4 ms·

These are good questions that are easy to answer once you’ve spent time in gov: - it is very hard to go thru every project and generally not worth it, it seems

These are good questions that are easy to answer once you’ve spent time in gov: - it is very hard to go thru every project and generally not worth it, it seems like they are sorting by contract vehicle size. there are 120k+ contracts spit out by the government every fiscal year alone so this is a monumental effort - the DEI programs are probably a PR thing, generally speaking though they accomplish essentially nothing; I would probably go further though and roll up any program staffed by less than 10 people, then furlough 20% of the workforce under the larger program - not all outgoing money has been frozen, idk how this rumor got started, it’s very specific and generally just foreign aid. this is part of trump’s campaign promise so while I don’t agree with it and it is probably going to shatter US hegemony, it is also what people voted for. the government is still spending tons of money, we are still doing more in depth tracking but it seems like only a 3-4% decrease overall - the OIGs deserve to be fired they have not been able to stem any underlying issues for years, the outrage here is all manufactured. let me ask you this, if you hired an accountant and for the last 10 years they can neither tell you how much money you are spending nor find savings, are you going to keep that accountant? - the IRS is not really efficient! first of all a majority of their audits are on the bottom 80% of taxpayers. yes of course the top 20% are still overrepresented correctly, but they are actually losing money for every audit they conduct on the bottom 80%. estimates are around 0.96$ per dollar with ~6k$ per audit, so they’d save $240 per audit they skip on the bottom 80% of taxpayers. it’s true they recover 6$ on average for every dollar spent on the top 20% which cost averages out to a little over 3$ recovered per dollar; however this is actually not much money, around $30B a year total. for such a massive agency and mission they do a pretty terrible job, and is very warranting of disruption People are being gaslit into thinking the government is efficient; in reality it is endlessly bloated.

