Absolutely.

The effects are going to be felt for a good couple of decades to follow.

Is that staff costs only? Or including the things those staff would spend money on too?

Overhead for staff isn't that much more. And even one person can spend money like it's going out of style if they have a budget that says they can and the implicit threat it'll be cut if they don't. They'll just spend it in dumber ways.

The "federal budget" is something people often mention, but it's quite misleading. At least in terms of what we think of.

The reason is that the overwhelming majority of the budget is spent automatically - pensions, medicare, social security, and all of these expenses are unavoidable and in a mandatory expenses category. The remainder of the budget, including military, is considered discretionary. That discretionary spending is the thousands of pages that Congress creates (and fails to read) each year. And it's in that budget that most of the things we associate with government came from - everything from education, to roads, to infrastructure, and also the military.

So by the numbers in 2024 the discretionary budget was "only" $1.7 trillion and after military spending "only" $900 billion was left. "Only" obviously needs to be in quotes but that's indeed only about 13% of the e.g. $6.7 trillion total budget in 2024. And so each time you cut something the amount of money left for the things we generally associate with government skyrockets. So for instance USAID was "only" $50 billion, but that was more than 5% of the entire discretionary budget!

US Federal Workers cost $293 billion [1], and contractors amounted to $760 billion. This is excluding secondary costs/benefits, which are extremely high for government workers, and only direct payments. It also excludes budgeted expenditures that would have been performed by those employees. So that's already $1.05 trillion and we're clearly substantially lowballing the figure. Yet that's already more than the entire discretionary budget excluding military, and certainly far more than 4% of the entire budget (as would be required for cutting 25% to only result in a 1% cost saving, as proposed).

[1] - https://www.afge.org/article/afge-continues-to-debunk-miscon...

If I spend 90% of my budget on mandatory items, and I cut 10% of my discretionary spending, I've shaved 1% of my total budget. Have I really accomplished that much? Is that going to keep me out of the poor house if something goes wrong? Is it worth a massive sacrifice to obtain?

Probationary employees means not just the new hires, but any federal employee who changed jobs internally in the last year. Who's going to want to work for the Federal government after this bloodbath? No one with any talent, which I'm sure is either the goal or a happy by-product.

This is about Trump and Co. destroying govt institutions they don't like, and weaponizing other institutions with loyalists. Just look at what's happening in the DoJ.

Most mandatory spending is on healthcare, social security, interest payments on debt. For anyone who values anything other than those things, every penny should be accounted for. The percentage of the total budget now becomes irrelevant.

>For anyone who values anything other than those things

Nah, we'll cut those too: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/gop-targets-88...

As mentioned elsewhere, this is literally impossible. Directly cutting mandatory spending would require new laws which, in turn, would require a supermajority in the Senate due to the filibuster, meaning the DNC would also need to be all-in on it. On the note, keep this in mind the next time some party, which can't see past tomorrow, tries to eliminate the filibuster.

Checks and balances are very important and I'm very happy to see the GOP making 0 effort to end the filibuster in spite of it currently being rather liberally used by the DNC.

It's important to note though that the goal is not to reduce debt. The goal is to cut taxes (largely for the rich).

I mean if debt was an issue why vote for the guy who has increased the national debt by the most in history and whose spending plans were going to increase the debt by almost twice of his opponent?

https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-ha...

The person who wrote that article is remarkably ignorant of essentially all topics that she covered to the point I'd consider that lower quality than an average internet shitpost. I don't know where to start so I'll just bullet point things in no particular order:

- The US parties almost entirely ideologically swapped sometime in the 19th century. Some claim it happened with FDR in the 30s, others claim it didn't "really" happen until LBJ in the 60s. Everybody acknowledges it happened. What a "Democrat" did in 1913 is irrelevant.

- Congress dictates budgets, not the President. The President has veto power (which can be overruled by Congress), but nothing more.

- The modern US economic system enabling us to go arbitrarily far into debt only began in 1971, when we defaulted on our obligations under Bretton Woods.

- The total deficit under Trump was $5.6 trillion, under Biden it was ~7.6 trillion [1]. I assume the author was looking at delta debt and then 'inflation adjusting' it... ugh.

---

That's just the basic historic/factual backing. The "stats" are even worse, but enough is enough. In any case, the issue is not what happened in 1913 or even Trump's first term, but what is happening now. Trump's first term he promised to do what he's doing now but instead just mostly carried on the military machine (at least without starting any news wars, which was nice - though he was trying his hardest with Iran) and filled his entire cabinet with political establishment types who did their thing.

Trump 2.0 seems to have genuinely gained some sort of messianic delusions, probably from the attempted assassinations, and is actually doing what he said he would do before. And those current actions are what is really changing the game like nothing that's happened in decades.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD/

The deficit also doesn’t paint the whole picture. The debt significantly increased near the end of the Trump administration which added to mandatory spending via interest payments.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

>Congress dictates budgets, not the President. The President has veto power (which can be overruled by Congress), but nothing more.

congress makes budget, but the president has always been a means to apply pressure and influence the budget. After all, if a president declares an emergency or crisis, and congress doesn't fund for that, then they may risk re-election. That's always been the "legal" means of the president settting the budget.

Also to cut regulations, aka the police for corporations and the rich.

Trump got saved by the pandemic so we can call his policies “unprecedented” for unprecedented times. It hides a lot of how poor he did.

Did he? I was under the impression that Biden did a lot of the stimulus in 2021. Trump did a bit, but if that still hid how badly he did that's crazy.

That's great. Congress should be the ones making budget decisions, not Musk. Trump has control of both houses, why not cut spending and give Musk his tax breaks legally?

Congress has not made a budget in many years. They pass “continuing resolutions.” Why aren’t they doing their jobs?

They will try to: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/gop-targets-88...

But despite being a minority, such a budget will be highly unpopular and democratic congress can still use that to push back against it. It's faster for Trump to just force it through, if he's going undeterred.

>The reason is that the overwhelming majority of the budget is spent automatically - pensions, medicare, social security, and all of these expenses are unavoidable and in a mandatory expenses category.

Don't worry, they want to cut that too:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/gop-targets-88...

March is going to be a bloodbath. For who, I can only wait and see.

As is typical for media on this issue, that article is highly misleading. That's the House, not DOGE, asking a committee to cut an average of $88 billion per year over the next decade. That committee in particular also has oversight over a stupidly large number of things from commerce to energy (as per their name) and everything inside which somehow even includes healthcare as well.

But it's impossible to cut mandatory programs' spending directly without a law passed which would require a super-majority in the Senate due to filibusters. On that note, consider now how critical the filibuster is. It wasn't long ago that Democrats wanted to end the filibuster to try to roughshod some voting law changes. Had that succeeded then now the Republican party on a super-narrow majority in the Senate would similarly be able to pass literally any law they want. Checks and balances are important because tomorrow will not be like today - a truth that will remain forever.

So in any case, they're going to need to carry out cuts not related to mandatory spending, or indirectly cut mandatory spending which can be done by things like reducing administrative costs, not spending millions of dollars on Politico subscriptions, and so on. But healthcare (or any other mandatory spending) cuts themselves will be impossible unless the DNC is also on board with it.

Those expenses are only unavoidable if you don't consider cutting fraudulent claims, which may have been enabled by people who are incompetent and/or working inefficiently. If you're able to cut a small but significant portion of fraudulent "pensions, medicare, social security, and all of these expenses are unavoidable and in a mandatory expenses category" by proxy from cutting the people, that represents a larger proportion of the total budget.