Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, the federal government's hiring freeze is a good thing if there are already too many people working in the federal government

    Yes, the federal government's hiring freeze is a good thing if there are already too many people working in the federal government. The only way that it could be good for the federal government to hire more people is if there are not enough people working in the government and they need to hire more. This is especially true if they are paid with tax dollars.

  • Drain the swamp.

    Trump promised to drain the swamp. One way to make the government smaller is to starve it. That's what Reagan did. The only way to make the government do with less is to make them do with less. He should keep the freeze in place for his entire term in office.

  • Ultimately there seems to be little hard data either way, however, it appears to lean towards being detrimental, provided that the government doesn't cut agencies.

    The federal government employees millions of people through thousands of agencies. There are constantly people retiring, dying, or moving to other agencies of jobs. This attrition demands replacement if said agency is to continue functioning at expected levels. If Americans were okay with less services, there could be small boon in less taxes paid, however, some of the people who would have been employed, now aren't and may instead apply for federal or state forms of welfare. The longer a hiring freeze, the greater the glut of employees that need to be replaced, provided no cuts to agencies are taking place. This can be harmful for many agencies. The harm comes because there is a "sudden" need to fill the agency to full capacity in short order, and many people that would otherwise not have been qualified, are hired. These individuals can either work less efficiently, or entered with the intent to defraud the agency. This causes more investigations, which cost money. The only way it seems to make sense, is if redundant and unnecessary agencies are cut altogether. Furthermore, a side note, the way government agencies are currently funded is inefficient, as opposed to rewarding agencies for spending less, it actually encourages an agency to spend everything it was budgeted to maintain the same level of funding the following year.

  • Ultimately there seems to be little hard data either way, however, it appears to lean towards being detrimental, provided that the government doesn't cut agencies.

    The federal government employees millions of people through thousands of agencies. There are constantly people retiring, dying, or moving to other agencies of jobs. This attrition demands replacement if said agency is to continue functioning at expected levels. If Americans were okay with less services, there could be small boon in less taxes paid, however, some of the people who would have been employed, now aren't and may instead apply for federal or state forms of welfare. The longer a hiring freeze, the greater the glut of employees that need to be replaced, provided no cuts to agencies are taking place. This can be harmful for many agencies. The harm comes because there is a "sudden" need to fill the agency to full capacity in short order, and many people that would otherwise not have been qualified, are hired. These individuals can either work less efficiently, or entered with the intent to defraud the agency. This causes more investigations, which cost money. The only way it seems to make sense, is if redundant and unnecessary agencies are cut altogether. Furthermore, a side note, the way government agencies are currently funded is inefficient, as opposed to rewarding agencies for spending less, it actually encourages an agency to spend everything it was budgeted to maintain the same level of funding the following year.

  • No, the federal government hiring freeze is not a good thing, especially not for the US economy.

    Those who are hired to work for the federal government are not only ordinary people but often people with disabilities as well. The government has a certain self-imposed quota to fulfill as far as disabled workers are concerned, and many such workers found jobs on the federal level. if the federal freeze continues, not only will more unemployed disabled citizens be unable to find work, but the nationwide economy will suffer as well.

  • No, I don`t think so.

    The decision to freeze hiring has precedents in American presidential history. Federal hiring freezes have happened in the past. In 1982, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, an independent watchdog, issued a report on hiring freezes and said that they had little effect on federal employment levels and it was unknown whether they saved the government money.

    Hiring freezes "disrupted agency operations, and in some cases, increased costs to government


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.