Sounds like s.o.p. (standard operating procedure) for a coup, doesn’t it? Never having been involved in one, I don’t have first-hand knowledge; but it seems about right to me.

And if you’re double-teaming . . . one guy firing all the “unfriendlies” and bringing in his own loyalists, while the other one — the tech expert — sends in his storm troopers to take possession of the essential data . . . it’s that much quicker and easier.

But that’s supposed to be the modus operandi of the oppressed citizenry hoping to replace the old order with a new, more benevolent one . . . not of the people already in charge. It appears, however, that someone forgot to inform Donald Trump and Elon Musk of that little detail.

The two charter members of Washington’s new Billionaire’s Club have made it quite clear from the get-go that they intend to streamline the federal government, cutting costs wherever they choose, by whatever means they choose, without considering the human cost or the trickle-down effect of their actions.

Coming from two titans of business, that seems like the poorest of strategies.

But aside from the personal and economic effects of their slash-and-burn methods, what is more frightening is the fact that it was Musk — a person with no legitimate governmental authority — who sent in his team to lock career civil servants out of the computer systems at OPM — the Office of Personnel Management — that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees. Even some of the most senior career employees have had their access to some systems revoked, leaving Musk and his team of techies in possession of all of that data, and no oversight as to how it is going to be used . . . or by whom. [Tim Reid, Reuters, January 31, 2025.]

And, as he has done with others who have been earmarked for termination since his inauguration a short eleven days ago, Trump has utilized a unique way of getting rid of the existing staff: he has offered them the option of accepting a buyout (apparently eight months with pay) in lieu of being fired. In fact, the OPM memos that went out encouraged personnel to accept the offer and “take a vacation to a ‘dream destination.’” [Id.]

I think I’d be more inclined to use the money to pay the rent while I looked for a new job . . . but that’s just me.

Now, I’m no mathematical genius, but this is all too simple. If you have, just as an example, 100 employees, each earning $60,000 a year (which is modest by Washington standards, but I’m just hypothesizing), being given eight months’ full pay, that’s going to add up to around $4,000,000 for people doing absolutely nothing. And that’s in addition to the full salaries and benefits that will be paid to the new people coming in to replace them.

So someone please tell me: How is that cutting costs?

Simple answer: It isn’t. What it is, though, is clearing the way to bring in your own people, people loyal to you through thick and thin . . . or at least until they wake up one morning and realize that “loyalty” means something entirely different to you than it does to most people, and suddenly their jobs are also in jeopardy.

But they should have understood from the start that they were placing their faith in a former “reality” TV star whose two favorite words were:

“You’re fired!”

But this isn’t a privately-owned corporation, or a TV show; it’s the federal government. So my question is:

Is it even legal?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
2/1/25