Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Hey, CID, I read the WSJ article yesterday about the survey of State and USAID employees. Did you turn in a questionnaire?

Is this more than typical grumbling about the lack of support and technology, or are some bureaucrats really concerned about losing their jobs in the scheduled round of budget cuts?

Should USAID be formally merged into DOS? Why or why not?

Is Tillerson generally respected or not? I mean, State isn't the only department with a lot of unfilled positions under the Trump administration.

I took T-Rex's listening tour survey a few months back and listened to his preliminary result presentation earlier this week. He said "he came in with no preconceived notions" but it's obvious he's on a mission to eliminate positions.

Can some be eliminated? Of course they can.

Will USAID be merged with State? Really two totally different missions though they both fall under "diplomacy". We haven't heard anything about a merge, but I wouldn't rule it out.

One thing that is certain is that some programs will be eliminated as soon as FY18 (i.e. in three months) based on the budget; namely things that Republicans all agree on like climate programs. USAID's global climate program is almost certainly gone. McConnell, though, has gone on record as saying that he will not allow Trump to make massive cuts to foreign assistance and diplomacy. The 37% cuts proposed by Trump will be knocked down, probably significantly. There will be GOP pushback on that for sure. We're probably heading toward some nice shutdowns here shortly.

Ivytalk wrote:Hey, CID, I read the WSJ article yesterday about the survey of State and USAID employees. Did you turn in a questionnaire?

Is this more than typical grumbling about the lack of support and technology, or are some bureaucrats really concerned about losing their jobs in the scheduled round of budget cuts?

Should USAID be formally merged into DOS? Why or why not?

Is Tillerson generally respected or not? I mean, State isn't the only department with a lot of unfilled positions under the Trump administration.

I did.

Based on my anecdotal experience, I'd say DoS is mostly liberal. Given that, there's a lot of hyperbole and hysterics going on out there on social media about State getting dismantled.

There's also a number of officers of both stripes that acknowledge that there's a good percentage of DoS that is either redundant (like 20-some odd special envoys offices that are unnecessary) or just not really related to actual diplomacy.

The QDDR lists several "key" functions of the State Department and if you drill down into them, you see that only three or four of those evaluated functions have much if anything to do with diplomacy.

So even the most hardcore anti Admin types at DoS will grudgingly admit that we have some things that can be trimmed. But nobody wants THEIR particular fat trimmed.

I don't have a problem with a DoS-USAID merger, but it would double the bureaucratic morass we have. I guess I'm neutral on that matter but I'm sure a merger is being seen as reducing costs.

I like Tillerson- I think he's of similar caliber to Mattis, just in a different field. Many people here are opposed to him simply "because Trump", with little examination of what he's trying to achieve. There is also little acknowledgement of the fact that he's done two major overseas trips in the last few months with much less staff than his predecessors, and does not appear to have caused any international incidents as a result of not being surrounded by a hundred largely redundant bureaucrats.

I've talked with a few people who have been negative about Tillerson and my take on it is that even if you disagree with him on policy (foreign or internal) he still deserves the FULL support of the career cadre- it is bad enough he is getting static from the WH... he doesn't need it from inside the building-

because if he quits .... his replacement will NOT be an improvement.

I like to say, "Imagine Secretary Sarah Palin"

That usually gets people's attention

CID1990 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Hey, CID, I read the WSJ article yesterday about the survey of State and USAID employees. Did you turn in a questionnaire?

Is this more than typical grumbling about the lack of support and technology, or are some bureaucrats really concerned about losing their jobs in the scheduled round of budget cuts?

Should USAID be formally merged into DOS? Why or why not?

Is Tillerson generally respected or not? I mean, State isn't the only department with a lot of unfilled positions under the Trump administration.

I did.

Based on my anecdotal experience, I'd say DoS is mostly liberal. Given that, there's a lot of hyperbole and hysterics going on out there on social media about State getting dismantled.

There's also a number of officers of both stripes that acknowledge that there's a good percentage of DoS that is either redundant (like 20-some odd special envoys offices that are unnecessary) or just not really related to actual diplomacy.

The QDDR lists several "key" functions of the State Department and if you drill down into them, you see that only three or four of those evaluated functions have much if anything to do with diplomacy.

So even the most hardcore anti Admin types at DoS will grudgingly admit that we have some things that can be trimmed. But nobody wants THEIR particular fat trimmed.

I don't have a problem with a DoS-USAID merger, but it would double the bureaucratic morass we have. I guess I'm neutral on that matter but I'm sure a merger is being seen as reducing costs.

I like Tillerson- I think he's of similar caliber to Mattis, just in a different field. Many people here are opposed to him simply "because Trump", with little examination of what he's trying to achieve. There is also little acknowledgement of the fact that he's done two major overseas trips in the last few months with much less staff than his predecessors, and does not appear to have caused any international incidents as a result of not being surrounded by a hundred largely redundant bureaucrats.