TomK32 2y ago
DEI is not just a PR thing, it forces employers to look at places for candidates they haven't looked before. Not surprising that white women are those who benefit the most from DEI. Even one JD Vance, as a military veteran, profited from a DEI program at Yale https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/19/ask-politifact-did-jd-vance-benefit-from-dei-initi/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/19/ask-politifac... If outgoing money isn't frozen, why do farmers not receive money for the binding contracts why fullfill for the government. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-freezes-farmer-funding-some-programs-conservation-contracts-2025-02-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-freezes-farmer-funding... The IGs have be fired in a very specific way that involves informing Congress. It was not done correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_inspectors_general#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_inspectors_... Cardell Richardson was in office since only May, don't know about you, but I'd give a new IG a year to get his ship running smoother. But looking at his picture I see why he was fired... Regarding the IRS, well then we can expect that from now on only the rich people will get audited?
- cuuupid 2y ago
  Government contract vehicles are not binding, call orders are but can also be cancelled and provisions are made for doing so. You’re pointing to one hyper specific example of cuts as frozen spending; it is easy to confirm billions have been spent in the last week alone. There is also a case to be made for malicious compliance in many cases with cuts. It sucks these farmers aren’t getting paid, but this is not an uncommon occurrence and if they truly are owed money they will eventually be receipted or they will be able to sue under FAR provisions. Firing IGs without notice isn’t great but if Congress has an issue with it they are free to take it up. I’m not sure why that is relevant to whether or not IGs should be fired. Cardell was an IG for literally two decades. This is like saying a SWE at Facebook for 20 years who now works in Meta’s VR division has only been a SWE for 1 year. OIG at Department of State especially, among all OIGs, deserves mass layoffs. The track record of that office is the absolute worst. It is also typical for SES to get rotated out and replaced during any new administration. 1-2 years in office is totally fair game as not many make it past 3. Regarding the IRS, that’s a campaign promise Trump made and seems to be keen on with his ERS plans. However I doubt it will come to fruition or have meaningful impact, the IRS is hard to disrupt due to longstanding relationships with Congress.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> not all outgoing money has been frozen, idk how this rumor got started, it’s very specific and generally just foreign aid No, that's absolutely not true. My partner is the accounting manager for a university. All their access to federal funding was turned off for a couple of days, and several grants (which they could draw from and get overnight) have not shown up in several weeks (specifically there are some that even remotely hint at DEI, that the university now expects will never be fulfilled). It's not just "foreign aid".
- cuuupid 2y ago
  I said `generally` not `exclusively` and you are selecting one very specific application of funding to generalize against all federal funding. I literally analyze this stuff for work, there is barely a 3-5% contraction in spending. This is such an insane rumor too because it takes 10 seconds to disprove it: https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=8980ee6820c47f96a19c23f6b77262ec https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=8980ee6820c47f96a19...
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Given that education funding dwarfs foreign aid and is affected, it would seem inaccurate to label it as "generally foreign aid". The other point is just because a contract or award is on usaspending.gov doesn't mean the funds are flowing - that was my point, my partner's school has many awards that previously they could draw from at will, and receive money overnight. They've attempted to draw from many of them now, and the funds just ... aren't being transferred. That was part of the furore, "we have agreements and obligations in place and you're just refusing to fund them", it's not about the existence of the awards in the first place.
sxyuan 2y ago
You really think that reducing IRS funding will reduce audits on the bottom 80%, and not the top 20%? If you're going to go around telling people they've been gaslit (using a straw man, I might add), you might want to check your own biases first.
- cuuupid 2y ago
  Yes! The IRS budget has nearly doubled in the last decade, primarily to increase their workforce and use manpower to focus on shotgunning low-yield audits. High-income audits are difficult to conduct. To increase receipts, it is far easier to just conduct more easy, low-yield audits. This is the optimization they are making, and in service of their mission (maximizing revenue) it is technically correct. Instead of picking your favorite logical fallacy to throw at me, you can go look this stuff up yourself to confirm.
  - sixothree 2y ago
    Absolutely delusional to believe any of this based on the history of these people.
  - sxyuan 2y ago
    Your claims seem to be directly contradicted by the data here: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/irs-budget-and-workforce https://www.irs.gov/statistics/irs-budget-and-workforce According to this, FTEs are down, and operating costs are only up ~30% compared to 2010. Average cost of collection is down. And consider the decline in audit rate for millionaires from 2010-2019 described here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuild-the-depleted-irs https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuil... I guess the onus is now on you to provide support for your claims.
    - Izkata 2y ago
      The IRS was in the middle of a hiring spree: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/04/irs-hire-30000-employees-over-next-two-years/384897/ https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/04/irs-hire-30000-emp... Those 15k they fired may just be forcing them back to how they were a year ago.
School-Cotton 2y ago
It’s absurd to say anything is “what people voted for” in a system where only the votes of about 5 out of 50 states matter.
- chgs 2y ago
  Something like 130,000 voters voting the other way would have changed the election. However unlike in 2016, a strong plurality voted Trump - 2 million more than voted for Harris. Had Harris won the popular vote that argument might have meant something.
  - pdfernhout 2y ago
    Not sure how true this is and I guess it is moot at this point (except as far as thinking how to ensure all legal votes are counted in the future): https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/ https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/ "Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes. And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million."
    - chgs 2y ago
      In either situation it didn’t change the numbers dramatically. About half of voters actually want what is happening to the country.
      - wat10000 2y ago
        Which makes it insane that such massive disruption can happen as a result. When the result is balanced on a knife edge, the outcome ought to reflect that, instead of swinging dramatically one way or the other. I don’t know how you design a system like that, but this is nuts.

TomK32 2y ago

DEI is not just a PR thing, it forces employers to look at places for candidates they haven't looked before. Not surprising that white women are those who benefit the most from DEI. Even one JD Vance, as a military veteran, profited from a DEI program at Yale https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/19/ask-politifact-did-jd-vance-benefit-from-dei-initi/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/19/ask-politifac... If outgoing money isn't frozen, why do farmers not receive money for the binding contracts why fullfill for the government. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-freezes-farmer-funding-some-programs-conservation-contracts-2025-02-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-freezes-farmer-funding... The IGs have be fired in a very specific way that involves informing Congress. It was not done correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_inspectors_general#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_dismissals_of_inspectors_... Cardell Richardson was in office since only May, don't know about you, but I'd give a new IG a year to get his ship running smoother. But looking at his picture I see why he was fired... Regarding the IRS, well then we can expect that from now on only the rich people will get audited?

