Trust in Government

Government Employees Think People Hate Them. Increasingly, They're Right

Many arms of government are unpopular with large swathes of the American population.


"People actively hate us," one recently retired U.S. Border Patrol agent complains in a New York Times piece on morale and recruitment problems at the federal agency. In El Paso, an active duty agent admitted he and his colleagues avoid many restaurants because "there's always the possibility of them spitting in your food."

What's remarkable about the piece isn't the poor treatment directed at many Border Patrol agents; it's that you could replace "Border Patrol" with the name of any one of several other federal agencies and find a similar news story from recent years. Many arms of government are unpopular with large swathes of the American population, and people are not shy about expressing their contempt.

For those of us who want a smaller, much less intrusive government, that should be viewed as a trend to nurture and encourage. And what a trend it is.

For instance, the tax man can't catch a break.

"The IRS has long been disliked, but its employees aren't used to being vilified," Bloomberg reported in 2015, in language that foreshadowed current reports about the plight of immigration-law enforcers. One retired IRS agent told reporters that "throughout his career, he dealt with antigovernment tax avoiders in Arizona, but once the Tea Party scandal broke, his encounters with otherwise law-abiding ranchers became more hostile."

Likewise, J. Edgar Hoover's heirs have become controversial.

"Public support for the FBI has plunged," Time noted last year after the famed law-enforcement agency's ongoing series of fumbles and scandals were complicated by questions over its role in the 2016 presidential election. "The FBI's crisis of credibility appears to have seeped into the jury room. The number of convictions in FBI-led investigations has declined in each of the last five years."

That's a lot of hate directed at these federal employees, but it's not necessarily coming from the same people. Perhaps inevitably in these fractured and polarized times, Americans belonging to one of the dominant political tribes tend to like the federal agencies despised by loyalists of the opposing political tribe, depending on their mutually incompatible views of what government should be doing and who it should be doing it to. Their diverging antipathies fit together into a jigsaw puzzle of misery for government workers caught in the crossfire.

"Americans' opinions about Immigration and Customs Enforcement are deeply polarized: 72% of Republicans view ICE favorably, while an identical share of Democrats view it unfavorably," Pew Research Center reported last year on opinions about Border Patrol's sister agency. With specific regard to Border Patrol, "Among Republican voters, 65% believe the enforcement is too lenient while just 12% say it is too harsh. Democrats are more divided but lean in the opposite direction: 40% say too harsh and 22% too lenient," according to pollster Scott Rasmussen. The heated debate between the two legacy parties over immigration is reflected in their attitudes toward, and treatment of, government agencies tasked with enforcing immigration laws.

Opinions of the IRS reflect a similar divide. "Democrats (65%) are more likely than Republicans (49%) to view the IRS favorably," Pew reported in the same 2018 survey. The numbers reflect not just long-time differences in views of taxation, but also Republican suspicion of the IRS after it was caught targeting conservative organizations.

It's the same for the FBI. "The 23-percentage-point gap in views of the FBI among Republicans and Democrats is among the widest of the 10 agencies and departments asked in the survey," Pew noted about the beleaguered law enforcement agency. "While 78% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a favorable opinion of the FBI, 55% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the same."

Americans don't agree about which federal agencies they hate, but the fact that significant numbers of them do openly despise government workers plays havoc with morale. That, in turn, slams employee retention and recruitment.

Border Patrol is about 1,800 agents short of its hiring targets, IRS workers are heading for the exits, and even the fabled FBI saw a drop in applications, despite a slight uptick this year in morale.

To be clear, federal agencies don't need partisan animosity to make their employees unhappy; they're awfully good at doing it by themselves. Transportation Security Administration workers are so miserable that a blue ribbon panel convened this year to brainstorm schemes for dragging them from the depths of despair. And the entire Department of Homeland Security makes a specialty of managerial incompetence so extreme that politicians seek to raise morale through—literally—an act of Congress (is there nothing beyond the magical power of legislation?).

But red vs. blue infighting creates a no-win situation in which American political factions fundamentally disagree over the role of government, despise those arms of government that serve their enemies' purposes, and wield the agencies they control as weapons against anybody seen as opponents. It's at least theoretically possible (if highly improbable) to make a generic federal agency a better place to work. But how do you get Americans to show respect to government workers who they see as engaged in evil?

So, given that those of us who want a smaller and less bothersome state are often deeply opposed to those agencies' worst efforts, why not help the partisans lay on the hate? After all, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on is that government should be bigger and busier—"most either want to increase spending or maintain it at current levels," pollsters found this year—though, of course, Republicans and Democrats disagree on just where our huge and debt-ridden government should become more involved.

Helping the major political tribes attack each other's favored agencies won't formally reduce government the way libertarians like, but it could continue to hobble agencies so that they're less of a threat to our freedom and rights. At least for now, the most effective means of protecting liberty may lie less in winning political battles than in assisting the major partisan tribes in waging war against each other and the government agencies they currently disfavor.

NEXT: The Growing Right-Wing Threat to Campus Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The FBI by becoming a partisan arm of the Democratic Party, alienated the very people who had traditionally supported them and been willing to ignore their decades of incompetence and corruption. They will never be corrupt enough or partisan enough to please the left, and their actions during the 2016 election will never be forgiven by the right.

    Couldn’t happen to a more deserving organization.

    1. Partisan arm of the Dems who….helped Clinton lose in 2016?

      I can’t believe the crap you guys swallow on a daily basis.

      1. They helped Clinton lose by refusing to prosecute her for multiple serious national security related felonies and then spying on Trump and then launching a phony investigation meant to overturn the election?

        Were you born this stupid or did you have some kind of a traumatic head injury?

        1. Let’s see how hypocritical you are, John.

          I say Trump is a trade ignoramus. You say the economy is booming, proof he isn’t a trade ignoramus.

          You say the FBI is an arm of the Democratic party. As proof, their candidate didn’t win.

          Eh? Try to be consistent in your ignorance.

          1. You committed a fallacy. He can be dumb, trade wars can be dumb, and the economy can still be solid.

            You’re better than this.

            1. Lesseee ….

              John says Trump is trade-smart because the economy is booming.

              John says the FBI is an arm of the Democratic party because they helped Hillary lose.

              What did I miss?

              1. The FBI could have worked in favor of Clinton but fucked it up anyway… Comey being a good example. Lisa Paige and Peter Strzok being another. They’re bumbling fools, just like Clinton… that’s how it happened.

                And to be clear, I am not defending John’s arguments, just following the logic paths

              2. Helped Hillary lose by spying on her opponent and refusing to indict her for multiple felonies that she the evidence of her guilt was overwhelming. They really were out to get her.

                Jesus fucking Christ you are stupid.

              3. Just because they didn’t win doesn’t mean they didn’t cheat.

                In fact, the public revelation of the malfeasance arguably gave a net-boost to Trump.

            2. “You’re better than this.”

              What makes you think so?

          2. Agreed about Trump. Dump Trump before he trashes the whole world’s economy!


            FedEx sounded the alarm on US growth — and Jim Cramer said it was the ‘most dispiriting call about the economy I’ve heard in a long time’

            1. Yes the trade monster is going to rise from the seas and punish us for our sinful ways.

              You slobbering morons are worse than the global warming nuts.

            2. Dump Trump

              In favor of whom though? Unfortunately he’s the least bad option at this point. Sad.

              1. There is a golden retriever who was elected mayor of Idyllwild, California. I would much rather vote for a canine than Trump or any of the dems.

                Since dogs are better than people it could actually be a great option.

                Bumper sticker:

                Bark for liberty! Dog 2020!

              2. > Dump Trump

                > In favor of whom though? Unfortunately he’s the least bad option at this point. Sad.

                Bruce Rauner, Ralph Northam, Gavin Newsom, Jay Inslee, Justin Trudeau, …

                There’s a lot of people that would be better than Trump.

            3. “Fedex sounded the alarm”. Haha.

              People have been “sounding the alarm” forever. Especially Cramer.

              “Sell everything! Go short!” I dare ya.

          3. You idiots have been claiming TRADE WAR and the next depression for two years now. The economy continues to boom. At some point, the observations being counter to your predictions should cause you to question your theory. But mouth breathing idiots like you will never do that.

            The existence of counter evidence doesn’t necessarily disprove your theory but it sure as hell doesn’t help it. I try to teach you idiots logic and economics but there is only so much I can do. Talking to you morons about trade is like trying to explain healthcare to a snake handler who thinks the solution to cancer is a nation policy of prayer and faith healing. You are just fucking untrainable.

            1. The economy is booming John? Are you sure it’s not Trump exploding a nut in your mouth?

            2. YOU teach ECONOMICS?

              You need to pair up with AOC, she has ab actual Economics degree.

              1. I don’t teach it very well. Your continued ignorance shows the limits of my teaching ability.

              2. With all due respect, I believe AOC does not have an “actual Economics degree.” As I understand it, she had a double major at Boston University, earning a single BA in “International Relations and Economics”, not a separate degree in Economics.

            3. +1000 John

          4. The Witch may not have won, but, they tried (illegally) like heck to see that she did! Once Trump won, they tried like heck to illegally commit a coup of a duly elected prez!

            But, as John said: If they had done their jobs, The Witch would not have even been able to run in the first place!

            BTW, The DNC also made sure The Witch would get the DEM nod & they did so by screwing Bolshevik Bernie!

      2. She didn’t need any help, she called half the country deplorable.

        How’s her foundation doing? Odd that it shut down once none of them were in power. Almost like it was a pay for play slush fund. You think people didn’t notice?

        So much libertarian-ing

        1. Yeah she lost that one on her own. And she lost the one before that on her own. She just wasn’t a good candidate and only has herself to blame.

          Additional blunders:
          Stacking primary against Burnie
          Advocating for Libya war
          Dodging FOIA by hiding emails
          Leaked Goldman speach saying she holds public and private policy positions
          Not campaigning in Mid West

          1. If she had campaigned more in the Midwest she would have lost those states by wider margins.

            1. Possibly true. The second worst candidate won in 2016.

            2. +100

        2. And also for some odd reason she decided not to actively campaign in over half the swing states!…Maybe the Russians talked her out of it?

    2. God, John, you are fucking pathetic.

      1. WAAA Cry some more loser. Your tears are lovely. They really are.

    3. “The FBI by becoming a partisan arm of the Democratic Party”

      Delusional, partisan malcontents are among my favorite faux libertarians.

      Every director of the FBI has been a Republican (a mistake Democrats will correct soon, I hope). The likelihood that Democrats are more common than Republicans in the FBI seems remote. FBI conduct and statements throttled Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

      Against that background, clingers whine about FBI partisanship. Likely because whining is most of what they have left in the culture war.

      1. You really need to look into taking meds. Delusional, angry, and profoundly stupid is no way to go through life. Modern medicine can’t fix stupid, or at least your kind of stupid, but it can maybe fix some of the delusions or at least get you to calm down, which would help a lot.

    4. Lefties and their cronies don’t even understand why these things are.

      Explaining it just causes them to get defensive and post even dumber shit.

  2. “‘Americans’ opinions about Immigration and Customs Enforcement are deeply polarized: 72% of Republicans view ICE favorably, while an identical share of Democrats view it unfavorably,’ Pew Research Center reported last year on opinions about Border Patrol’s sister agency.”

    This is precisely why we Koch / Reason libertarians should vote straight-ticket Democratic for the foreseeable future. We prioritize #ImmigrationAboveAll. And Democrats are rapidly embracing the Shikha Dalmia position that deporting people is no better than enforcing fugitive slave laws.


    1. Pathetic, Trumpian. Do you ever get sick of shilling for these GOP assholes?

      Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

      Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

      Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

      1. You are the worst troll I have ever seen.

        1. You’re the troll here, John. If you’ll notice i’m For getting rid of the Border Patrol, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, most of the military and for getting these religious bigots out of the government. Plus, once in a while i’ll Say something interesting like I think the proletariat has their 2nd Amendment right to shoot up the Kulaks and take control of the workplace. When have you ever posted anything here that hasn’t gone first through the brain of some GOP hack or right-wing douchebag’s magazine? Uou’re The GOP troll here and you’ve become always been predictable. All I have to do is type in to figure out what you bring to the table, John?

        2. That’s harsh. I admire his passion for impeaching Drumpf. But for some reason he thinks I’m a “Trumpian” even though I say basically the same things about impeachment he does (admittedly with less copy / paste).

          1. I can’t decide what I like better. Watching you Trumpian goons flail over yourselves defending this criminal in the WH or indulging in the craziest conspiracy theories of all time (JOHN PODESTA IS SELLING 8 YEAR OLD BOYS AT THE PIZZA SHOP!!) with Obama. Both are fun…

            1. Just a complete lack of talent

      2. Remember when I told you I supported impeaching Drumpf before he even took office? You’re preaching to the choir.

        But guess what! Rev. Kirkland is in this very thread. He’s gone on record — even after the Mueller Report — saying impeachment isn’t necessary. I tried to convince him otherwise, with no success. Why don’t you scroll up a bit and use your formidable copy / paste skills on him. Maybe you can get him on the right side of history.


        1. You used that joke yesterday, Trumpian, so that you could deflect criticism of Dump and his corruption. Then you used a joke about how the Mueller Report exonerated Dump. What’s the matter with you, shill? Do you only have like two jokes. Ok, do the one about XY chromosomes and face hair so I can laugh at you.

          1. Hurry up! Respond to Rev. Kirkland’s 2:03 PM post; he might still be lurking! I know if you copy / paste enough proof that RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION you can change his mind on impeachment.


            1. And don’t forget to remind him what Rachel Maddow figured out years ago — Russians may be [in other words, definitely ARE] controlling our government.


  3. TSA agents belong in prison.

    1. possible 8th violation to the other prisoners.

    2. I’ve been saying that for 18 years.

    3. I’m surprised that more people aren’t filing charges against them with the local police.

    4. I’ve flown a lot and I really don’t get the hate for TSA agents. Every single one so far has been ok so far ,(for government employee standards), with minor annoyances. And none of the planes I’ve been on have been hijacked by terrorists, so the TSA’s record is alright. But common, we have much worse offenders, like the IRS, the FCC, etc.

      1. In case you didn’t notice, hijacking became 100% ineffective when the citizen militia on Flight 93 prevented the hijacking from succeeding. Since then, there have been no successful attempts to takeover planes; the same citizen militia pummeled the ones who tried.

        So now, they take advantage of the liberaltarian Fifth column to infiltrate agents like the AA mechanic because Fifthies prevent keeping out jihadis who can’t take the citizenship oath honestly and remain Muslim.

  4. “Of the 300 groups affected, the IRS said, 130 have had their tax-exempt status approved and 25 have withdrawn their applications. ”

    From your own link about “targeting” conservative groups. I’d say it was a pretty good operation considering less than half got approved. Maybe they wouldn’t be targeted if they were legit, ever think of that?

    1. Like anyone ever arrested for anything, if they didn’t have it coming, it wouldn’t have happened. I like how you think.

    2. “Meanwhile, we kept citizens from participating in politics we don’t like, and useful idiots like wearingit cheer us.”

  5. >>>For instance, the tax man can’t catch a break.

    yeah well the 16th never should have been passed. his job is a lie.

  6. Well using force against otherwise decent human beings to get your way does tend to piss people off.

    1. Yep. And calling government employees “public servants” often doesn’t help.

      1. Your mistake is thinking “the public” means you.

        1. Oh, I got that years ago. I’m often not “civil”, neither.

  7. the most effective means of protecting liberty may lie less in winning political battles than in assisting the major partisan tribes in waging war against each other and the government agencies they currently disfavor.

    No, because neither tribe is really in favor of reducing the size of government, just the size of the agencies that seem to benefit the other tribe. Between the two, they’ve happily increased the size of government since at least WW2.

    1. I think the idea is that if we can persuade people that large sections of the government are hopelessly inept and/or corrupt, we may be able to eventually persuade them to eliminate those agencies altogether. I agree that that seems a bit optimistic, since people’s usual response seems to be more “we need another agency to keep these ones in line.” Since that’s worked out so well so far, y’know?

      But who knows? Maybe there’s a future where we can translate distaste with the status quo into principled libertarian victories. I think that libertarians are gonna have to find some much stronger candidates, though, who can convincingly explain why we’re the nuts they should vote for, rather than some other supposedly anti-establishment kook who claims he’ll drain the swamp.

  8. Government people are the most hated all over the world
    تجهیزات شبکه

  9. Transportation Security Administration workers are so miserable that a blue ribbon panel convened this year to brainstorm schemes for dragging them from the depths of despair.

    One of those schemes was abolishing the TSA, right? RIGHT?!

  10. his encounters with otherwise law-abiding ranchers became more hostile

    The IRS is hostile with every single taxpayer.

    1. True story. My father had a clerk who worked for him who before that had worked for the IRS for years. She said that if you are ever audited, bring two or three small children with you to the audit. The worse behaved and the noisier the better. The IRS can’t ask you to not bring children to your audit. The presence of small and noisy children takes all of the fun out of torturing the taxpayer and ensures the audit goes very quickly and smoothly.

      1. “children@the meeting” also one of the funnier Mr. Mom scenes.

      2. IRS – “John, you’ve never announced any children as dependents… whose kids are those?”

        Don’t worry about it

        1. They are my sisters and I am babysitting. Sorry for the inconvenience.

      3. That’s hilarious. I will keep that in mind…

      4. IRS Agent: “Hi, I’d like you to meet Officer Chester Molester from Child Services. He’ll take good care of your kidlets while we conduct our business. Or we can postpone the audit so you can take them home.”

    2. That has not been my experience. I had a bit of a tax problem, ended up owing back taxes, (A 401-K loan got reclassified as a disbursement when I changed jobs, and the plan switched companies.) and they were quite sympathetic about how it had come about, and very flexible about setting up an affordable payment plan.

      Now, I was in the middle of chemotherapy for lymphoma at the time, that might have led them to go a little easy on me…

  11. Can someone point me to an influential libertarian who leans left and actually wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government? I can’t find any influential leftists not pushing for government control of healthcare.

    please and thank you

    1. be the unicorn.

    2. Ron Wyden would be my first thought just scanning wikipedia. He introduced an alternative in 2009 to Obamacare that the unions hated so it couldn’t be all bad. Not saying it would pass the pure libertarian test or come close. But I give him credit just because he works with Rand Paul on issues and doesn’t disparage him for being an evil racist Republican, so somewhat of a low bar.

      1. Ron Wyden is not a libertarian. He’s good on privacy and searches and that’s about it.

        1. Yeah i was giving it a shot and is why I caveated the hell out of. But I still think he doesn’t want full government control. Hard pressed though to find Republicans who want a libertarian health policy, more of same pre-obamacare. Christ you had Bush expand Medicare.


        Quite the libertarian, eh?

        And this part was funny to me.

        Recently those values have come under attack by those who seem to want to return to the days when health care was reserved for the healthy and the wealthy. People power stopped those efforts in their tracks, but Senator Wyden is committed to going beyond defending the status quo.

        Yeah, people power is what done it, not the Supreme Court or Republican inaction.

    3. Can someone point me to an influential libertarian?

      1. There’s a couple actors who claim to be libertarians. Keaneu Reeves, Clint Eastwood, Tom Selleck, etc. There’s the South Park guys, Peter Thiel, Gene Simmons, Penn Jillette. We actually have a ton of famous people in the entertainment arena, if we could leverage them somehow, it could be pretty effective.

