Elections Trump says Elon Musk has agreed to lead proposed government efficiency commission as ex-president unveils new economic plans

[Rob Battisti]

Yeah its an obvious answer. I don't think there is a government or even a company that exists that operates at 100% efficiency. It is a dumb question.

If there is merit, explain how. I personally don't see it since what it will require for this agency to get to this point will cause more problems with efficiency then it will solve. Just to get this department created could take up valuable time and resources of our government. Then on top of that you have to hope its correctly ran and does it job. If you think our government is inefficient and full of bloat, why would this department be any different?

Reductions in Force

Welcome to opm.gov

www.opm.gov

They don't call it layoffs, they call them RIF instead. Maybe you should read up on this stuff.

Who cares what other people in this thread have said, you are talking to me here so address my points not theirs. Not to mention I didn't see anyone say what you are claiming here. I have seen others (including myself) correctly point out those companies take in government subsidies so maybe the head of that company should not be involved with auditing the government.

Yeah the last wide scale RIF was in 1993 led by Al Gore and it was a GOOD thing.

I’m proposing that we do this again and have an interdepartmental agency that does an annual audit and performs annual RIFs.

Having it be not accountable to the agencies — or objective — is incredibly important.

I’m not proposing something like 80 billion to the IRS to hire 80k people.

A small 200 person department, costing 20 million a year is a drop in the bucket and could have massive positive impact.

If you don’t want a department, for whatever reason, would you be open to another National Performance Review like the Gore led one in 93?

That’s essentially what I would be in favor of expect making it an annual thing with its own department.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Yeah the last wide scale RIF was in 1993 led by Al Gore and it was a GOOD thing.

I’m proposing that we do this again and have an interdepartmental agency that does an annual audit and performs annual RIFs.

Having it be not accountable to the agencies — or objective — is incredibly important.

I’m not proposing something like 80 billion to the IRS to hire 80k people.

A small 200 person department, costing 20 million a year is a drop in the bucket and could have massive positive impact.

If you don’t want a department, for whatever reason, would you be open to another National Performance Review like the Gore led one in 93?

That’s essentially what I would be in favor of expect making it an annual thing with its own department.

If you knew about RIFs and still made the claim that the government does not do layoffs then you basically just exposed yourself as being dishonest and not arguing in good faith

 

[Andy Capp]

The answer is no.

There is merit to an interdepartmental agency, not accountable to anyone in those agencies, to audit for efficiencies and make recommendations to both the agencies and Congress so that they can be appropriately funded and managed.

We don’t even have layoffs in government roles. There is a massive amount of bloat and I feel strongly that because this was proposed by Trump and involves Elon that everyone on the left will automatically think it’s a bad idea.

ITT you have people who think that creating spaceX and Tesla was all due to government handouts JFC. The level of haterism here is too damn high.

lol

Elon Musk is speaking out against government subsidies. Here's a list of the billions of dollars his businesses have received.

Musk's companies benefited from subsidies as recently as April, when SpaceX won a $2.89 billion contract from NASA. Tesla got subsidies for years.

www.businessinsider.com

If you knew about RIFs and still made the claim that the government does not do layoffs then you basically just exposed yourself as being dishonest and not arguing in good faith

Yeah, that too.

 

[Rob Battisti]

If you knew about RIFs and still made the claim that the government does not do layoffs then you basically just exposed yourself as being dishonest and not arguing in good faith

Holy shit dude — they don’t do layoffs — they did ONE large RIF in the last 30 years.

I literally conduct RIFs as a part of my job.

Would you be open to a Gore Style National performance review?

 

[avenue94]

The answer is no.

There is merit to an interdepartmental agency, not accountable to anyone in those agencies, to audit for efficiencies and make recommendations to both the agencies and Congress so that they can be appropriately funded and managed.

We don’t even have layoffs in government roles. There is a massive amount of bloat and I feel strongly that because this was proposed by Trump and involves Elon that everyone on the left will automatically think it’s a bad idea.

ITT you have people who think that creating spaceX and Tesla was all due to government handouts JFC. The level of haterism here is too damn high.

Have you never heard of the GOA?

 

[Damien Karras]

I wonder how Musk would even fit this into his schedule.

Either he chooses to limit himself to one or two tweets a day or he can give up one of his companies

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Elon will help him with this goal. Liberation!

 

[CubicleGangster]

Holy shit dude — they don’t do layoffs — they did ONE large RIF in the last 30 years.

I literally conduct RIFs as a part of my job.

Layoff/Furlough/RIF are all in the same realm with only minor differences between them

Would you be open to a Gore Style National performance review?

I'd be more open to that than creating a whole new department and having someone like the VP of whoever is in the office take charge instead of a chosen business owner that brings in conflicts of interest.

I am, however, not convinced a second run at the NPR would be as successful as it was in 1993. The conditions are not the same leading up to it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If you knew about RIFs and still made the claim that the government does not do layoffs then you basically just exposed yourself as being dishonest and not arguing in good faith

 

[Rob Battisti]

They don’t do either. That’s my point. Get a better hobby.

Layoff/Furlough/RIF are all in the same realm with only minor differences between them

Sure. And we haven’t done one in 30 years. Not sure how saying that makes me dishonest. Please explain.

I say we don’t do layoffs. You say we do RIFs. We haven’t in 30 years. That makes me dishonest?

I'd be more open to that than creating a whole new department and having someone like the VP of whoever is in the office take charge instead of a chosen business owner that brings in conflicts of interest.

I am, however, not convinced a second run at the NPR would be as successful as it was in 1993. The conditions are not the same leading up to it.

Good. I’m glad we have common ground.

I think it would be more successful. I think it should be a small department that makes the recommendations annually.

 

[CubicleGangster]

They don’t do either. That’s my point. Get a better hobby.

They actually do both when you consider things like contracted employees or stuff like our National Park Service which has been dwindling in number of employees the past decade due to budget cuts.

Sure. And we haven’t done one in 30 years. Not sure how saying that makes me dishonest. Please explain.

I saw we don’t do layoffs. You say we do RIFs. We haven’t in 30 years. That makes me dishonest?

Yes, because you are trying to pass of this idea that our government has not gotten rid of employees in over 30 years when that is not true.

Good. I’m glad we have common ground.

I think it would be more successful. I think it should be a small department that makes the recommendations annually.

And I highly doubt that. Even the NPR in 93 you are touting had to deal with congress regularly slapping down their proposals and was not able to accomplish all it wanted to do. Most of the NPR's success could possibly not be replicated this go around either. A lot of what it put in place for streamlining things within our government are still in place today so it would just be retreading that ground for no reason.



Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain how "the government should not be ran like a business" is a wild idea.

 

[Rob Battisti]

They actually do both when you consider things like contracted employees or stuff like our National Park Service which has been dwindling in number of employees the past decade due to budget cuts

Budget cuts is not what I’m saying.

It’s tragic that the NPS experienced budget cuts.

We’ve have hiring freezes and small reductions in mainly two agencies, USPS and NPS.

USPS may have made sense but NPS should be drastically increased.

I’m speaking of federal wide layoffs.

If you want to leave the defense department out of it, fine. I wouldn’t, but fine.

Yes, because you are trying to pass of this idea that our government has not gotten rid of employees in over 30 years when that is not true.

Wide spread it isn’t. Let me clarify for the 5th time: we haven’t done wide scale layoffs or workforce reductions in 30 years.

We’ve cut employees mainly in two agencies, NPS and USPS.

We’ve been generally flat, but the way government runs, we need to reduce by a range of 10-12%, whether through forced retirements or other means. If we find we need to bolster there after, fine. However, no one can say that it’s healthy for an organization to NEVER trim the fat(poor performers)

And I highly doubt that. Even the NPR in 93 you are touting had to deal with congress regularly slapping down their proposals and was not able to accomplish all it wanted to do. Most of the NPR's success could possibly not be replicated this go around either. A lot of what it put in place for streamlining things within our government are still in place today so it would just be retreading that ground for no reason.

I don’t believe for a second that in 30 years, with the technological advances, we couldn’t find ways to make our government more efficient. It’s wild you are arguing that point.

