EPA Jobs?

The Environmental Protection Agency has sent out more than 1,000 buy-out notices to its employees….

The positions are being eliminated, and the incumbents aren’t being offered positions elsewhere on the government’s teat payroll.  The horror.  The union-demanded, if not God-given, sinecures are not sinecures, after all.  American Federation of Government Employees Local 704 President Michael Mikulka is quite vocal with his dismay.

EPA wants over 1,200 of us to leave, purportedly to save money going forward and claiming that they no longer need the positions occupied by staff that in some cases worked at EPA for over 30 years[.]

Because the existence of a union-protected job means the employer needs that job, and the longer its existence, the deeper into perpetuity that need must be.  Sure.

Mikulka also insisted that the EPA would be less active without those jobs, speaking like that would be a bad thing.  He said this, too:

We’re going to have to do less with less.

Recall that, during the Obama government shutdown in 2011, the EPA rated over 90% of its workforce as unessential and furloughed them for the duration of the shutdown.  Certainly, that per centage was true only for the short-term, but a huge fraction of those 90% really are unessential, and they could be released were the EPA to be returned to its original mission of science-based protection of the environment and moved away from supporting its politically motivated pseudo-science climate funding industry.

The agency certainly can do less with less.  And it should.

It’s Time

…to sweep the ones we can’t trust from the Republican Party of Castrati and from Congress.

When Republicans voted on the repeal-only bill in 2015, they knew Mr Obama would veto it, making their vote largely symbolic. Of the GOP senators currently in the chamber, 49 voted for it at the time.  …

Moreover, many GOP lawmakers have already acknowledged that they would vote differently now that the stakes are far higher….

Now that these persons have to take action more concrete than virtue signaling, they’re exposing themselves as porch dogs.  They’re betraying their country, and more specifically, they’re betraying their constituents, to whom they promised for the last seven years, they’d repeal Obamacare and replace it.

However,

Both [Susan, R, ME] Collins and [Shelley Moore, R, WV] Capito said Tuesday they were unlikely to support the procedural vote for a repeal-only approach.

Senators even are too timid to face debate on the floor of the Senate on so simple a measure.

Capito is being especially disingenuous.

I did not come to Washington to hurt people.  I cannot vote to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan that addresses my concerns and the needs of West Virginians.

Yet, that’s exactly what she’s doing by supporting Obamacare’s continued existence.  That program not only is devastating the pocketbooks of Americans, including West Virginians, Americans across the country are losing their health coverage plans in droves as health plan providers abandon the market in counties after counties, even whole States.  This is happening now, and it will be increasingly so as long as repeal is blocked by Senators like Capito, with or without a replacement program in hand.  Capito knows this.

Serious reform takes courage.  These worthies don’t have it; they’re quailing, even now, at a first step of repeal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is suggesting he’ll call for a vote on a straight-up repeal, to take effect in two years, during which Congress could work out and pass a replacement program or set of programs.

McConnell should hold the vote, even knowing the porch dogs will vote against repeal and so defeat it (many of whom will vote even against open debate); will vote against their promise; will contradict their vote in 2015, cast as it was deep in the safety of an Obama veto.  Put the porch dogs on record with their votes.  Let them stand exposed and identified.

This is what primaries are for.

A Union

…doesn’t like Amazon buying Whole Foods.

[United Food and Commercial Workers International Union President, Marc] Perrone plans to file a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, arguing that letting Amazon buy Whole Foods would trigger a wave of store closures and eventually quash customer choice.

With a straight face, he argued in his complaint (which somehow fell into The Washington Post‘s hands before the filing) that

Regardless of whether Amazon has an actual Whole Foods grocery store near a competitor, their online model and size allows them to unfairly compete with every single grocery store in the nation.

So, doing a better job of competing in an industry, doing a better job of selling products customers want, is in some way unfair.  Hmm….

And

I’ve got concerns, and our organization has concerns, about what technology does and at what cost to society[.]

Sure he does.  So long as society is defined as union society.  Because technology improvements benefit the broader society of ordinary American citizens.  Just compare tech-developed and built cars with buggies and wagons.  Compare today’s house with yesterday’s.  Compare today’s communications media with yesterday’s.  Compare today’s cars with yesterday’s, come to that.

The union, Perrone said, is worried that America’s shifting shopping preferences will spark a crisis in its industry the same way automation and trade with China and Mexico has wiped out factory work.

Our factory work hasn’t been wiped out; it’s just changed its character because competition made those manufacturing industries get better and do better.

The union just wants a protection from competition.

Imagine that.

Grievances

Thousands of State Department and US Agency for International Development employees indicated in a survey they are worried about the future of their agencies, with some expressing particular concern about lack of support from the Trump administration and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

And

Many of the more than 35,000 State Department and USAID employees responding to the survey indicated longtime frustration with the way the agencies function, including poor technology and duplicative and redundant processes that make frequent workarounds necessary. They also cited pet projects created by ambassadors and Congress, according to the report reviewed by the [Wall Street] Journal.

Well, that’s the reason for attempts in the Trump administration to efficient-ize things.  More really can be done with less money if there’s less duplication and fewer useless projects created for the sake of virtue signaling.

On the other hand,

USAID employees in the report said they are particularly concerned about the consequences of a move to fully absorb USAID into the State Department, which officials are considering.

This “concern” is just about turf preservation, not about improving efficiency—which contributes to why these kinds of problems are of such long standing.

These guys can always resign if they don’t like the new direction.  Government jobs are not an entitlement.

Food Stamps and Work

Now that the Obama administration’s waiver of work requirements for families without dependent children in order to be eligible to obtain food stamps has been rescinded, the vast numbers of recipients are being greatly reduced.  Alabama, for instance, this year resumed the work or work training requirement in a pilot program involving 13 of its counties and has seen its food stamp enrollment fall by 85%.  Georgia is running a similar program, and it’s seen a 58% drop.

It’s all well and good that the work/work training requirement has moved people off the food stamp rolls, but the flip side of that is what happens to those that are: are they actually working or training, or are they just shoved off the rolls, still unemployed, now deeper in poverty?  The Maine results give an indication.

An analysis of a group of 7,000 Mainers who left SNAP in 2014 found their total earnings increased from $3.85 million in the third quarter 2014 to $8.24 million in the last quarter of 2015.

That’s more than a doubling in earnings in just over a year.  These folks, clearly, are getting work; they haven’t just been shoved over a cliff.

Kansas is getting similar results.

…60% of former beneficiaries found employment within 12 months and their incomes rose by an average of 127% per year….

Hmm….