        1. Gene Simmons is just conservative.

        2. The guys who came up with Bitcoin, WhatsApp, Waze, ride-sharing applications, and the like are very influential when it comes to furthering libertarian agenda, even if they’re likely not libertarians, and may not even know what the term means.

      2. Ron Paul is still talked about to this day. pre-trump Rand was one as well. I also like Tom Woods, John Stossel, Greg Gutfeld, used to like Amash a lot more…

        But all of these people lean right, and by that I mean appreciate the founding principles of this country

        1. That’s a list of folks that never accomplished anything. “Influential” shouldn’t be confused with “famous”.

          1. Yeah, Clint Eastwood is a failure… Penn and Teller are awful magicians who happen to earn millions of dollars annually… No accomplishments here…

    4. You could have stopped after the eighth word.

  12. I really think this strategy will backfire. Will it might feel good to have people hating government agents and confounding their efforts, it will almost certainly lead to our government institutions becoming less effective and more incompetent. Again, that might make us feel good on some level as libertarians, but it will almost certainly backfire. The paradox of government is the less effective government is, the more government people seem to demand. The more incompetent our government gets, the more people are going to demand the government step in and fix it, usually by grabbing more power. People never seem to look at a failing government institution and say ‘this thing isn’t working, lets get rid of it’. They pretty much always say ‘this thing isn’t working, clearly it needs more money/power/my guys in charge of it’.

    1. You make very good points. A giant government becoming totally alienated from the people it serves will not work out well for anyone Libertarian fantasies about burning it all down be damned.

      1. Yeah, as a Marxist libertarian i’m Thinking about voting for Trump in 2020. 4 more years of this shit and I bet people are more likely to start shooting their shitty boss and expropriating his property. And, hey, as a libertarian who am I to enforce some rich douche’s property rights? Fuck that, slaver.

        1. Yeah, as a Marxist libertarian

          Which one of the regulars is sock puppeting here? Come on fess up. No one is this fucking stupid.

          1. John, if you’re going to comment on Marxism at least know it’s 1st principles. Jesus Christ, man

            Withering away of the state” is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the idea that, with realization of the ideals of socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.

            1. Except that no Marxist state has yet to see the realization of the ideals of socialism. Seems an important thing to notice.

      2. I guess I should put away the marshmallows. Yes a more orderly reduction in government is a much better solution, such as Jimmy Carter deregulating the airlines. No one is clamoring for higher prices and less opportunity to fly even if they don’t understand how this came about.

        Shit, never mind the last sentence just remembered the Green New Deal.

    2. While what you’re saying is probably true, the alternative is what, cooperating with the IRS? Get the fuck outta here. What the IRS does is deeply immoral, and I’m not about to start helping them simply because other people are morons.

      There’s an outside chance that confounding the taxman and making his job miserable makes him quit, which is a net benefit for everyone until they find a replacement.

      1. Yep—routine audits are down thanks in part to understaffing.

      2. I can’t admit this in polite company, but ten years later I still think Joe Stack was as much an American Hero as anyone in the history of this country. I feel no sympathy at all for the agents that died that day. They chose to take that job and go work for the government harassing their fellow citizens and then they reaped the consequences when they pushed one many too far.

        1. Meh, Joe Stack was mentally unstable and somewhat incoherent. Plus, he blamed capitalism (among other things) for his financial woes. And he killed some innocent people. Not much of a hero if you ask me.

  13. And yet most of the population wants more government intrusion and control over their lives.

    1. Because THIS time it will be different! It’s like people who keep marrying the same kind of loser over an over.

    2. Not over their lives- over other people’s.

    3. No…they want more government control over other people’s lives.

    4. Minor edit: “And yet most of the population wants more government intrusion and control over OTHER PEOPLE’S lives.

  14. I think it’s very unfair to hold government employees responsible for the policies they’re required to enforce that they have no say in actually setting. It’s the bosses you should be angry at, the low-level employees are merely following orders doing their jobs.

    1. Sooo, by the same token, please remember when Guido and Rocko come by to collect or sell you “insurance”, “It’s the bosses you should be angry at, the low-level employees are merely following orders doing their jobs.”

