Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Hiring Freeze

While reading an article in yesterday's newspaper regarding the Vice President running mates choices that Senators John McCain and Barack Obama face a New York University professor suggested that our future President should appoint their Vice President to be responsible for a "massive overhaul of the federal government." This professor went on to note that this job would actually be easier to accomplish than it was in the past because in the "next 10 years 600,000 baby boomers (are) set to retire from federal jobs................."

So my first response upon reading this was -- "yes and with better pensions than us tax slaves who funded their retirements" -- but then I focused on the positive side of things so clearly the coaching my wife has given me had paid dividends!! The positive element here my friends is that the next President can save all of us a lot of money and expand our freedoms by simply using his (sorry Hillary!) executive power to implement a hiring freeze - ON BOTH EMPLOYEES AND CONSULTANTS or we won't gain anyting -- during his 4 or 8 years as President.

A federal government hiring freeze would not only save money but it would force agencies and departments to completely re-think everything they do as their full time employee (FTE) counts start dropping. Perhaps some reporting requirements will be deemed obsolete versus a report simply being "Fred's job for the last 20 years.................." so no need to protect sacred cows that currently exist just so that another federal bureaucrat has a job.

Not only would the 600,000 jobs be gone via retirement/attrition we could then sell the office equipment and less office space overall would be needed which are additional savings for tax payers.

Let the bloodless revolution begin via retirement,

Todd

1 comment:

Crystal Jefferson said...

Are you serious? What about the displaced Veterans who served their country proudly during this war? What about those veterans who are disabled? The job market all ready sucks, and for many of us who not only served their country proudly, but went on to obtain degrees afterwards, cannot find jobs. This cuts into an all ready strained employment market. What happens to me, a Navy Veteran with an MBA who has two children, and my husband who is serving on active duty in the Navy, who just had back surgery? Would you rather pay for our WIC, Section 8 housing, and Food Stamps when we can't find a job? We deserve better than this. If the federal government would have intervened years ago, when they housing market first crashed, or when inflantion soured we might not be in this predicament. Now, they are frivously lending out money to corporations who are still allowed to bet on these risky adjustable mortgages and the way they are packaged into other investments. The CEO's of these corporations are still allowed to hold executive level positions in other organizatons, making well over 6 figures a year....sometimes making 10 figures, and your solution is to cut jobs. If you want to decrease federal spending, why not limit the number of years and applicants that allowed HUD housing. The eldery applicants are understandable, or those with disabled children, but what about those women who pop out kid after kid and sit on welfare. If they couldn't get ready assistance, they would be more conservative with their risky sex habits. Why do they get everything? Job placement, residental assistance, food assistance. What about us hard working veteran mothers who have to suck it up and go without, because we are married and not far enough down on the poverty line? I contribute to taxes, and I say we need to revamp the welfare program. That's where costs need to be cut. Why kill more jobs? Because he is sensitive to what others are saying. Because the American people all ready hate him? Is this his way of getting back at us, because he can, because he is abusing his positional authority?