Draining the swamp

[Hawkmoon]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/900-state-department-officials-sign-dissent-memo-source-204236825.html

It appears that 900 State Department employees have just signaled that they are ready to be drained. It's a good place to start.

Kudos for Spicer for pointing out that it was the Obama administration that identified the seven countries involved. The Rs need to hammer that point home, until the lamestream media can't ignore it.

Wasn't Patrick Kennedy's name featured in discussions of Hillary's e-mail shenanigans? He was Undersecretary for management -- was he supposed to have been in control of security protocols? Ah, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_F._Kennedy

Let the swamp draining proceed.

[K Frame]

Oh God I so want to see the list of signers to see who I know/work with...

[RocketMan]

Trump said he was going to put Americans back to work.  That's 900 new jobs opening up soon.

[Ben]

Trump said he was going to put Americans back to work.  That's 900 new jobs opening up soon.

Actually no. Federal hiring freeze, so a savings of around $900K/yr in federal salaries and benefits. :)

[charby]

Actually no. Federal hiring freeze, so a savings of around $900K/yr in federal salaries and benefits. :)

More like $90M

900x100,000= 90,000,000

[RocketMan]

Actually no. Federal hiring freeze, so a savings of around $900K/yr in federal salaries and benefits. 

More like $90M

900x100,000= 90,000,000

It just gets betterer and betterer.

[Ben]

Forgot to carry the 1. 

[dogmush]

I dislike the State Department (holier than thou commie shits) more then most and I hate to be THAT guy, but that article says they sent the memo up through State's internal "Dissent channel" which is designed to let employee's express concerns. Unlike our former (acting) AG that's an appropriate way to express concerns to leadership.

We (as a people) do, and Trump should, want a government where folks can air concerns to their bosses without termination.  That's GOOD.  Crushing all internal dissent and communication up the chain of command is not a characteristic of a good leader.  The only issue here is some jackhole leaked a memo that should have stayed internal to the .gov

[Hawkmoon]

I dislike the State Department (holier than thou commie shits) more then most and I hate to be THAT guy, but that article says they sent the memo up through State's internal "Dissent channel" which is designed to let employee's express concerns. Unlike our former (acting) AG that's an appropriate way to express concerns to leadership.

We (as a people) do, and Trump should, want a government where folks can air concerns to their bosses without termination.  That's GOOD.  Crushing all internal dissent and communication up the chain of command is not a characteristic of a good leader.  The only issue here is some jackhole leaked a memo that should have stayed internal to the .gov

You have a point but, on the other hand, is it appropriate for a government agency -- ANY government agency -- to have an internal "dissent" channel? It's one thing to have an open door policy, or a suggestion box, or whatever. But "dissent" is not an appropriate role for employees of the government. Their job is to do what their bosses tell them to do. When the rules of engagement change, they can either fly the mission, or bail out. I don't accept that "internal dissent" is appropriate.

[dogmush]

You have a point but, on the other hand, is it appropriate for a government agency -- ANY government agency -- to have an internal "dissent" channel? It's one thing to have an open door policy, or a suggestion box, or whatever. But "dissent" is not an appropriate role for employees of the government. Their job is to do what their bosses tell them to do. When the rules of engagement change, they can either fly the mission, or bail out. I don't accept that "internal dissent" is appropriate.

I'm a Commander in the Army, and I HOPE that if it looks like I'm doing something illegal my team would, discreetly, share their concerns.  I don't think of everything, and I might have missed something.  My Commanders up the Chain have explicitly told me they hope that if I saw something illegal I'd mention it to them.  One can dissent, and air concerns, while still following the orders to give your boss/Commander a chance to consider if your dissent and whether it has points that weren't considered originally.  Our Officer training spends quite a bit of time on the fact that we are not looking for mindless obedience, and you are responsible for thinking about everything you do, and you owe both your subordinates and your superiors your best judgement.  "Yes Man" is not a sought after trait.

If there's room in the Armed Forces for that, then State can damn sure afford it.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually no. Federal hiring freeze, so a savings of around $900K/yr in federal salaries and benefits. :)

A hiring freeze doesn't prevent them from replacing the current personnel, does it? 

[Hawkmoon]

I'm a Commander in the Army, and I HOPE that if it looks like I'm doing something illegal my team would, discreetly, share their concerns.  I don't think of everything, and I might have missed something.  My Commanders up the Chain have explicitly told me they hope that if I saw something illegal I'd mention it to them.  One can dissent, and air concerns, while still following the orders to give your boss/Commander a chance to consider if your dissent and whether it has points that weren't considered originally.  Our Officer training spends quite a bit of time on the fact that we are not looking for mindless obedience, and you are responsible for thinking about everything you do, and you owe both your subordinates and your superiors your best judgement.  "Yes Man" is not a sought after trait.

If there's room in the Armed Forces for that, then State can damn sure afford it.

I don't see a parallel. I'm a veteran, so I understand that the UCMJ provides for disobeying an unlawful order. But I don't get the sense that these State Department bedwetters are alleging that there's anything unlawful abut Trump's EO. If there is, then Obama's previous order involving the same seven countries was equally unlawful, so where was the dissent then?