      1. Sarcasm alert: “Just following orders” is a defense the Nazis famously used at Nuremburg.

        Spoiler alert: It didn’t work.

        1. That’s only because there and then didn’t have qualified immunity, unlike here and now.

          1. Oh, they had qualified immunity…. until they lost the war.

    2. I’d like to see a study correlating causes of death with employment history because I’d like to think that IRS employees have an incredibly disproportionate suicide, drug overdose and cirrhosis of the liver rate. How the hell you can actually choose to work for the IRS and get up every morning and look at yourself in the mirror and go off to work without fortifying yourself with a couple slugs of gin or half a Valium lest you start thinking of eating a gun is beyond me. What kind of human being is capable of that?

      1. What kind of person gets up in the morning and looks forward to putting Mexican kids in detention camps. I’d put a gun in my mouth if I had to do that!

        1. You’d just leave them with the traffickers, or in the desert to die of thirst, or in the truck to suffocate?

          1. No, i’d Let them ride in their cars to take jobs in California.

            1. Picking vegetables or something. God you are racist fuck. Every leftist is it seems.

              1. There’s lots of jobs in California, John. Why’d you go there, racist?

                1. You said California because you think they are all coders who will work for Google not because you think they are all low skilled slaves by virtue of their being Hispanic.

                  Yeah, that is what happened here.

                  Like all leftists you are a racist, disgusting fuck.

                  1. Could be, John. There’s lots of jobs in California— even for racist hacks like you.

            2. There are plenty of jobs here in flyover country. Right where I live there are entry level jobs, light industry, construction, all kinds of things skilled and unskilled.

              My idea on immigration and migration has been to simplify the process which would greatly reduce the number of asylum seekers and border jumpers.

              Allocate the resources away from things like detention centers which are costly. If you show up at a crossing station it should be no more difficult than getting a drivers license. Do a background check using computer databases which we already have or could expand.

              Issue a temporary residency pass and work permit. After a period of time the individual would be required to reapply or leave the US.

              They reason so much is going into social services and border enforcement is because these people are not allowed to legally work. If they did they would pay taxes like anyone else.

              1. After a period of time the individual would be required to reapply or leave the US.

                And you seriously think they would do that?

      2. Because THIS time it will be different! It’s like people who keep marrying the same kind of loser over and over.

        1. Wow, that post appeared in two places at the same time. The squirrels have a new trick.

      3. What kind of human being is capable of that?

        I wonder that about most cops. “Today, I’m going to go out and lob grenades into people’s lives, most of whom were barely hanging on to start with.”

        1. Some days, it seems like PD selection criteria are deliberately set up to preference sociopaths and psychopaths..

        2. Lob grenades into a baby’s crib and blow his nose off with other facial damage. Searching for someone who no longer lived there, and which could have been established by knock-and-talk.

          Nothing was learned from federal fiascos at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Wait til the Democrat’s War on Guns gets cranked and the jack booted thugs get new marching orders.

          1. I wouldn’t say they learned nothing. They didn’t learn everything they should have, that’s for sure, but there have been no Waco scale atrocities since, and that’s not for lack of opportunities. It’s because they changed operating procedures to avoid it.

            Now, if the Democrats do get back in control, and decide to go all in on gun control, that’s all over, because you NEED atrocities when you’re trying to enforce gun control laws.

            1. you NEED atrocities when you’re trying to enforce gun control laws.

              It wouldn’t take many. Two or three viral videos of rednecks lying dead in the driveway with an AR-15 on one arm and a dead baby on the other, and the rest would wet their pants and cooperate.

    3. the policies they’re required to enforce

      No one required them to apply for that government job.

    4. Agree but the politicians who voted for these laws are either dead and the ones who could change them either don’t want to change them, or can’t.

    5. They do have the option of quitting.

      ex: My neighbors both quit the Coast Guard when the post 9/11 changes came into effect. (I’m not commenting on their reasoning or beliefs, just that they decided the USCG was no longer for either of them and terminated the relationship.)

