Latest news with #RecodingAmerica
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump never promised mass federal layoffs, and they won't fulfill his agenda, either
Leading up to the November election, the one issue voters cared about most was the cost of living. For Republican voters, immigration was a close second. Concerns about government inefficiency did not even make the list. Months into the new administration, however, one of its top priorities is improving government efficiency, and its basic approach is to reduce the size of government through mass layoffs. The assumption seems to be that the government can operate just as efficiently with fewer employees. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if our government is inefficient not because it has too many employees, but has too many employees because it is so inefficient? All of us interact with the government at different levels, and all of us know the feeling of being caught in a maze of dead ends. Years ago, my company tried to purchase one-tenth of an acre of land from the New York State Thruway Authority to put up a sign. The parcel was completely landlocked, and the authority no longer needed it. When we asked the authority how long it would take to buy the land, they said five years, which we found hard to imagine. It took over six. From start to finish, we found the process unbelievably frustrating. But we didn't come away wishing the authority had fewer employees. We came away angry that the state legislature, which established the authority and sets rules for its operation, takes no interest in how it actually works. For the federal government, Congress sets the rules. Congress may include specific rules for the executive branch to follow in carrying out its legislation, or it may delegate large areas of rule-making to the agencies themselves. Either way, the number and complexity of agency rules are key factors in determining how many people government agencies employ and whether they can efficiently deliver results. Moreover, new regulations are often layered on top of old ones without any thought of how they will work together. Another factor in making government work is the strength or weakness of its information systems. In 'Recoding America,' Jennifer Pahlka examines why high-minded policies so often fail to deliver on their goals. Sometimes, bad results are front-page news, such as the crash of when people tried to enroll in health care exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. More often, however, government systems deliver results in ways that are slow, confusing and frustrating, both for employees providing services and for people trying to use them. Part of the problem, again, is 'layers of policy, regulation, procedure and process that have accrued over decades,' making any technology hard to use. But Pahlka found overlaps in technology as well, with some systems dating back to the 1980s. Comparing new technologies to layers of paint, she writes that each new addition 'depends on everything that came before it, so each successive layer is constrained by the limitations of the earlier technologies.' Over time, the layers become so complex and brittle that the paint finally cracks. For people offering tech support to the federal government, overhauling this patchwork of systems would be a good place to start. After decades of deferred maintenance, however, fixing it will not save money in the short term. Improvements will be costly, time-consuming, and will require hanging on to the few employees who still know how everything works, rather than offering blanket early retirement incentives and imposing mass layoffs. A serious effort to make government work better would begin with these two steps: peeling back layers of complex regulations and updating the technologies needed to deliver better results. Cutting jobs without taking these steps first won't create efficiencies. Instead, it will leave fewer people in place to do the same amount of work. Furthermore, sudden cuts to ongoing programs and capital projects create their own type of waste by disrupting supply chains, investment decisions and hiring commitments. Devoting so much energy to layoffs and funding cuts also takes attention away from the issues that helped decide the 2024 election in the first place. On immigration, the administration can take credit for the large drop in illegal crossings at the southern border. But on other issues, including employment-based immigration and the fate of more than 11 million people already living illegally in the U.S., public opinion is far more divided, and these problems cannot be fixed by executive orders alone because responsibility for immigration laws rests with Congress, not the executive branch. Relying solely on executive orders will leave the administration liable to claims that it is both overreaching its authority and, in a grim sort of protection scheme, shielding Republican members of Congress from voting on difficult issues. The prospects for curbing inflation are no better. Tariffs, tax cuts, reduced immigrant labor and pressures on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low all work against the promise to keep inflation in check. Recognizing the trade-offs, a frustrated President Trump said in March that he 'couldn't care less' about higher car prices. Voters who were concerned about inflation last November may not agree. Howard Konar is co-owner of a family real estate development company in Rochester, New York and author of 'Common Ground, An Alternative to Partisan Politics.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump never promised mass federal layoffs, and they won't fulfill his agenda, either
