Top Dem governor issues order aiming to help fill ‘critical' state jobs as DOGE cuts federal bureaucracy
With DOGE scrutinizing the federal workforce for cuts, one potential 2028 Democrat hopeful issued an executive order aiming to fill hundreds of vacancies in his own state government while also focusing on private-sector openings.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was joined by other dignitaries during a job fair at the state Farm Show complex in Harrisburg to sign the order calling for, among other things, federal bureaucrats to be considered for a plethora of job openings in Harrisburg's civil service.
"The commonwealth recognizes that a workforce of dedicated and talented public servants is the backbone of a responsive government that can ensure the efficient and effective delivery of services for Pennsylvanians," Shapiro said in his order.
The executive order seeks to "capitalize on federal layoffs by accepting federal work experience as equivalent to state experience for the state's top recruitment needs," according to a separate statement from Shapiro.
The statement added there will be an emphasis on veterans and military servicemembers also having direct access to recruiter-contacts, as well as publication of the 23 highest-priority, hardest-to-fill state jobs.
"It is imperative that the commonwealth attract and retain qualified employees who are drawn to a career in public service to fill its existing vacancies," the order reads, citing an estimated 103,700 Pennsylvanians employed by the feds in 2024.
Read On The Fox News App
Pennsylvania Secretary of Administration Neil Weaver added in a statement that the federal workforce is "one of the most professional and qualified in the world, and we know that many federal jobs have similar duties to jobs performed by Commonwealth employees."
Top Blue State Republican Launches Comprehensive Doge Effort With A Twist
"This executive order will help individuals with federal work experience find relevant job opportunities, continue their public service careers, and put their skills to work for the people of Pennsylvania," Weaver said.
While Shapiro's order aims to encourage qualified federal workers to relocate up I-83 to Harrisburg, a source familiar with his efforts noted that the governor remains committed to an all-encompassing strategy to attract top talent to Pennsylvania's public and private sectors.
Shapiro, Stitt Say Slashing Energy Development Red-tape And Beating China In 'Ai Arms Race' Are Top Priorities
The day before he issued his order focused on state government jobs, Shapiro was in Pittsburgh meeting with private-sector leaders at the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, seeking to boost economic growth in western Pennsylvania.
There, Shapiro spoke about his energy "lightning plan" to increase jobs while reducing costs, saying, "We haven't done anything meaningful on energy generation since the [Ed] Rendell administration: It's time for us to lead again."
Shapiro also held a phone call with tech billionaire Elon Musk in October. The governor said neither of them discussed politics but instead investment in Pennsylvania.
In the past, a source familiar with the Shapiro administration's work suggested he bore the mantle of increasing government efficiency before the Trump-Musk endeavor to cut federal government waste began, given his unofficial and oft-repeated slogan: "Get s--t done."
Conservatives, however, swiftly criticized Shapiro's order, with the state House minority leader suggesting any vacant government jobs first be deemed necessary to begin with.
"While President Trump is using his mandate to lead the federal government in an unprecedented effort to right-size itself in true responsibility to the taxpayers, finding ways to add to our bureaucracy here in Pennsylvania sends us in the wrong direction," said state Rep. Jesse Topper, R-McConnellsburg.
"When a job becomes vacant in Pennsylvania's administrative apparatus, the question should first be asked if it is truly needed rather than how quickly it can be filled," Topper continued, adding that the focus should be on "state-specific ways to get our fiscal house in order."
Meanwhile, a potential 2026 Shapiro opponent said the governor's order will "make living in Pennsylvania worse."
"He's already proposed an unsustainable, job-killing $51 billion budget, and yet that's not enough for him," said state Sen. Doug Mastriano, R-Gettysburg.
"Now he wants to continue his spending spree with this grandstanding, desperately trying to draw attention to himself politically. Meanwhile, he doesn't bat an eye as he destroys Pennsylvania's economy and ruins the lives and livelihood of our families."