 

[Islam Imamate]

They don’t do either. That’s my point. Get a better hobby.

It does though and its a common theme with your posting.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It does though and its a common theme with your posting.

Yeah except when it doesn’t and you’re in fact trying to see something that’s not there.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Budget cuts is not what I’m saying.

It’s tragic that the NPS experienced budget cuts.

We’ve have hiring freezes and small reductions in mainly two agencies, USPS and NPS.

USPS may have made sense but NPS should be drastically increased.

I’m speaking of federal wide layoffs.

If you want to leave the defense department out of it, fine. I wouldn’t, but fine.



Wide spread it isn’t. Let me clarify for the 5th time: we haven’t done wide scale layoffs or workforce reductions in 30 years.

We’ve cut employees mainly in two agencies, NPS and USPS.

We’ve been generally flat, but the way government runs, we need to reduce by a range of 10-12%, whether through forced retirements or other means. If we find we need to bolster there after, fine. However, no one can say that it’s healthy for an organization to NEVER trim the fat(poor performers)

I don’t believe for a second that in 30 years, with the technological advances, we couldn’t find ways to make our government more efficient. It’s wild you are arguing that point.

RIF is about strategically reducing the federal workforce but the lack of an RIF doesn't mean the government can't lay off poor performers. If you have a poor performer you fire them but then hire someone else to fill that role because presumably its necessary, with an RIF you eliminate jobs regardless of the performance of the individuals occupying them because the point is that the jobs themselves are not necessary.

Yeah except when it doesn’t and you’re in fact trying to see something that’s not there.

To be fair it could just be that you're ignorant rather than bad faith, it can be hard to tell the difference with you.

 

[Rob Battisti]

doesn't mean the government can't lay off poor performers.

Sure. They don’t though.

I’m talking about, as an organization, the federal government isn’t efficient. In those instances, wide scale layoffs help organizations. They don’t do that now and we haven’t had anything wide scale in 30 years.

To be fair it could just be that you're ignorant rather than bad faith, it can be hard to tell the difference with you.

Or you could be wrong. Which you are.

 

[Andy Capp]

Elon will help him with this goal. Liberation!

Certainly, if you can describe anyone as sucking, it's Trump.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Sure. They don’t though.

I’m talking about, as an organization, the federal government isn’t efficient. In those instances, wide scale layoffs help organizations. They don’t do that now and we haven’t had anything wide scale in 30 years.

Maybe they don't but that's unrelated to RIF which is about strategically downsizing the workforce rather than cutting poor performers. You understand that right?

Or you could be wrong. Which you are.

Nah.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Maybe they don't but that's unrelated to RIF which is about strategically downsizing the workforce rather than cutting poor performers. You understand that right?

It’s literally my job.

Your understanding of it is pitiful.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Budget cuts is not what I’m saying.

It’s tragic that the NPS experienced budget cuts.

We’ve have hiring freezes and small reductions in mainly two agencies, USPS and NPS.

USPS may have made sense but NPS should be drastically increased.

I’m speaking of federal wide layoffs.

Cutting the USPS has been disaster and did not make sense

If you want to leave the defense department out of it, fine. I wouldn’t, but fine.

the 93 NPR you are touting also left the defense department out of it....

Wide spread it isn’t. Let me clarify for the 5th time: we haven’t done wide scale layoffs or workforce reductions in 30 years.

We’ve cut employees mainly in two agencies, NPS and USPS.

Why do we need wide spread layoffs?

We’ve been generally flat, but the way government runs, we need to reduce by a range of 10-12%, whether through forced retirements or other means. If we find we need to bolster there after, fine. However, no one can say that it’s healthy for an organization to NEVER trim the fat(poor performers)

Well the NPR was conducted after we experienced decades of low productivity growth, constant issues with underemployment/unemployment, and declining federal investments. That does not mirror our current situation.

And where are you getting this 10-12% number and what is your reasoning for it.

I don’t believe for a second that in 30 years, with the technological advances, we couldn’t find ways to make our government more efficient. It’s wild you are arguing that point.

I never argued that point. I did not even mention technology. The streamlining I was referring to was about the processes. They did this by eliminating departments, not adding them.