I don’t know the answer to this. I raise it here to focus us on the question, even though I don’t have the answer to the question. I’d also invite anyone who has a clearer understanding of the federal statutes to get in touch and explain them to me. As I noted below, Trump White House officials this morning ordered staff at the Office of Personnel Management (the federal HR office) to prepare plans to cut the agency’s staff and the programs it administers by 70%. And to do it fast. Executive staff at the agency have the weekend to devise the plans.
Now, is this legal? It would seem to me that reducing the staff size of a key government agency by 70% raises all the same equities and legal problems as impoundment (refusing to spend money that is obligated to be spent by laws passed by Congress). Is that true? I don’t see how it wouldn’t be. But my logic isn’t controlling here. Curious to hear from those who know these aspects of federal law and also the Impoundment Act. (Just this afternoon a federal district judge issued a restraining order blocking the budget freezes.)
What has gotten very little attention is that the entire federal government is now operating under a continuing resolution which expires in March. Federal workers are now being advised that there’s no legal authority for any of these “buy out” offers past March. So on the off chance the offers are even legal, they won’t be paid. It also reminds us that how all of this works is through budgets. If you want to cut the federal workforce by 70% that’s totally legal and straightforward. You do it in the budget. If you want money for Musk’s buyouts, you do it in the budget. That’s coming up real soon. So is the debt limit. That’s why Republicans want to combine them. And they also don’t think they can manage the debt limit without Democrats’ help.
All of this points toward the big battle coming in this cluster of deadlines in late February and March.