Mastriano notably launched an effort last week to establish Pennsylvania's own version of the federal Department of Government Efficiency.Original article source: Top Dem governor issues order aiming to help fill 'critical' state jobs as DOGE cuts federal bureaucracy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: The phrase ‘Free Palestine' is freeing no one, but it is killing some of us
Twice in a recent two-week period, two men were arrested for terrorist attacks while invoking 'Free Palestine.' For them, the phrase served as a rallying cry sanctioning violence. Their targets were, in the deadly Washington, D.C., attack outside the Jewish Museum, a young couple, and in Boulder, Colorado, people attending a vigil for the 58 hostages held by Hamas. For the two suspects — neither of whom is Palestinian — the phrase 'Free Palestine' was a license to kill. They are not the only ones who understand it that way. It was just two months ago when the official residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was set ablaze after a Passover Seder event. The perpetrator, who has confessed, cited the governor's views on Palestine. Another 'Free Palestine' chanter struck and killed an elderly California Jewish man with a bullhorn in November 2023. Not all 'Free Palestine' chanters understand it as a call to violence. Yet the phrase's intentional lack of specificity is a big part of its utility: What the user means is left to the audience's interpretation. There are several prevalent understandings, ranging from noble to murderous. 'Free Palestine' can mean the justified yearning for Palestinians to enjoy the full freedoms, prosperity and security to which all people are entitled. It can be a desperate plea for new, elected leaders. Hamas has governed Gaza with an iron fist — and no elections — since 2007, and the West Bank hasn't voted since 2006. This indifference to basic democracy does not portend well for what freedom would look like in a free Palestine. For others invoking it, the phrase's imprecision is precisely the point. 'Free Palestine' can be exploited for misleading purposes. The lack of specificity avoids answering the most revealing question: Would a free Palestine be alongside Israel or instead of Israel? Of course, Hamas and many of its global advocates shamelessly reject the 'alongside' option. In Gaza and elsewhere, they threaten anyone willing to accept such a peaceful compromise. Other 'Free Palestine' supporters are unwilling to pay the negative public relations cost of acknowledging that 'instead of' is their nonnegotiable option. Why? Because their 'instead of' option can only be realized with the annihilation of a sovereign United Nations member country populated by 10 million Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Druze and others. The 'instead of' option glorifies killing Jews, be it on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel; in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in Boulder; and God knows where next. While we don't know where the next 'Free Palestine'-inspired attack will happen, we do know, tragically, it isn't a matter of whether it will happen. It is simply a matter of when. In most instances, 'Free Palestine' is protected free speech in the United States. But after this most recent series of 'Free Palestine'-motivated attacks and with an accompanying deafening silence of condemnation from most pro-Palestinian groups, is it so unreasonable to ask that those promulgating it own up to what it does and doesn't mean to them? And for us Jews. The murderers do not indulge the lie of most pro-Palestinian advocates that there is a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Neither the California, Washington, Harrisburg or Boulder offenders bothered to inquire about their victims' identities or ideologies before attacking. Whether the victims were even Jewish or Zionist, or how they understood 'Free Palestine,' was irrelevant. Politicalized catchphrases are proliferating. While many may seem innocuous, they can be dog whistles that are understood differently by different audiences. Our business, civic, educational, faith, media and political leaders have learned how to navigate these linguistic minefields. They now need to tune their antennas to the violent impact that 'Free Palestine' and the demonization of Zionists are having on American Jews. Those of us yearning for both Israeli-Palestinian peace and Jewish safety worldwide understandably want to know what 'Free Palestine' means to those in our midst. The Boulder attacker planned his violence for a year, authorities say. There are undoubtedly others right now planning their own attacks to 'Free Palestine.' Such would-be assailants should know whether their attacks are endorsed or opposed by the 'Free Palestine' campaign they have adopted. We already know how two people over the last three weeks understood the phrase's imprecision. And we have seen and heard all too many applauding this resistance. Attempting to define the meaning of another group's self-understanding is likely to evoke accusations of mansplaining. But in the absence of a widely embraced peaceful definition of 'Free Palestine,' being accused of insensitivity is easy to bear. We Jews are just trying to freely celebrate a Seder, visit a museum and rally for hostages. That yearning involves no duplicity or threats to others. _____ Jay Tcath is executive vice president of the Jewish United Fund. _____
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
DOGE Says Eliminating These Laws Will Save Americans Money — 2 Ways It Doesn't
DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency, was meant to help save money for Americans. But the reality is different. According to the DOGE website, their efforts to slash costs such as eliminating certain types of federal spending and reversing some regulations, have resulted in around $180 billion in savings. As a result of these savings, DOGE claims that it has saved taxpayers $1,118.01 each. Find Out: Try This: However, according to many media outlets like Reuters and third-party analyses like 'Musk Watch,' the savings are really only around one tenth of that. What's more, regulations that have been or could be eliminated will end up costing Americans more in the long run. So what are the regulations? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) rule capping credit card late fees to $8. The CFPB predicted that there would have been average savings of $220 per year for around 45 million Americans who were on the hook for these fees. The New York Times reports that DOGE claims reversing this rule will save Americans $9.5 billion. Considering the average credit card late fee is $32, American consumers may not truly benefit from this law reversal. It's unclear how DOGE came up with these savings, since credit card companies may not lower their late fees anytime soon. Learn More: According to the DOGE leaderboard on its website, there was a combined $4 billion in savings for Americans by reversing 16 efficiency standards on appliances by the Energy Department. Appliance efficiency standards are there to help American households save on utility bills. Estimates by government scientists show that efficiency standards for appliances saved around $576 for the average American household in 2025 when it came to gas and water bills. Reversing these standards could mean that costs that could go down over time for Americans will be no more. There are even reports that appliance manufacturers don't want these reversal of standards as it'll also cost them more in the long run. For example, if states end up mandating their own standards, there could be conflicting ones. As such, it could mean that manufacturers will have to make different appliances to meet different state regulations, costing them more in time and overhead costs. Some of the appliances affected by these potential reversals are microwaves and commercial washing machines. When the rule for efficiency standards for microwaves was enacted back in 2023, the Energy Department estimated that it would result in $620 million per year in savings for consumers. Apparently it would now save Americans $64.9 if the rule were reversed. As for commercial washers like the ones you use in apartment buildings and laundromats, the rollback of regulations could supposedly save Americans $1.9 billion. However, experts say that number seems impossible, considering the whole market for these types of appliances is only around $6.5 billion. So are there savings? Maybe. Government spending may be down because of DOGE, but it's hard to tell if these changes will result in savings for you, now or in the future. In the meantime, continue to practice discernment in your spending habits so that if there are increased costs, you're ready for them. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy Mark Cuban Says Trump's Executive Order To Lower Medication Costs Has a 'Real Shot' -- Here's Why This article originally appeared on DOGE Says Eliminating These Laws Will Save Americans Money — 2 Ways It Doesn't Sign in to access your portfolio
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Kweisi Mfume is pitching an old-school approach to one of House Democrats' highest-profile jobs
Frustrated by Democrats' seniority system, Kweisi Mfume fled the House three decades ago, saying he could do more to advance civil rights from the outside. Now he's back and trying to reap the benefits of seniority at a moment when many in his party are starting to openly question it. The Baltimore native last month surprised many House colleagues by entering the wide-open race to lead Democrats on the high-profile Oversight Committee, seeking to fill the spot vacated by the sudden death of Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly. Into the void jumped a pair of young, ambitious members — Jasmine Crockett of Texas and Robert Garcia of California — as well as a close Connolly ally, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts. And then there's Mfume, who at 76 is making no bones about this being the capstone of a long career that included stints leading the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP — jobs he took back in the 1990s. 'I started a long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth,' Mfume joked in an interview, before describing his old-school approach to legislative relations: 'The first thing you learn is how to count votes, which has never failed me yet,' he said, adding that he would be careful not to alienate colleagues 'by doing something that causes problems for them in their district.' Rather than detail a point-by-point agenda for taking on President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, Mfume said if elected he'd convene the committee's Democrats to decide a course of action. The party, he said, can only move forward with a 'consensus.' That style stands in sharp contrast to a Democratic base that's itching for more aggressive leadership and a more visible fight with Trump — something the other candidates are clearly heeding: Garcia has tangled with the Justice Department over his criticism of Elon Musk; Crockett has broached the prospect of a Trump impeachment inquiry; and Lynch, as the panel's interim top Democrat, attempted last week to subpoena Musk during a panel hearing. The race also threatens to become a proxy fight for broader questions about age and seniority inside the Democratic Party. House Democrats ousted several aging committee leaders at the end of last Congress as they girded for a fight with the Trump administration — and many in the base were disappointed when Connolly triumphed over Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. The winner is poised to lead efforts to investigate and thwart the Trump administration if Democrats can retake the House majority next year — and ride herd on a chaotic panel that in recent months has featured intense personal attacks between lawmakers and the display of nude photos. 