Donald Trump promised the American public he would help streamline the approval process in Washington, D.C. by cutting the fat wherever he can through the extensive use of executive orders. Recently, he put a freeze on hiring federal workers. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said this was done to cut back on unnecessary spending:
“They’re sending us a ton of money and they’re working real hard — some people are working two, three jobs just to get by — and to see money get wasted in Washington on a job that is duplicative is insulting to the hard work they do to pay their taxes.”
Executive orders aren’t going to be Trump’s only tool in his efforts to shrink the government. Republicans in Congress have it on their minds as well. The attachment of the Holman Rule (which was first enacted in 1876) to a rules bill for the new session in early January demonstrates that much. Holman could slash the pay of a federal worker to $1 if a member of Congress attaches an amendment to an appropriations bill (that is then approved by a majority in the House and Senate).
Holman probably won’t be applied broadly (though its sponsor, Rep. H. Morgan Griffith didn’t rule out the possibility that some in Congress might target large swaths of the federal workforce), but it’s still an extreme cost-cutting measure (and highly politicized with the potential for abuse). Altogether, the freeze and other efforts to trim or trample the size of the government (and the attitudes behind them, which indicate more could be on the way) could wind up affecting 2.1 million federal civilian workers
Trying to save taxpayers a few bucks is always commendable, but there are concerns that the way Trump and the Republicans are approaching the task may be too drastic and overly broad. Trump’s shrewd business tactics may help his quest to “drain the swamp” in Washington by reducing the size of said swamp, but these shifts could impact more than just those workers, the federal government, and the budget — they could affect you. Here’s how this could happen.
Diminishing Efficiency And Effectiveness
A hiring freeze will inevitably slow government work down. People complain about the lines at the post office, but if agencies aren’t allowed to hire more employees, that work will take longer. A report from the Comptroller General of the United States in 1982 found that hiring freezes enacted by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan seemed to prove this point:
“Employment reductions during the last four freezes were small and OMB did not determine whether the freezes resulted in a net savings. GAO found cases in some agencies where the hiring freezes increased some operating costs and decreased efficiency and effectiveness.”
The Social Security Administration imposed a hiring freeze in 2011, which, as the Washington Post reported, “Led to the deterioration of customer service and greatly increased wait times for those seeking disability benefits.” Long lines can also hamper the quality of work that is being provided.
J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees group, told the New York Times that a freeze could even wind up physically hurting people:
“This hiring freeze will mean longer lines at Social Security offices, fewer workplace safety inspections, less oversight of environmental polluters and greater risk to our nation’s food supply and clean water systems.”
Accuracy is also a concern. When you’re processing applications for benefits and managing the disbursement of grant money or answering questions about regulations, no one wants mistakes. No massive apparatus for processing these things can even hope for perfection, but the age of sloppiness could be on its way with severe staff cutbacks.
We’re talking about fewer people reviewing and processing claims and applications and less care going toward that purpose. If you’ve ever worked anywhere undergoing cutbacks, you know the stress levels that can be at play because the workload doesn’t lessen just because there’s no one to the left or right of you on the line.
Veterans Affairs Could Be Impacted
There is already a backlog of appointments for veterans at the Department of Veteran Affairs, as some are waiting more than a month to get help. A freeze would only prolong this. Spicer tried to quell this fear by indicating that this was only a pause and that problem was related to the quality not the quantity of workers, according to USA Today:
“I think the VA in particular, if you look at the problems that have plagued people, hiring more people isn’t the answer, it’s hiring the right people, putting the procedures in place that ensure that our veterans — whether health care or mortgages or the other services that VA provides to those who have served our nation — get the services that they’ve earned.”
Regardless, USA Today also reported that the VA is seeking to fill more than 2,000 openings, including nurses and doctors. There are also veterans who have waited up to six months for an appointment — and a freeze won’t help to ease that burden for those that are still waiting.
Things aren’t entirely clear cut, though. Under the executive order, the VA is exempt from the freeze for those that are deemed necessary for public safety, such as frontline caregivers. This presents another issue with the order, as the New York Times reported that there is confusion over what constitutes as frontline caregivers, and employees have reportedly been given no guidance on how to proceed.
Thinking About The Workers
It may seem like these jobs (and by extension, those that fill them) are considered a burden on taxpayers, but if you look deeper, you’ll a group striving to help their fellow citizens by ensuring that the wheels of this massive bureaucracy turn and that programs with a mandate to positively impact and protect people have the chance to do that.
Obviously, these things need to be run efficiently. No worker should be guarded from accountability or put in a position that is wasteful, but it’s worth noting that approximately 1/3 of the federal workforce are veterans with a lifetime of service to their country. It’s also worth noting that 31 percent of the estimated 2.5 million civilian federal employees will be eligible for retirement in the coming years, which will also create massive holes in the government workforce.
These workers could always choose to keep chugging along, but a government pension may be more attractive. And with a freeze in place, these positions may go unfilled.
The freeze doesn’t only hit Washington, D.C. and the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, by the way. There are federal employees across the country that are a big part of local economies. California actually has the highest number of federal workers per state with over 150,000. Other high-ranking states include Texas, Maryland, Florida, and Georgia, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget. If Trump is looking to improve the country’s financial standing, he may want to consider other alternatives to a national hiring freeze.
Maybe This Isn’t Permanent
The effects of Trump’s hiring freeze may not be full realized until its over, as its only set up for 90 days. This timeline could be beneficial, as a shorter one could cause less damage. If Trump extends the freeze, he could avoid these issues by improving the hiring process, which can be done by having higher standards for qualifications. Trump could also create cross-agency initiatives. This would make it easier for departments to talk to one another about hires, which would help avoid a paperwork pileup. Trump may ease the criticism of the public if he avoids rash decisions like a freeze in the future, but time will tell how this will affect the country.