      Anyone who joined the TSA knew from day One what they would be doing, so, yes, I do hold them responsible.

  15. Poll: who’s more despicable? A.) Border patrol agents harassing people that don’t bother me or B.) people in the military that kill poor people who get in the way of American business interests?

    I’m going with B.

  16. My heart bleeds for the corrupt and incompetent. Fuck them, and the horse they rode in on.

    1. +10

    2. Won’t anyone think of the horses?

  17. I cannot hate someone that I don’t really know. What kind of ridiculous thing is that? Are there government bureaucrats who act in ways that are petty? Yes. Incomprehensible? Yes. Immoral? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Asshole-ish? Yes. Arrogantly? Yes. In a workforce of a couple millions there are bound to be at least 1 of all of these things. Hate them? No.

    To me, I have categories of federal employees with whom I have interacted. I do not particularly like (or trust)….
    All IRS employees (especially the ones on the phone) – Sorry, your job is to take my money and I don’t really like that very much
    About 99.44% of all TSA employees – they are pretty much all a royal pain in the ass, even the rare efficient ones in airports.

    I no longer trust FBI employees. How can we? Seriously? I may be old fashioned, but when I grew up, one could aspire to become an FBI agent. Why, they were the straight arrows. You knew they were thoroughly American and interested only in ‘law and order’. You could look up to them as a role model. No longer. That reputation has been shattered and utterly decimated. It wasn’t just ‘leadership’ that pulled some shady shit in 2016-18 time period; there were some rank and file agents in that mix too.

    1. I wonder how much of that heroic view of the FBI from back in the day was due to the way they were depicted in TV and movies.

      Law enforcement in general. Even in the westerns the sheriff was the good guy.

    2. What about the FBI director Hoover? He presented the example of a blackmailer, illegal wiretapper, Mafia denier/supporter, hypocritical sexist, and power grabber. He turned an unarmed investigating body into a vicious secret police authority.
      How could anyone “aspire” to work under him? Answer: By accepting propaganda. Before the ‘net, that might be understandable. Not now.

  18. My heart bleeds for the corrupt and incompetent. Fuck them, and the horse they rode in on.

  19. I don’t hate government employees.
    I just can’t understand why there are more government employees than private company employees.

    1. I don’t think there are.

  20. How about we don’t hate individual employees because we don’t like the organizations they work for (as opposed to being angry at individual employees because they have donevsome5hingbillegal or corrupt)? Is Tuccile sure he wants to endorse the practice of collective guilt?

  21. That’s a lot of hate directed at these federal employees, but it’s not necessarily coming from the same people.

    Yeah, most of the people spitting in the food of the Border Patrol agents think the FBI didn’t help Hillary enough

    1. Or they do think the FBI helped Hillary, and that’s a good reason to cut them a break.

  22. “…assisting the major partisan tribes…” is to initiate force, the very thing we voluntarists abhor, rant against. Is “the enemy of my enemy my friend”? If so, then all authoritarians are our friends in some ways, some times. But it’s NOT so. Standing on principle makes us unique in the political chaos. Victory at the cost of principle is no victory, except for our enemies, the collectivist/authoritarians.

  23. All together now: Aaaaaaawwwwwwww!

  24. Government at ALL levels represent forcible extraction at the point of a gun of the fruits of your labor with no recourse outside of useless voting. Government itself is nothing more then legalized thievery run by psychopathic people who care little or nothing except that you represent their fancy house and cars they get for their extortion. WHY DO WE NEED ANY OF IT? There is NOTHING the government provides that private companies couldn’t provide on a VOLUNTARY basis. Does Walmart send people out into the community with guns to force you to shop at their store instead of Aldis? So why do I need to be forced at gunpoint to provide “education” for other peoples children via “property taxes” which are nothing but the First plank of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO which states ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. Our founding fathers must be puking if they can see us.

  25. Yet people continue to vote (and otherwise act on their desires) for more and more government and the rule of law (force), which results in more and more government employees to hate! Clearly, people today prefer force and big government to liberty and self-rule. People get what they deserve.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.