'It's a street fight every day,' said Rep. Lateefah Simon of California when asked about the panel and what it takes to lead it. 'It's every single day being able to expose the hypocrisy of this administration and to tell the truth.' There was a time when Mfume would have been a natural choice for such a moment. First elected to Baltimore's City Council at the age of 30, he quickly butted heads with legendary Mayor William Donald Schaefer. After longtime Rep. Parren Mitchell retired, Mfume easily won the seat in 1986 and within a few years become a national figure due to his chairmanship of the CBC. Ascending to that role just as Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency, he became an important power broker, forcing key concessions in Clinton's 1993 budget and pushing the White House to restore ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. He also clashed with Clinton at times, including over his decision to pull the nomination of prominent Black legal scholar Lani Guinier to a top Justice Department post. But after Democrats lost their House majority in 1994 — and Mfume lost a quixotic bid to enter the party leadership — he decided two years later to forgo a long climb up the seniority ladder. He instead took the helm at the Baltimore-based NAACP, a job thought to better harness his skills at organizing and oratory. Former Maryland state Sen. Jill Carter said Mfume has long had the 'it factor' and 'charisma' that matters in politics. When Carter ran against Mfume in his 2020 House comeback bid, she got a reminder of how well her rival was known in the district and beyond: 'When some of my people did exit polling, they got the response, 'Oh, we love Jill but, come on, this is Kweisi.'' What's less clear is whether Mfume's reputation in Baltimore, burnished over 45 years in the public eye, makes him the man for the moment as far as his contemporary House colleagues are concerned. He's not known as a partisan brawler, and he said in the interview he doesn't intend to become one. 'There are always going to be fights and disagreements,' he said. 'It's kind of escalated in the last few years to a level that we haven't seen before. I think the main thing is to moderate and to manage the disagreements, because you're not going to cause any of them to go away. How you manage them and how they are perceived by the overall public is what makes a difference.' Mfume is leaning heavily, in fact, on the style and reputation of the man who filled the 7th District seat for the 24 years in between his House stints — the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, who served as top Democrat and then chair of Oversight during Trump's first term and is still spoken of in reverent terms inside the caucus. Mfume concedes that Cummings might have been the better communicator — he 'had a little more preacher in him than I do' — but said they share a similar lofty approach to politics. Like Cummings, he suggested prescription drug prices might be a committee priority. What Mfume is unlikely to have is the official support of the Congressional Black Caucus, a powerful force in intracaucus politics. With two members in the race — Crockett also belongs — Mfume said he does not expect a formal CBC endorsement after an interview process Wednesday. But he still expected to draw support from the bloc — especially its more senior members. Other factors complicate Mfume's candidacy. One is age: He is a year older than Connolly was when he was elected to lead Oversight Democrats last year. For those who prize seniority, Lynch has actually spent more time on the panel. And his 2004 departure from the NAACP was marred by controversy: The Baltimore Sun reported the executive committee of the group voted not to extend his contract under threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit; the NAACP later paid the woman who complained a $100,000 settlement. Mfume strenuously denied any wrongdoing, but while the episode has not emerged as a major issue in the Oversight race, some Democrats have privately expressed reservations about elevating a leader with personal baggage to potentially lead investigations of Trump. 'There's never been one person to corroborate that one allegation — not one,' Mfume said. About the payment, he said, 'I found out about it, quite frankly, after it happened.' Much of the Democratic Caucus remains undecided ahead of the June 24 secret-ballot vote. Candidates will first go before Democrats' Steering and Policy Committee, which will make a recommendation to the full caucus. 'I think that you have a situation where Mfume and Steve Lynch are getting support from folks who put seniority at top, and maybe the other two candidates would probably lean toward members who are newer, and then you got a whole host of folks that's in the middle. And I think that's where the battle is to see where they fall,' said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.). One younger member said he was swayed by Mfume's experience. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is 48 and had weighed his own bid, said that while other candidates were compelling, the Baltimorean had a 'leg up.' 'Kweisi shows me pictures of him with Nelson Mandela,' he said. 'I was like, I'm not going to run against Nelson Mandela's best friend.'
