Shutdown is here.

[Boghie]

They/We ain't paying for it - so, what exactly are they voting for.

Here is a funny thought experiment:
If Congress 'allocates' money, but that money is borrowed and it is not a national emergency, is Congress really 'controlling the purse strings'? That is, is Congress abrogating their duty to 'control the purse strings'? If they abrogate the responsibility, can the 'el Presidente' simply ignore the request to borrow more money - leaving him/her/it to judge what gets funded with actual revenue and what does not.

Asking for a friend.

 

[nasa1974]

They/We ain't paying for it - so, what exactly are they voting for.

Here is a funny thought experiment:
If Congress 'allocates' money, but that money is borrowed and it is not a national emergency, is Congress really 'controlling the purse strings'? That is, is Congress abrogating their duty to 'control the purse strings'? If they abrogate the responsibility, can the 'el Presidente' simply ignore the request to borrow more money - leaving him/her/it to judge what gets funded with actual revenue and what does not.

Asking for a friend.

We might not be paying for it now. But because of the increase in the national debt, we will be paying for it in the future. Accountability. But we know that won't happen for ICE or this administration.

 

[Boghie]

NASA, ICE is a tiny part of the Federal deficit.

For FY2025:
ICE: $11 Billion
Border Patrol: $21 Billion

So, here is what it looks like:

Deficit:	1,775​
ICE & BP	32​

If you are in the hole $1,775 you really shouldn't be looking at a $32 expense - especially if much of that $32 is non-controversial.

Math will be fair. We may not like it, but time is money and we ain't got time. Too bad we didn't listed to 'W', but...

I will say this publicly. There are those who imagine that I will just pay my fair share if someone jacks my taxes. What you have to understand is that I believe that I am paying my fair share. I will not pay additional tax - and, I have legal means of avoiding additional tax. Expenditures are about $2 Trillion dollars more than that of FY2000 inflation adjusted. If we inflation adjust our FY2000 spending we would be in surplus. So, nope, just nope.

 

[SteelSaving]

If you are in the hole $1,775 you really shouldn't be looking at a $32 expense - especially if much of that $32 is non-controversial.

Now apply that to the dismantling of the federal workforce.

 

[Boghie]

Now apply that to the dismantling of the federal workforce.

The annual defict will be AT LEAST $400 Billion less this year than last year.
Federal spending normally increases at something like 6% annually, it is increasing by less than 2%.

The Federal workforce grew by something like 1 million from 2021 through 2024. Did the 'Merican people get any value from that. It was cut 360K over the past year - is anyone screaming for more services. This was the purest form of fat known to mankind. We have got to become leaner. We cannot be a drag. We have got to become a value for the private sector. If we do so, we will no longer be a political target.

 

[SteelSaving]

What has the percentage of federal workforce to total US population looked like over the years over the past 6 decades?

What percentage of the budget goes to federal pay?

You mention not worrying about the peanuts but then defend going after the peanuts.

My work unit went from 5 branches of 40-50 to 1 branch of 9. We went from covering four states to covering seven. Our FY26 budget of projects to deliver was already higher than FY24 (I'll bypass 25, because that was a joke) and after the budget passed earlier this month, increased by another 50%.

So, how did getting rid of the workforce slow down the spending?

 

[SteelSaving]

We have got to become a value for the private sector. If we do so, we will no longer be a political target.

What???

 

[Boghie]

Not going to fight, but spending is up less than 2% for the first 4 months of FY2026 YoY to FY2025.

That is less than inflation. It is actually the first time I have seen gubmint spending growth that low in my lifetime - although I was not following stuff much in the '90s.

Just checked a single year - but, I think a reasonable and fair year. It is outside of COVID and no national emergency spending of note that I can remember...

Spending:
FY2023: $6,134 Billion
FY2024: $6,751 Billion

Why was a there a 10% increase in Gubmint spending? Was it either smart or necessary?

 

[jonfresno]

What has the percentage of federal workforce to total US population looked like over the years over the past 6 decades?

What percentage of the budget goes to federal pay?

You mention not worrying about the peanuts but then defend going after the peanuts.

My work unit went from 5 branches of 40-50 to 1 branch of 9. We went from covering four states to covering seven. Our FY26 budget of projects to deliver was already higher than FY24 (I'll bypass 25, because that was a joke) and after the budget passed earlier this month, increased by another 50%.

So, how did getting rid of the workforce slow down the spending?

Sorry man, that's brutal.

So right, no slowdown/reduction other than the agencies they want to dismantle. At our agency money just shifted from feds to contractors. CGI Federal now runs the joint. We went from paying employees to paying a company that scalps a huge percentage off the top. No savings. None.

What suffers, for example, are when agencies have to appear before Congress for hearings, and the department heads need hard numbers. We now have people trying to perform multiple roles to fulfill legally mandated requirements after they chased a huge chunk of the knowledge base out the door.

 

[SteelSaving]

Why was a there a 10% increase in Gubmint spending? Was it either smart or necessary?

Ask your congressman and senators, they're the ones who wrote the check.

Our job as federal workers is to deliver the best quality at the best value within the confines of the law, executing what congress tells us to deliver. Would you prefer that each of us get to decide what work we do or don't do?

 

[JTH]

Democrats "Proposed changes included agents wearing identification and body cameras and being barred from operating near schools, medical facilities, churches, polling stations, childcare facilities and courts."

Does this mean Republicans oppose requiring agents to wear identification and body cameras or restricting their operations near schools, medical facilities, churches, polling places, childcare centers, and courts?