Why shouldn't a federal worker face the same scrutiny and job performance standards that are routine in the private sector?

Tweet

All in Washington are acting like their hair is on fire in response to the Department of Government Efficiency requirement that federal employees list what they accomplished last week. Many are acting like they can't think of anything, like they may need to "phone a friend" to get an answer.

But the deeper problem with the federal workforce is that there is almost zero diversity of opinion. We know that more than nine of every 10 Washington, D.C., residents voted for Kamala Harris. We know that the overwhelming number of federal employees are Democrats. 

That's not a crime. But what is, is that far fewer than one in five federal employees were working full time in the office. What were they doing? Playing pickleball?

We know from Bureau of Labor Statistics data that the quit rate in the federal government is only one-third as high as the quit rate for those who work in the private sector. In a private company, it's up or out.

Then there is the problem that in Washington it's nearly impossible to fire a worker. The unions and the workers know how to play the employment game like master chess players. Try to fire an incompetent or belligerent or chronically tardy federal worker, and get ready for a blizzard of discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuits. It's a well-honed racket. 

For federal managers trying to do right by the taxpayers, it's less stressful and less costly to keep the worst workers on the payroll.

It's unfair and demoralizing to those dedicated federal workers – and there are hundreds of thousands of them – who truly WANT to serve the country and help people. But even they get sucked into a punch-the-time-clock reward system that merely encourages mediocrity.

Until now. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to build a highly professional civil service workforce. They want to fire the bad actors and the workers who sluff off. Everyone knows who they are. 

Why shouldn't a federal worker face the same scrutiny and job performance standards that are routine in the private sector? That's especially true when the employer is losing money – in this case to the tune of $2 trillion a year. 

In his first term, Trump tried to install a pay-for-performance standard in the civil service system. This would have greatly benefited the very best employees. 

But Trump in his first term – like Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s – got his head handed to him for "politicizing" the hallowed civil service system. It was man against machine, and the machine won. 

During the Biden years, government was the fastest-growing industry for jobs. More than manufacturing, construction, mining and drilling combined.

Trump 2.0 is attempting to reverse that trend and downsize a bloated federal workforce. This will lead to a leaner, more productive and more customer-responsive work environment. And maybe even one more diverse in its politics.

The public employee union is fighting this as if federal employees were facing a guillotine.

But most budget-conscious Americans are saying, "It's about time."

Stephen Moore is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He is also an economic advisor to the Trump campaign. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is "The Trump Economic Miracle."

COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM