Fired federal workers can help save the country if they do one last thing: run for office
Protesters rally outside of the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo by.
If you're a fired federal worker or you quit in disgust, I have an idea for you: Run for office.
Both parties here in Minnesota and nationally are badly in need of a fresh crop of activists and candidates who understand governance and believe in it passionately.
Federal employees are often highly skilled, knowledgeable and focused on service to their country and their communities.
Despite the ceaseless anti-government rhetoric, Uncle Sam's achievements during the past century are impressive: Federal workers stabilized the banking system; beat the fascists; split the atom; built a massive network of transcontinental highways; significantly reduced elderly poverty with Social Security and Medicare; unwound apartheid (mostly) in the old Confederacy; seeded commercial air travel and made it safe; developed life-saving vaccines and other medicines; invented GPS; put a man on the moon; significantly reduced air pollution and lead poisoning; achieved increasingly sophisticated weather forecasts; helped to liberate — without firing a shot — the Eastern Bloc.
The U.S. government has also done a bunch of foolish and evil things — sometimes while carrying out the above, like putting highways through urban neighborhoods — but that was usually the result of elected officials making foolish and/or evil decisions, not the civil service workers who were merely carrying out their policies.
Indeed, federal civil servants take an oath and are prohibited from partisan politicking, which is why they can't heed my advice about running until they leave.
'I've worked under Republican and Democratic administrations, and they have their own agenda and priorities, and we perform the work they ask us to do,' said Ruark Hotopp, a vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees, who organizes federal workers in Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa and Nebraska. For two decades he has worked at U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, which investigates immigration cases.
A Minnesota data scientist who recently accepted the deferred resignation from his federal job out of frustration told the Reformer's Chris Ingraham this week that his work could have actually contributed to DOGE's alleged aims: 'We can ask questions that are valuable to whatever outcomes you want to get. Maybe I disagree with that outcome, but as a researcher or somebody who likes to answer questions I'm happy to explore them. I'm also happy to be like 'that program doesn't work, we should do something better.' But there appears to be no interest in actually asking questions or learning.'
Hotopp said he lives by the credo of an old boss, who said it's fine to have political bumper sticker, 'But when you come through these doors, that's where it ends.'
This ethos of apolitical, selfless service is foreign to the likes of Elon Musk and President Trump, who's alleged by American generals to have insulted the sacrifice of service members.
Indeed, around 30% of the federal workforce are veterans. (Proud disclosure: This group of federal worker/veterans includes two of my siblings.)
Both the military and federal workers spend a lot of time preparing the country for events that may never happen but which the federal government is singularly suited to manage: wars, famines, natural disasters, pandemics. This long view of risk management would be helpful to legislative bodies that often struggle to think beyond the next election.
Former federal workers also offer a framework of servant-leadership that we need among elected officials right now, from school boards to the Legislature to Congress and the presidency.
Politics tends to attract people who want attention, now exacerbated by social media. Federal workers, by contrast, typically labor away in obscurity; not only do they rarely receive the credit they deserve — they are often treated with scorn, and never more than now.
If there's a silver lining to this nightmare, federal workers are finally getting some of the recognition they deserve.
The majority of the civilian federal workforce are in defense, homeland security and care for veterans. Others ensure food safety, conduct cutting-edge scientific research, safely land passenger jets, investigate and dismantle drug and gun networks. Do these sound like valuable services?
(Also, just fyi: Federal civilian employee compensation is just 4.5% of the federal budget. And the federal government's civilian head count is roughly 2.25 million, or the same as in 1969 when the American population was just a bit over 200 million, compared to 340 million today.)
About four out of five work outside the Washington area.
'We coach your kids' Little League teams. We go to the same churches and synagogues and we're like everyone else,' Hotopp said.
The 'deep state' label, Hotopp said, is reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when civil servants were smeared by Wisconsin's most famous drunk, U.S. Sen. Joe McCarthy.
If they want to serve our country again and with honor in the face of creeping autocracy, I urge the people who have been fired or resigned from the federal workforce to run for office.
Ultimately, we need them in Congress, where they can bring their expertise to bear on federal issues and public administration that's sorely lacking in either chamber, where the most common occupations are lawyer, rich guy and career elected official.
But even here in Minnesota, candidates with experience as federal workers would bring valuable insight about the interplay between the state and federal government. And they could help their colleagues understand the challenges and opportunities of implementing and administering the Legislature's many brilliant and less brilliant ideas.
