3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoUnfortunately, 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 agoIt's not widely accepted by people on the right that "Project 2025" is the official playbook for the Republican party though?