I've talked with a few people who have been negative about Tillerson and my take on it is that even if you disagree with him on policy (foreign or internal) he still deserves the FULL support of the career cadre- it is bad enough he is getting static from the WH... he doesn't need it from inside the building-

because if he quits .... his replacement will NOT be an improvement.

I like to say, "Imagine Secretary Sarah Palin"

That usually gets people's attention

Good summary, CID. I have to admit that I like Tillerson more than I thought I would. He's surely a couple of steps ahead of Kerry, who always seemed to be measuring the drapes for a Nobel that never came.

CID1990 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Hey, CID, I read the WSJ article yesterday about the survey of State and USAID employees. Did you turn in a questionnaire?

Is this more than typical grumbling about the lack of support and technology, or are some bureaucrats really concerned about losing their jobs in the scheduled round of budget cuts?

Should USAID be formally merged into DOS? Why or why not?

Is Tillerson generally respected or not? I mean, State isn't the only department with a lot of unfilled positions under the Trump administration.

I did.

Based on my anecdotal experience, I'd say DoS is mostly liberal. Given that, there's a lot of hyperbole and hysterics going on out there on social media about State getting dismantled.

There's also a number of officers of both stripes that acknowledge that there's a good percentage of DoS that is either redundant (like 20-some odd special envoys offices that are unnecessary) or just not really related to actual diplomacy.

The QDDR lists several "key" functions of the State Department and if you drill down into them, you see that only three or four of those evaluated functions have much if anything to do with diplomacy.

So even the most hardcore anti Admin types at DoS will grudgingly admit that we have some things that can be trimmed. But nobody wants THEIR particular fat trimmed.

I don't have a problem with a DoS-USAID merger, but it would double the bureaucratic morass we have. I guess I'm neutral on that matter but I'm sure a merger is being seen as reducing costs.

I like Tillerson- I think he's of similar caliber to Mattis, just in a different field. Many people here are opposed to him simply "because Trump", with little examination of what he's trying to achieve. There is also little acknowledgement of the fact that he's done two major overseas trips in the last few months with much less staff than his predecessors, and does not appear to have caused any international incidents as a result of not being surrounded by a hundred largely redundant bureaucrats.

I've talked with a few people who have been negative about Tillerson and my take on it is that even if you disagree with him on policy (foreign or internal) he still deserves the FULL support of the career cadre- it is bad enough he is getting static from the WH... he doesn't need it from inside the building-

because if he quits .... his replacement will NOT be an improvement.

I like to say, "Imagine Secretary Sarah Palin"

That usually gets people's attention

If Putin and Tillerson cut a deal for their respective oil companies does Trump get a piece of the action?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I did.

Based on my anecdotal experience, I'd say DoS is mostly liberal. Given that, there's a lot of hyperbole and hysterics going on out there on social media about State getting dismantled.

There's also a number of officers of both stripes that acknowledge that there's a good percentage of DoS that is either redundant (like 20-some odd special envoys offices that are unnecessary) or just not really related to actual diplomacy.

The QDDR lists several "key" functions of the State Department and if you drill down into them, you see that only three or four of those evaluated functions have much if anything to do with diplomacy.

So even the most hardcore anti Admin types at DoS will grudgingly admit that we have some things that can be trimmed. But nobody wants THEIR particular fat trimmed.

I don't have a problem with a DoS-USAID merger, but it would double the bureaucratic morass we have. I guess I'm neutral on that matter but I'm sure a merger is being seen as reducing costs.

I like Tillerson- I think he's of similar caliber to Mattis, just in a different field. Many people here are opposed to him simply "because Trump", with little examination of what he's trying to achieve. There is also little acknowledgement of the fact that he's done two major overseas trips in the last few months with much less staff than his predecessors, and does not appear to have caused any international incidents as a result of not being surrounded by a hundred largely redundant bureaucrats.

I've talked with a few people who have been negative about Tillerson and my take on it is that even if you disagree with him on policy (foreign or internal) he still deserves the FULL support of the career cadre- it is bad enough he is getting static from the WH... he doesn't need it from inside the building-

because if he quits .... his replacement will NOT be an improvement.

I like to say, "Imagine Secretary Sarah Palin"

That usually gets people's attention

If Putin and Tillerson cut a deal for their respective oil companies does Trump get a piece of the action?

The hyperbole coming from career foreign service officers is more intelligent than yours.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If Putin and Tillerson cut a deal for their respective oil companies does Trump get a piece of the action?

The hyperbole coming from career foreign service officers is more intelligent than yours.

Lots of time to work on it with that soft gubmint gig. I'm surprised you aren't better at it.