Run (former) federal workers, run!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda
By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to enact his tax-cut agenda in a political push that has largely abandoned longtime party claims of fiscal discipline, by simply denying warnings that the measure will balloon the federal debt. The drive has drawn the ire of Elon Musk, a once-close Trump ally and the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election, who gave a boost to a handful of party deficit hawks opposed to the bill by publicly denigrating it as a "disgusting abomination," opening a public feud with Trump. But top congressional Republicans remain determined to squeeze Trump's campaign promises through their narrow majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by July 4, while shrugging off warnings from the official Congressional Budget Office and a host of outside economists and budget experts. "All the talk about how this bill is going to generate an increase in our deficit is absolutely wrong," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo told reporters after a meeting with Trump last week. Outside Washington, financial markets have raised red flags about the nation's rising debt, most notably when Moody's cut its pristine "Aaa" U.S. credit rating. The bill also aims to raise the government's self-imposed debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, a step Congress must take by summer or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. "Debt and deficits don't seem to matter for the current Republican leadership, including the president of the United States," said Bill Hoagland, a former Senate Republican aide who worked on fiscal bills including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The few remaining Senate Republican fiscal hawks could be enough to block the bill's passage in a chamber the party controls 53-47. But some have appeared to be warming to the legislation, saying the spending cuts they seek may need to wait for future bills. "We need a couple bites of the apple here," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a prominent fiscal hardliner. Republicans who pledged fiscal responsibility in the 1990s secured a few years of budget surpluses under Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Deficits returned after Republican President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the debt has pushed higher since under Democratic and Republican administrations. "Thirty years have shown that it's a lot easier to talk about these things when you're out of power than to actually do something about them when you're in," said Jonathan Burks, who was a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan when Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted into law in 2017. "Both parties have really pushed us in the wrong direction on the debt problem," he said. Burks and Hoagland are now on the staff of the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. DEBT SET TO DOUBLE Crapo's denial of the cost of the Trump bill came hours after CBO reported that the legislation the House passed by a single vote last month would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Interest costs would bring the full price tag to $3 trillion, it said. The cost will rise even higher - reaching $5 trillion over a decade - if Senate Republicans can persuade Trump to make the bill's temporary business tax breaks permanent, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The CRFB projects that if Senate Republicans get their way, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act could drive the federal debt to $46.9 trillion in 2029, the end of Trump's term. That is more than double the $20.2 trillion debt level of Trump's first year at the White House in 2017. Majorities of Americans of both parties -- 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats -- said they were concerned about the growing government debt in a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month. Analysts say voters worry less about debt than about retaining benefits such as Medicaid healthcare coverage for working Americans, who helped elect Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress. "Their concern is inflation," Hoagland said. "Their concern is affordability of healthcare." The two problems are linked: As investors worry about the nation's growing debt burden, they demand higher returns on government bonds, which likely means households will pay more for their home mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances. Republican denial of the deficit forecasts rests largely on two arguments about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that independent analysts say are misleading. One insists that CBO projections are not to be trusted because researchers predicted in 2018 that the TCJA would lose $1.8 trillion in revenue by 2024, while actual revenue for that year came in $1.5 trillion higher. "CBO scores, when we're dealing with taxes, have lost credibility," Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin told reporters last week. But independent analysts say the unexpected revenue gains resulted from a post-COVID inflation surge that pushed households into higher tax brackets and other factors unrelated to the tax legislation. Top Republicans also claim that extending the 2017 tax cuts and adding new breaks included in the House bill will stimulate economic growth, raising tax revenues and paying for the bill. Despite similar arguments in 2017, CBO estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects. Economists say the impact of the current bill will be more muted, because most of the tax provisions extend current tax rates rather lowering rates. "We find the package as it currently exists does boost the economy, but relatively modestly ... it does not pay for itself," said William McBride, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The legislation has also raised concerns among budget experts about a potential debt spiral. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the danger of fiscal crisis has been heightened by a potential rise in global interest rates. "This greatly increases the cost of having a high debt and of running high deficits and would accelerate the point at which we really got into trouble," said Obstfeld, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bengals' Trey Hendrickson contract standoff gets a hot take from VP JD Vance
