Maybe It Wasn’t Such a Great Idea to Support a Larger, More Extensive Federal Government for 100 Years

Oh you did it now.

I’m waiting for them to make a connection with the new F-47.

That might just blow all the bats out of their belfries.

The first question every legislator should ask when voting for a law is "can this be used against the things I support if we lose power?" Democrats, however, have shown themselves largely unable to complete this thought exercise. They seem, like a small child, to believe that the situation today will remain in place forever, so there's nothing to worry about. Which is odd, since they considered Mitt Romney an existential threat to democracy.  But once they win, many of their brains appear to flush everything down the memory hole. 

I had hoped, naively, that seeing Donald Trump in office in 2016 would lead them to the realization that "centralized power can be very bad in the wrong hands" and that they would proceed to strip the executive of power and push federalism.  Instead, as authoritarians are wont to do, they doubled down on executive power as soon as they got the chance with Biden.  Instead of Trump proofing the Presidency, they decided to make the Presidency even stronger and toyed with truly disastrous policies like expanding the Supreme Court.

So now they've given Trump all these tools to use against them. And should they win in 2028, like goldfish the majority of Democrats will go right back to centralizing power, blissfully believing that they will never, ever lose an election yet again.  

Thank God Donald Trump came along!

It is way too early to tell how bad or how good the catastrophic or fantastic (depending on your viewpoint) changes being made by Trump will be

Way too early - but I think more will dislike the changes than like them and that it will spur a Democrat resurgence in 2028, just my humble opinion

early to tell how bad or how good the catastrophic or fantastic (depending on your viewpoint) changes being made by Trump will be

THe point is that Trump has the power to make those changes because of the amount of power that has been invested in the Presidency by the centralization of government. Even if you think Trump is the cat's meow, it makes sense to understand that the Presidency may one day be occupied by someone who will use Presidential powers in ways you believe dangerous. 

dislike the changes than like them and that it will spur a Democrat resurgence in 2028

That's baked in to the cake anyway. It's a midterm election and Trump's new coalition doesn't show up when Trump isn't on the ballot. It's the problem with trading high propensity voters for low ones.  It's good in Presidential years, not so go good in midterms.  Unless Democrats gift the Republicans a Kavanaugh like present, it's hard to see the base being as motivated as Democrats will be, and that's who decides midterms. 

The Democrats need a leader, before they start planning a resurgence - this may be the most critical mid terms in decades

r, before they start planning a resurgence - this may be the most critical mid terms in decades

All Democrats need is to stay angry, which I'm confident they will. They don't need anything else other than that and given the unpopularity of their ideas having a leader with defined policies can only hurt them. 

No matter what happens over the next 18 months Democrats  will show up to vote and almost certainly win at least the House. As history as shown, the only thing that matters in midterms is the engagement of the party's respective bases.  Democrats will be engaged in 2028, as the constant hysteria we see every day demonstrates.

I think they need a more unified message and plan than "we hate Trump" even in the midterms - some sane leadership at the top of the party to focus is needed.

It never ceases to amaze me how many “patriotic” Americans are willing to kick the can down the road and leave this spending mess for future generations.    Leave it for their children and grandchildren to handle.    Or insist that someone other than themselves pay for it.

i have no respect for anyone who thinks in such a manner.

None

or insist that someone other than themselves pay for it.

You mean "if only the rich will pay their fair share, and I will tell you what their fair share is"?

Yes, folks who make comments like are among the more clueless of our friends on the left.

The reality is the government was smaller than it was during the Reagan years even before DOGE cuts.

In fact Biden closed down an 8 story government building with parking and downsized the office after cuts to a 4 story building where the nearest parking wasn't adjacent.

For the sake of cutting costs and cutting energy expenses this reality has played out long before Musk under other administrations.

Except when a Democrat does it without drama it goes unnoticed or criticized for downsizing because of climate change\energy savings.

When employees were "fired" and then rehired they came back to already downsized spaces due to Covid work from home policies.

No one really seems to grasp how much government downsizing ALREADY took place during and after Covid.

