January 15, 2019
Trump’s shutdown trap?
By Thomas Lifson
A
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/trumps_shutdown_trap.html
Has President Trump suckered Democrats and the Deep State into a trap that will enable a radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy? In only 5 more days of the already-“longest government shutdown in history” (25 days and counting, as of today), a heretofore obscure threshold will be reached, enabling permanent layoffs of bureaucrats furloughed 30 days or more.
Don’t believe me that federal bureaucrats can be laid off? Well, in bureaucratese, a layoff is called a RIF – a Reduction in Force, and of course, it comes with a slew of civil service protections. But, if the guidelines are followed, bureaucrats can be laid off -- as in no more job. It is all explained by Michael Roberts here (updated after the beginning of the partial shutdown):
A lot of procedures must be followed, and merit (“performance”) is the last consideration, but based on the criteria above, employees already furloughed can be laid off (“RIFed”) once they have been furloughed for 30 days or 22 work days):
This seems to be what was referenced in this remarkable essay written by an “unidentified senior Trump official” published in the Daily Caller, which vouches for the authenticity of the author, and explains that it is protecting him or her from adverse career consequences should the name become known. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
The purported senior official makes the case that devotion to “process” eats up most of the time of federal bureaucrats and is also used by enemies of President Trump’s initiatives to stymie the legitimate orders issued by his senior officials:
Then, the senior official notes what I have just called the “trap”:
Those officials who waste time and stymie the president’s initiatives, but now are not present because they are not categorized as “essential.”
Keep in mind that saboteurs cannot be individually identified and RIFed, but they can be included in the layoffs if they meet the criteria above in terms of seniority and service, and that they must be given 60 days’ notice. But once they are gone, they are no longer free to obstruct using the “process” as their friend because they are gone.
Of course, you can expect lawsuits on every conceivable point I suspect that they definition of “furlough” would be one matter of dispute.
If this was the plan all along, it would explain by President Trump goaded Chuck and Nancy in his televised meeting with them last year, boasting that he would claim credit for the showdown. How could they resist a prolonged shutdown when he made it so easy to blame him?
President Trump has proven that he is a “disruptor” who changes the framework of thinking on major issues by refusing to accept the “givens” – the assumptions of how things always have been done, and therefore always must be done.
So, who is the “senior official”? I don’t know, but I think that Stephen Miller is the sort of bold thinker who might volunteer to telegraph the strategy just 5 days before the deadline. Give Chuck and Nancy something to think about, and probably reject as unthinkable. Then they can’t complain that they weren’t warned once the trap is sprung.
Such a mass RIF would be the Trump version of Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers when they went on an illegal strike in 1981. That was completely unexpected by his enemies, vehemently criticized, and successful.
Among other benefits, it taught the leaders of the USSR that Ronald Reagan was a man whose threats cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. If you think that Xi Jin-ping, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel, and any other foreign leaders would not draw the same conclusion from a massiveRIF, then you are kidding yourself.
My theory may be completely wrong, but I pray that it is not.
Hat tip: Clarice Feldman
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (cropped)
Trump’s shutdown trap?
By Thomas Lifson
A
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/trumps_shutdown_trap.html
Has President Trump suckered Democrats and the Deep State into a trap that will enable a radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy? In only 5 more days of the already-“longest government shutdown in history” (25 days and counting, as of today), a heretofore obscure threshold will be reached, enabling permanent layoffs of bureaucrats furloughed 30 days or more.
Don’t believe me that federal bureaucrats can be laid off? Well, in bureaucratese, a layoff is called a RIF – a Reduction in Force, and of course, it comes with a slew of civil service protections. But, if the guidelines are followed, bureaucrats can be laid off -- as in no more job. It is all explained by Michael Roberts here (updated after the beginning of the partial shutdown):
A lot of procedures must be followed, and merit (“performance”) is the last consideration, but based on the criteria above, employees already furloughed can be laid off (“RIFed”) once they have been furloughed for 30 days or 22 work days):
This seems to be what was referenced in this remarkable essay written by an “unidentified senior Trump official” published in the Daily Caller, which vouches for the authenticity of the author, and explains that it is protecting him or her from adverse career consequences should the name become known. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
The purported senior official makes the case that devotion to “process” eats up most of the time of federal bureaucrats and is also used by enemies of President Trump’s initiatives to stymie the legitimate orders issued by his senior officials:
Then, the senior official notes what I have just called the “trap”:
Those officials who waste time and stymie the president’s initiatives, but now are not present because they are not categorized as “essential.”
Keep in mind that saboteurs cannot be individually identified and RIFed, but they can be included in the layoffs if they meet the criteria above in terms of seniority and service, and that they must be given 60 days’ notice. But once they are gone, they are no longer free to obstruct using the “process” as their friend because they are gone.
Of course, you can expect lawsuits on every conceivable point I suspect that they definition of “furlough” would be one matter of dispute.
If this was the plan all along, it would explain by President Trump goaded Chuck and Nancy in his televised meeting with them last year, boasting that he would claim credit for the showdown. How could they resist a prolonged shutdown when he made it so easy to blame him?
President Trump has proven that he is a “disruptor” who changes the framework of thinking on major issues by refusing to accept the “givens” – the assumptions of how things always have been done, and therefore always must be done.
So, who is the “senior official”? I don’t know, but I think that Stephen Miller is the sort of bold thinker who might volunteer to telegraph the strategy just 5 days before the deadline. Give Chuck and Nancy something to think about, and probably reject as unthinkable. Then they can’t complain that they weren’t warned once the trap is sprung.
Such a mass RIF would be the Trump version of Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers when they went on an illegal strike in 1981. That was completely unexpected by his enemies, vehemently criticized, and successful.
Among other benefits, it taught the leaders of the USSR that Ronald Reagan was a man whose threats cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. If you think that Xi Jin-ping, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel, and any other foreign leaders would not draw the same conclusion from a massiveRIF, then you are kidding yourself.
My theory may be completely wrong, but I pray that it is not.
Hat tip: Clarice Feldman
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (cropped)