Cincinnati Bengals defensive end Trey Hendrickson now has politicians talking about his contract standoff with the team. Appearing on Theo Von's podcast this week, Vice President JD Vance joked around about the contract standoff, with the Middletown, Ohio, politician expressing optimism about the Bengals in the process. Advertisement "Trey, if you're watching this show: If you're a Republican, I will show up to a Bengals game and take a photo with you if you sign on with the Bengals," Vance joked. "And if you're a Democrat, I'll stay the hell away. Just sign with the Bengals, because we've got a chance, man." RELATED: Bengals news: Jermaine Burton buzz, practice urgency and more As Bengals fans know all too well, though, outside noise doesn't really have a way of impacting how the team does business. That's a rule that will certainly apply to an office as high as Vance's right now, even if he does happen to hail from Ohio. Joe Burrow and others have commented on Hendrickson's standoff with the team recently, too. The next entry in the saga will happen soon when it's revealed if the star pass-rusher shows up to mandatory minicamp or gets fined by the team. Advertisement RELATED: Bengals' Andrei Iosivas adds 15 pounds while eyeing breakout season This article originally appeared on Bengals Wire: Bengals' Trey Hendrickson contract standoff gets a hot take from VP JD Vance
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican lawmaker's raucous town hall reflects challenges in promoting Trump's bill
By Helen Coster MAHOPAC, New York (Reuters) -Democratic voter Joe Mayhew, a union representative living in a New York swing district, was one of several people at a rowdy town hall with Republican Representative Mike Lawler on Sunday keen to point out potential pitfalls with President Donald Trump's budget. He fears proposed changes to Medicaid requirements could have a devastating effect on people unable to work through no fault of their own. "If your cuts to Medicaid pass, a person working in a low-paying job as an individual contractor who falls ill or has work interrupted because it's seasonal, or because it was a job shutdown - something not of any fault of their own - could not make your 80-hour requirement on a particular month," Mayhew, 63, told Lawler at the town hall in Mahopac, New York. Lawler defended the bill's Medicaid provision, which requires recipients age 19-64 who have no dependents to work, volunteer or be in school at least 80 hours a month starting in 2027. "The objective is to help people get into the workforce ultimately," he said. The exchange at the Sunday night event, where boos were more common than cheers, reflects the kinds of issues that are vexing some Republicans as they seek to promote and defend Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The two-hour-long town hall, attended by roughly 500 people, was also an indication of how voters in a swing district that narrowly voted for Lawler feel about the bill and Trump's agenda more broadly. Topics ranged from the justification of Trump's June 14 military parade to attacks on higher education, to whether ICE agents should wear masks during raids and how to fund social security in the future. A moderate Republican representing New York's 17th District, Lawler won re-election in November, defeating former Democratic Representative Mondaire Jones with over 52% of votes. He has expressed interest in running for governor. Lawler's district was the scene of one of the 2022 general election's biggest upsets when he beat Democratic Representative Sean Patrick Maloney – who was head of the Democrats' House campaign arm. Lawler has scheduled four public town hall meetings with voters this year, despite guidance from U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who urged fellow Republican lawmakers to avoid them after some events turned into angry confrontations over Trump's moves to fire federal workers and defund government programs. Lawler's two previous town halls were even more raucous events where several attendees were removed by law enforcement. FIELDING JEERS Trump's 1,100-page bill passed in May in a 215-214 vote, and will add about $3.8 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would extend corporate and individual tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump's first term in office, cancel many green-energy incentives passed by Democratic former President Joe Biden and tighten eligibility for health and food programs for the poor. Tesla and SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination" last week, prior to the two men exchanging public insults. Other Republican representatives have also had to field jeers at town halls. During a May 28 town hall in Decorah, Iowa, Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson was booed after she told attendees: 'I was also proud to vote for President Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' last week.' The previous day, Republican Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska told attendees at his town hall that when he voted for the bill, he was unaware it would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. The response was met with boos from the crowd, with one attendee calling his behavior 'ridiculous.' Flood said he would work to ensure the provision isn't in the final version of the bill. That said, such town halls have been few and far between. Lawler said he felt it was important to have this type of forum. "Almost all of my colleagues are not doing it, and I've been asked why I would do it. But this is your right to come and engage in this dialog. So that's why we're here." He also noted his work on pushing for increases in the so-called SALT deduction for state and local tax payments. He and other Republicans from Democratic-led, high-tax states had previously threatened to oppose Trump's legislation unless there were increases. Trump's current bill would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $40,000 for state and local tax (SALT) payments, up from $10,000 now, with benefits phasing out for households that make more than $500,000. A previous version of the bill had a cap of $30,000. Lawmakers next need to pass the bill in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority and are planning to use a legislative maneuver to bypass the chamber's 60-vote filibuster threshold for most legislation.