The reality is the government was smaller than it was during the Reagan years even before DOGE cuts.

Don’t think that’s really true but regardless, going back 40-50 years is not really all that helpful in the discussion.    Technology by itself has offered many opportunities to reduce workforce size significantly in that time.

Looking back 10-20 years is more appropriate.    Federal government employment has gone up about 8% in the last ten years.    It’s about the same today as it was in 1982 as far as total number of employee’s.

The reality is the government was smaller than it was during the Reagan years even before DOGE cuts.

Are you including federal contractors with that? With federal contractors the government is much larger that in the Reagan yearas.

In fact Biden closed down an 8 story government building with parking and downsized the office after cuts to a 4 story building where the nearest parking wasn't adjacent.

Big whoop. The federal government owns hundreds of buildings it no longer uses- are that are under utilized. Letting federal employees work from home doesn't removed the expense of paying for them. Nor does working from home give proof that they are even working.

For the sake of cutting costs and cutting energy expenses this reality has played out long before Musk under other administrations.

Again, allowing federal employees to work from home isn't the same as cutting for work force.

Except when a Democrat does it without drama it goes unnoticed or criticized for downsizing because of climate change\energy savings.

Democrats cutting costs- hasn't happened since Bill Clinton- and even he fucked it up.

When employees were "fired" and then rehired they came back to already downsized spaces due to Covid work from home policies.

So the federal government wasn't downsizing then obviously; it was just losing control of it's federal work force. The inmates were running the asylum. 

  No one really seems to grasp how much government downsizing ALREADY took place during and after Covid.

Wrong again.

govexec

President Biden has overseen a nearly 6% growth of the full-time, non-seasonal federal workforce during his four years in office, including a jump at nearly every major agency. 

The trend marks a reversal from his predecessor and successor, President-elect Trump, who helped   shed workers at nearly every federal agency . It also signifies that Biden delivered on a campaign promise to restore the civil service he said had been “hollowed out” by Trump. Biden called a “strong, healthy” civil service “essential to the success” of his administration.

Biden helped usher into law several key pieces of legislation that built out agency workforces, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the PACT Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. It has also taken executive action to improve hiring processes, which has supported funding increases agencies have enjoyed for most of his presidency.

At a recent White House event, acting Office of Personnel Management Director Rob Shriver boasted of the administration's growth of skills-based hiring, the increased use of shared job postings for multiple agencies, surge hiring efforts for specific laws and a boosted use of AI in recruiting and onboarding. 

Under Biden, the cabinet agencies that grew the most were the departments of State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Treasury and Energy. Only the departments of Defense and Commerce saw their workforces shrink. 

Biden prioritized growing the workforce at State, visiting its headquarters just weeks into his term to tell employees there they were “at the center of all that I intend to do.” State Secretary Antony Blinken created new bureaus focused on cybersecurity and digital diplomacy, won direct hire authority for critical positions and expanded recruitment and retention efforts across the department, all of which led to a nearly   unprecedented hiring surge . 

HHS’ hiring centered on agencies that faced criticism under Trump as it responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Those agencies saw their workforces grow by 13%, 26% and 34%, respectively, under Biden. 

VA went on a record-setting hiring surge after the passage of the PACT Act, which opened up the department’s services to millions of additional veterans. The department was one of the few that grew under Trump and has added 100,000 employees over the last decade.

You were saying about Brandon shrinking the size of government?  Trump downsized government in his first term. Brandon blew it up.

The Inflation Reduction Act alone increase the IRS by 87,000 employees. Hiring was to be completed by 2031.  Thanks again Brandon and Democrats.

I don't agree with Trump's complete hatchet job. Trying to cram everything in the first 100 days is sure to lead to mistakes. But shedding all of Brandon's hires and getting federal government back down to the size Trump had it during his first term would be a good start.

he reality is the government was smaller than it was during the Reagan years even before DOGE cuts.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument presented okay.  Focus on the power delegated to the executive and the leverage it has through public funding.