Leading up to the November election, the one issue voters cared about most was the cost of living. For Republican voters, immigration was a close second. Concerns about government inefficiency did not even make the list. Months into the new administration, however, one of its top priorities is improving government efficiency, and its basic approach is to reduce the size of government through mass layoffs. The assumption seems to be that the government can operate just as efficiently with fewer employees. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if our government is inefficient not because it has too many employees, but has too many employees because it is so inefficient? All of us interact with the government at different levels, and all of us know the feeling of being caught in a maze of dead ends. Years ago, my company tried to purchase one-tenth of an acre of land from the New York State Thruway Authority to put up a sign. The parcel was completely landlocked, and the authority no longer needed it. When we asked the authority how long it would take to buy the land, they said five years, which we found hard to imagine. It took over six. From start to finish, we found the process unbelievably frustrating. But we didn't come away wishing the authority had fewer employees. We came away angry that the state legislature, which established the authority and sets rules for its operation, takes no interest in how it actually works. For the federal government, Congress sets the rules. Congress may include specific rules for the executive branch to follow in carrying out its legislation, or it may delegate large areas of rule-making to the agencies themselves. Either way, the number and complexity of agency rules are key factors in determining how many people government agencies employ and whether they can efficiently deliver results. Moreover, new regulations are often layered on top of old ones without any thought of how they will work together. Another factor in making government work is the strength or weakness of its information systems. In 'Recoding America,' Jennifer Pahlka examines why high-minded policies so often fail to deliver on their goals. Sometimes, bad results are front-page news, such as the crash of when people tried to enroll in health care exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. More often, however, government systems deliver results in ways that are slow, confusing and frustrating, both for employees providing services and for people trying to use them. Part of the problem, again, is 'layers of policy, regulation, procedure and process that have accrued over decades,' making any technology hard to use. But Pahlka found overlaps in technology as well, with some systems dating back to the 1980s. Comparing new technologies to layers of paint, she writes that each new addition 'depends on everything that came before it, so each successive layer is constrained by the limitations of the earlier technologies.' Over time, the layers become so complex and brittle that the paint finally cracks. For people offering tech support to the federal government, overhauling this patchwork of systems would be a good place to start. After decades of deferred maintenance, however, fixing it will not save money in the short term. Improvements will be costly, time-consuming, and will require hanging on to the few employees who still know how everything works, rather than offering blanket early retirement incentives and imposing mass layoffs. A serious effort to make government work better would begin with these two steps: peeling back layers of complex regulations and updating the technologies needed to deliver better results. Cutting jobs without taking these steps first won't create efficiencies. Instead, it will leave fewer people in place to do the same amount of work. Furthermore, sudden cuts to ongoing programs and capital projects create their own type of waste by disrupting supply chains, investment decisions and hiring commitments. Devoting so much energy to layoffs and funding cuts also takes attention away from the issues that helped decide the 2024 election in the first place. On immigration, the administration can take credit for the large drop in illegal crossings at the southern border. But on other issues, including employment-based immigration and the fate of more than 11 million people already living illegally in the U.S., public opinion is far more divided, and these problems cannot be fixed by executive orders alone because responsibility for immigration laws rests with Congress, not the executive branch. Relying solely on executive orders will leave the administration liable to claims that it is both overreaching its authority and, in a grim sort of protection scheme, shielding Republican members of Congress from voting on difficult issues. The prospects for curbing inflation are no better. Tariffs, tax cuts, reduced immigrant labor and pressures on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low all work against the promise to keep inflation in check. Recognizing the trade-offs, a frustrated President Trump said in March that he 'couldn't care less' about higher car prices. Voters who were concerned about inflation last November may not agree. Howard Konar is co-owner of a family real estate development company in Rochester, New York and author of 'Common Ground, An Alternative to Partisan Politics.'
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
She co-founded the office that became DOGE. Now, she sees ‘irresponsible transformation.'
