sycophants will just turn around and say they were lazy bums who wanted to get paid to do nothing, and the fact that this option was presented in the form of an early retirement offer will make exactly no difference. You've gotta understand the dynamics of social media information warfare. Loyalty trumps any other considerations like factuality or consistency, people will denounce tomorrow what they championed today if need be. I've seen some pro posters who post contradictory responses to Trump or Musk statements and then just delete whichever one gets less positive engagement.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.
- csa 2y ago
  > Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? I’m not an expert on this topic, so please take these comments with a grain of salt: 1. The simplest way a budget impasse could start is with internal feuding within the Republican Party. Some Republicans are very aggressive deficit hawks all the time. Some Republicans are only “deficit hawks” when a Democrat is president, but they spend freely when a Republican is president. Note that almost all of the largest budget deficits since 1990 have been under Republican administrations (Covid years under Trump and Biden were wonky and should probably be asterisked). So the pork-seeking Republicans and the deficit hawk Republicans can get into a stand off about what the budget should be. 2. Even if Congress is on the same page, Trump can choose not to sign the budget if he doesn’t get his pet issues addressed. This may seem like something that they should be able to work out beforehand, but his “priorities” change, sometimes daily, often based on who he happened to have spoken to last. 3. Some republicans want the government to break. The playbook here is to break the system in some way, point out that the system doesn’t work, and then make attempts to privatize that system or massively overhaul that system (likely with massive cuts of workers and largesse to contractors). It may seem odd that an elected official strives to make the government not work, but they are able to make that tack work for them at the polls. I think that this is a deep (and warped) issue that is hard for me to explain well.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Also, the last House was wracked with all sorts of deadlock because the Republican majority was only 5 representatives, and having 5 splinter off was incredibly easy. The current House has an even smaller majority of 2 currently, so it's now infinitely more possible for a deadlock to happen.
    - 2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). Since the budget is only funded through March, the budget can be modified in March in order to extend the funding for it (all those "government shutdown avoidance negotiations"). At which point it won't matter whether it was budgeted or not.

by csa 2y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They're mostly on board for this bullshit aren't they?

csa 2y ago
> If they were not paid because they were on "admin leave", does that look bad for Trump, or does that look bad for Congress? It would be Trump/Elon. Someone told me the details of how they could not pay people. It’s administrivia. It will go unnoticed by most just like how the twitter folks not getting paid went unnoticed by most. > And who in a Republican Congress will want to do that anyway? They give zero fucks about fucking over feds or former Feds, as they are (allegedly) all lazy and useless. The end result will be less money spent (trivial, but still) and a lower head count moving forward. The Republican rhetoric on this largely doesn’t jibe with reality. Yes, there are underemployed people in the federal government (as exist in any large org). Identifying that slack and cutting it is not something that can be done with laser shots from space. They can only be done from the ground, imho. The current way they are doing things is going to end with a lot of unpleasant unintended consequences.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Unfortunately, a big part of the Republican playbook in the last decades has been to intentionally cripple government institutions so that they can then claim that the institutions are not working well and thus should be entirely dismantled. This is done either to remove institutions that are regulating business (currently happening with the CFPB) or to replace institutions which are helping people so that private companies can step in (one of the main reasons for attacking the ACA aka Obamacare). The idea in Project 2025 is mostly to take this to a whole new level and apply it to the majority of the federal government.
  - andriesm 2y ago
    It's not widely accepted by people on the right that "Project 2025" is the official playbook for the Republican party though?
sitkack 2y ago
Nothing looks bad to them, so it doesn't matter. Looking bad isn't a deterrent any more.
- normalaccess 2y ago
  I don't think that's ever really been a problem for Trump. Everyone I talk to who supports him expects him to be a hail-mary grenade thrown into DC—a big middle finger to the powers that be. They feel completely disenfranchised and want a shake-up. Amazingly, so far, it hasn't hurt his approval numbers.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    The numbers are irrelevant. It is a second term presidency. What matters are the numbers for those facing reelection in less than a couple years. Even the burn down crowed don't want to remain on a wagon heading for a cliff in four years.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Given the levels of turmoil and also the levels of power grabbing, I think the president's approval ratings are very relevant. For one, if they dip as low as they might given the expected economic hardship and the other cultural issues, you might start seeing rioting. For another, I don't think it's a given this is Trump's final term. There already is a congressman trying to get in legislation to change the constitution to allow a third term. Even if that fails, the SCOTUS has already taken some egregious decisions in relation to Trump (full presidential immunity even for political assassinations) - what they might think they can get away with in the next four years is anyone's guess.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        FWIW the constitutional amendment to enable a third term for Trump is guaranteed to fail. No matter how it is drafted, even if they do a convention, the ratification still requires 3/4 of state legislatures to vote in favor. And Republicans don't have 38 states. They won't have them even if every single state with split legislature goes full red.
scarface_74 2y ago
Nothing ever looks bad for Trump. His followers will always make excuses for him. The latest is that Trump campaigned on “America First” and isolationism and now MAGAs are cheering his ideas of using American troops to take over the Gaza Strip and making it a tourist destination.
anigbrowl 2y ago
I guarantee Trump and his sycophants will just turn around and say they were lazy bums who wanted to get paid to do nothing, and the fact that this option was presented in the form of an early retirement offer will make exactly no difference. You've gotta understand the dynamics of social media information warfare. Loyalty trumps any other considerations like factuality or consistency, people will denounce tomorrow what they championed today if need be. I've seen some pro posters who post contradictory responses to Trump or Musk statements and then just delete whichever one gets less positive engagement.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? Non-American here with only a Mickey Mouse understanding of US mechanics of power.

csa 2y ago
> Is it a given there would be a budget impasse, if all institutions of power are held by Republicans? I’m not an expert on this topic, so please take these comments with a grain of salt: 1. The simplest way a budget impasse could start is with internal feuding within the Republican Party. Some Republicans are very aggressive deficit hawks all the time. Some Republicans are only “deficit hawks” when a Democrat is president, but they spend freely when a Republican is president. Note that almost all of the largest budget deficits since 1990 have been under Republican administrations (Covid years under Trump and Biden were wonky and should probably be asterisked). So the pork-seeking Republicans and the deficit hawk Republicans can get into a stand off about what the budget should be. 2. Even if Congress is on the same page, Trump can choose not to sign the budget if he doesn’t get his pet issues addressed. This may seem like something that they should be able to work out beforehand, but his “priorities” change, sometimes daily, often based on who he happened to have spoken to last. 3. Some republicans want the government to break. The playbook here is to break the system in some way, point out that the system doesn’t work, and then make attempts to privatize that system or massively overhaul that system (likely with massive cuts of workers and largesse to contractors). It may seem odd that an elected official strives to make the government not work, but they are able to make that tack work for them at the polls. I think that this is a deep (and warped) issue that is hard for me to explain well.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Also, the last House was wracked with all sorts of deadlock because the Republican majority was only 5 representatives, and having 5 splinter off was incredibly easy. The current House has an even smaller majority of 2 currently, so it's now infinitely more possible for a deadlock to happen.
  - 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> The money is budgeted through September (end of federal FY). Things are currently only funded through March 15 (CRs and whatnot). Since the budget is only funded through March, the budget can be modified in March in order to extend the funding for it (all those "government shutdown avoidance negotiations"). At which point it won't matter whether it was budgeted or not.