cuuupid 2y ago
Government contract vehicles are not binding, call orders are but can also be cancelled and provisions are made for doing so. You’re pointing to one hyper specific example of cuts as frozen spending; it is easy to confirm billions have been spent in the last week alone. There is also a case to be made for malicious compliance in many cases with cuts. It sucks these farmers aren’t getting paid, but this is not an uncommon occurrence and if they truly are owed money they will eventually be receipted or they will be able to sue under FAR provisions. Firing IGs without notice isn’t great but if Congress has an issue with it they are free to take it up. I’m not sure why that is relevant to whether or not IGs should be fired. Cardell was an IG for literally two decades. This is like saying a SWE at Facebook for 20 years who now works in Meta’s VR division has only been a SWE for 1 year. OIG at Department of State especially, among all OIGs, deserves mass layoffs. The track record of that office is the absolute worst. It is also typical for SES to get rotated out and replaced during any new administration. 1-2 years in office is totally fair game as not many make it past 3. Regarding the IRS, that’s a campaign promise Trump made and seems to be keen on with his ERS plans. However I doubt it will come to fruition or have meaningful impact, the IRS is hard to disrupt due to longstanding relationships with Congress.

FireBeyond 2y ago

> not all outgoing money has been frozen, idk how this rumor got started, it’s very specific and generally just foreign aid No, that's absolutely not true. My partner is the accounting manager for a university. All their access to federal funding was turned off for a couple of days, and several grants (which they could draw from and get overnight) have not shown up in several weeks (specifically there are some that even remotely hint at DEI, that the university now expects will never be fulfilled). It's not just "foreign aid".

cuuupid 2y ago
I said `generally` not `exclusively` and you are selecting one very specific application of funding to generalize against all federal funding. I literally analyze this stuff for work, there is barely a 3-5% contraction in spending. This is such an insane rumor too because it takes 10 seconds to disprove it: https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=8980ee6820c47f96a19c23f6b77262ec https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=8980ee6820c47f96a19...
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Given that education funding dwarfs foreign aid and is affected, it would seem inaccurate to label it as "generally foreign aid". The other point is just because a contract or award is on usaspending.gov doesn't mean the funds are flowing - that was my point, my partner's school has many awards that previously they could draw from at will, and receive money overnight. They've attempted to draw from many of them now, and the funds just ... aren't being transferred. That was part of the furore, "we have agreements and obligations in place and you're just refusing to fund them", it's not about the existence of the awards in the first place.

sxyuan 2y ago

You really think that reducing IRS funding will reduce audits on the bottom 80%, and not the top 20%? If you're going to go around telling people they've been gaslit (using a straw man, I might add), you might want to check your own biases first.

cuuupid 2y ago
Yes! The IRS budget has nearly doubled in the last decade, primarily to increase their workforce and use manpower to focus on shotgunning low-yield audits. High-income audits are difficult to conduct. To increase receipts, it is far easier to just conduct more easy, low-yield audits. This is the optimization they are making, and in service of their mission (maximizing revenue) it is technically correct. Instead of picking your favorite logical fallacy to throw at me, you can go look this stuff up yourself to confirm.
- sixothree 2y ago
  Absolutely delusional to believe any of this based on the history of these people.
- sxyuan 2y ago
  Your claims seem to be directly contradicted by the data here: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/irs-budget-and-workforce https://www.irs.gov/statistics/irs-budget-and-workforce According to this, FTEs are down, and operating costs are only up ~30% compared to 2010. Average cost of collection is down. And consider the decline in audit rate for millionaires from 2010-2019 described here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuild-the-depleted-irs https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuil... I guess the onus is now on you to provide support for your claims.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    The IRS was in the middle of a hiring spree: https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/04/irs-hire-30000-employees-over-next-two-years/384897/ https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/04/irs-hire-30000-emp... Those 15k they fired may just be forcing them back to how they were a year ago.

School-Cotton 2y ago

It’s absurd to say anything is “what people voted for” in a system where only the votes of about 5 out of 50 states matter.

chgs 2y ago
Something like 130,000 voters voting the other way would have changed the election. However unlike in 2016, a strong plurality voted Trump - 2 million more than voted for Harris. Had Harris won the popular vote that argument might have meant something.
- pdfernhout 2y ago
  Not sure how true this is and I guess it is moot at this point (except as far as thinking how to ensure all legal votes are counted in the future): https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/ https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/ "Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes. And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million."
  - chgs 2y ago
    In either situation it didn’t change the numbers dramatically. About half of voters actually want what is happening to the country.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      Which makes it insane that such massive disruption can happen as a result. When the result is balanced on a knife edge, the outcome ought to reflect that, instead of swinging dramatically one way or the other. I don’t know how you design a system like that, but this is nuts.