Jennifer Pahlka is perhaps best known as the founder of Code for America, a widely respected nonprofit that helped formalize the principles of civic tech, a movement leveraging design and technology expertise to improve public access to government services and data. Notably, the organization reimagined the online application for California's food assistance program, which once had one of the country's lowest participation rates, transforming it from a 45-minute endeavor requiring a computer to a mobile-friendly process that can be completed in under 10 minutes. Pahlka's 2023 book, 'Recoding America,' outlines her views on why the government so often fails to achieve its policy goals in the digital age. In it, she argues that "archaeological" layers of policies, regulations, and processes center the bureaucracy, not the public. As a deputy chief technology officer under President Barack Obama, Pahlka helped launch the United States Digital Service, a unit within the White House that paired top technology talent with federal agencies to make government services more efficient and user-friendly. It was the predecessor to Elon Musk's 'Department of Government Efficiency,' or DOGE. On Feb. 25, 21 employees resigned from the renamed service, saying they would not 'carry out or legitimize DOGE's actions.' Pahlka believes bolstering the government's tech chops and relying less on contractors could save taxpayer dollars. However, as the administration looks to slash spending, she worries that DOGE's 'very indiscriminate' approach to date could wind up harming people who rely on public benefits such as Medicaid. KFF Health News spoke to Pahlka, now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Niskanen Center, about what she sees as 'irresponsible transformation' and how best to fast-track government reform. This interview, conducted in mid-February, has been edited for length and clarity. A: It's really easy to look from the outside of government and say, 'That's crazy it works that way. I'm going to go in and fix it.' And when you get in, it's that way for a reason, and you gain so much more empathy and sympathy for people in public service. You realize that people who you thought were obstructionists actually are just trying to do their jobs. Civil servants deserve respect. We're just not transforming government fast enough. A: One, you have to be able to hire the right people and fire the wrong ones. You also have to be able to reduce procedural bloat. When the unemployment insurance crisis hit, every state's labor commissioner got called in front of the legislature and yelled at for the backlog. Rob Asaro-Angelo in New Jersey brought boxes and boxes of paper — 7,119 pages of active regs. And when they kept yelling, he kept pointing them to them and saying, 'You can't be scalable with 7,119 pages of regulations.' The third pillar is investment in digital and data infrastructure. And the fourth is closing the loop between policy and implementation. In California, you get thousands of bills introduced every year in the legislature. We don't need that many. We need legislators to follow up on bills that have already been passed, see if they're working, tweak them if they're not. They need to go into agencies and say, 'If this is hard for you to do, what mandates and constraints can we remove so you can make this a priority?' A: When we started working on California's SNAP application, it was 212 questions. It started from, 'What are all the policies that we need to comply with?' Instead of, 'How would this be easy for someone to use?' I think it can always be helpful to have fresh eyes on something. If those eyes have experience in consumer technology, they're going to see through that lens of, 'How do we deliver something that is easy for people to use?' A: Let me say what I hope for: I hope that the states now get that when we don't transform fast enough in a responsible way, you are inviting irresponsible transformation. I hope this gives governors and mayors all over the country a kick in the butt to say, 'Whatever we have done so far, it has been insufficient. We really need to work on the capacity of our state to deliver in a modern era.' A: Maybe there is good stuff that DOGE is doing now that I don't know about or good stuff that they will do in the future. I don't have a crystal ball. But I do see that there is a huge difference between illegally stopping payments without Congress' permission and making an IT system work better. A: I think the thesis that better technology could reduce waste, fraud, and abuse is sound, but you want to see both better use of technology to ensure that taxpayer dollars aren't wasted, and that people who need their benefits are going to get them. You need a North Star that includes both of those things. A: They have not expressed great care for what damage can happen to people who rely on benefits. I'm just seeing large, very indiscriminate cuts. They have signaled that government needs its own internal tech capacity and that it's shocking how reliant on contractors our government is. I would agree with that. We have a very dysfunctional government technology contracting ecosystem. There's this set of big firms that we've outsourced our technology to that get to charge taxpayers a shocking amount of money to implement changes. A: We've overrelied on the idea that we should bring people in from the outside and underinvested in helping career civil servants to do transformation work themselves. When I wrote my book, the biggest hero was Yadira Sánchez, who I think now has been at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for 25 years. She's a leader who really pushes for the kinds of decisions that are going to make a service for doctors that's going to be usable. She gets pushback and comes back and says, 'If you make that decision, we are going to alienate doctors. They're going to stop taking Medicare patients. And we've got to do it this different way.' We need more of her, and we need to empower lots of people like that. This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. KFF Health News is the publisher of California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. This story was originally featured on