A draft of the dissent memo seen by Reuters argued that the executive order would sour relations with affected countries, inflame anti-American sentiment and hurt those who sought to visit the United Spates for humanitarian reasons.

It said the policy "runs counter to core American values of non-discrimination, fair play and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants.

Basically, they don't like it. By the time you get 900 people deep in the organization, you're well below the policy-making level. Down at that level, it's not their job to dissent, their job is to execute.

[dogmush]

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

They can dissent and still execute.  That appears to be what they are doing.

[zahc]

My entire job consists of me dissenting against stupidity while steadfastly executing it. However, it requires tact to avoid pissing off the boss. The minute he thinks you are not committed, or especially, threaten his ego, or chip away at his reputation or undermine his credibility, you will be fired as "not aligned". It's sort of the law of the jungle. Fundamentally, I don't have a problem with the beaurocrats vocalizing concerns, but neither will I cry for them if they get axed.

[charby]

A hiring freeze doesn't prevent them from replacing the current personnel, does it? 

I've worked public sector my whole career, hiring freeze means no one gets hired, even replacements.

[K Frame]

I'm trying to find out if a friend of mine signed it.

She may have.

[Ben]

A hiring freeze doesn't prevent them from replacing the current personnel, does it?  

It depends on how they worked it. During Clinton they (Gore ran it) did one where it was a hiring freeze, but they did a workaround where they replaced them with contractors. It ended up costing taxpayers more money.

From what I have read, the current freeze is a freeze by attrition, so when someone quits or retires, the FTE slot is still there, but remains vacant. If vacant, the office still gets the $$$ for it and can use them for other costs (if their HQ lets them - sometimes the HQ eliminates the position and takes the money to use themselves). It can remain vacant for years, or depending on the administration and individual budgets, can be removed at a later time. Once removed, it's generally quite difficult for an office or division to get it back.

For Trump to make this freeze a money saver as well as a gov reducer, the language would need to state that the position is eliminated when the current person leaves. Otherwise agencies have less staff, but more money to blow on other stuff.

[Perd Hapley]

For Trump to make this freeze a money saver as well as a gov reducer, the language would need to state that the position is eliminated when the current person leaves. Otherwise agencies have less staff, but more money to blow on other stuff.

I'm OK with just the .gov reducer bit (which will save money, anyway). Any direct savings is cake.

[Ben]

I'm OK with just the .gov reducer bit (which will save money, anyway). Any direct savings is cake.

That is true. There is some ancillary expense (e.g., the cellphone and a laptop) with many active positions (especially higher level) besides the salary.

Edit: Also a big one if enough positions are vacant is office space. Removing a few buildings from GSA inventory can add up fast.

[Boomhauer]

I wish all these federal government employees would go On strike to show their solidarity with the anti-trump movement




And then he can fire their asses like Reagan did to the air traffic controllers!

[Scout26]

I'm a Commander in the Army, and I HOPE that if it looks like I'm doing something illegal my team would, discreetly, share their concerns.  I don't think of everything, and I might have missed something.  My Commanders up the Chain have explicitly told me they hope that if I saw something illegal I'd mention it to them.  One can dissent, and air concerns, while still following the orders to give your boss/Commander a chance to consider if your dissent and whether it has points that weren't considered originally.  Our Officer training spends quite a bit of time on the fact that we are not looking for mindless obedience, and you are responsible for thinking about everything you do, and you owe both your subordinates and your superiors your best judgement.  "Yes Man" is not a sought after trait.

If there's room in the Armed Forces for that, then State can damn sure afford it.

^^^^This.


But you do it behind closed doors, if you can.  And you better have at least one alternative solution to the problem.   But when told to execute, you execute. (again, as long as it's not illegal).

[grampster]

Heh.  I recall how dissent worked in private business.  I was once one of 10 guys who were being interviewed for 10 manager appointments.  I was asked whether I would faithfully implement orders from above regarding our business.  I said yes, I'd even give 'em 110%, but if after a college try, the orders were ineffectual and counterproductive, I would not be afraid to tell them so and be willing to prove it and provide another solution.  I didn't get the job.  I actually laughed all the way home from the interview just because of the looks on their faces.  So what I did for the rest of my career was to stay in the sales force, be one of the top 5% of producers in the company, earn a great living and never fail to criticize managerial stupidity.  Many of my "suggestions" wound up being implemented at a later date, once someone in management felt comfortable enough time had passed so taking credit would be accommodated without worry of stealing the idea.  I laughed all the way to the bank.

[230RN]

...Many of my "suggestions" wound up being implemented at a later date, once someone in management felt comfortable enough time had passed so taking credit would be accommodated without worry of stealing the idea....

Dayam that's frustrating.  BTDT.

Terry

[Triphammer]

That's always been a feature not a bug. If I saw something that needed to get done or a change that would benefit my dept., I'd lay it out in  a way that Management thought it was their idea.

[zxcvbob]

That's always been a feature not a bug. If I saw something that needed to get done or a change that would benefit my dept., I'd lay it out in  a way that Management thought it was their idea.

+1.  Never had to deal with illegality, tho'.