In the 1800s President Andrew Jackson fired a fair amount of the federal workforce. Give me some history about it (post Jackson as well) and really drill into the effects of the Spoils System after a couple of years and when it was finally abandoned.

President Andrew Jackson introduced the spoils system to the federal government in 1828, replacing about 20% of civil servants with his supporters13. While Jackson's initial intent was to reform incompetence and involve common citizens in government, the system quickly became corrupted.

Effects of the Spoils System

After a few years, the spoils system led to widespread incompetence and corruption in government1. Instead of improving efficiency, it resulted in:

• Unqualified individuals gaining public office
• Escalating political corruption
• Distraction from important issues as candidates promised lucrative positions to voters

The practice continued after Jackson's presidency, with subsequent presidents replacing even larger percentages of civil servants. For instance, President Benjamin Harrison replaced 31,000 postmasters in a single year.

Abandonment of the Spoils System

The spoils system began to be dismantled in the late 19th century:

• Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883): This act was passed in response to the assassination of President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled office seeker1. It created a merit-based system for hiring government employees and established the Civil Service Commission to enforce the law..
• Gradual Expansion: Initially, only 10% of government positions were covered by the Pendleton Act. Over time, subsequent presidents classified more positions under civil service rules.
• State-Level Reforms: New York (1884) and Massachusetts (1885) became the first states to adopt civil service systems for state workers.

Today, over 90% of the 2.7 million federal civilian employees are covered by merit systems, marking the end of the spoils system. However, recent proposals like Schedule F have raised concerns about a potential return to a spoils-like system in certain areas of government.

How does the Spoils System align with the goals of Project 2025?

The Spoils System of the 19th century and Project 2025 share several key similarities in their approach to government staffing and executive power, despite being separated by nearly two centuries:

• Replacement of government employees: Project 2025 proposes eliminating job protections for thousands of government employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees. This mirrors the Spoils System's practice of replacing civil servants with supporters of the winning party.
• Expansion of executive power: Project 2025 aims to place the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies, under direct presidential control. This aligns with the Spoils System's goal of increasing the president's influence over the federal workforce.
• Dismantling of agencies: Project 2025 calls for the elimination of certain departments, such as the Department of Education. While not identical, this echoes the Spoils System's approach of reshaping the government to suit the incoming administration's goals.
• Prioritizing loyalty: Project 2025 emphasizes installing leaders more loyal to a conservative president, particularly in the State Department. This parallels the Spoils System's focus on rewarding political supporters with government positions.
• Streamlining decision-making: Both systems aim to facilitate the implementation of the president's policies by giving them more direct control over government operations.

However, there are notable differences:

• Scale and scope: Project 2025 is more comprehensive and detailed, with a 900-page policy wish list covering various aspects of government.
• Ideological focus: While the Spoils System was primarily about political patronage, Project 2025 has a specific conservative ideological agenda.
• Legal framework: Project 2025 operates within a more complex legal and institutional environment, proposing changes to existing laws and regulations.

In essence, while Project 2025 doesn't explicitly reinstate the Spoils System, its goals of expanding presidential power and reshaping the federal workforce align closely with the core principles of the 19th-century practice.

What are some of the similarities that proved to be weaknesses?

The Spoils System of the 19th century and Project 2025 share several key weaknesses that stem from their similar approaches to government staffing and executive power:

• Prioritizing loyalty over competence: Both systems emphasize appointing individuals based on political loyalty rather than qualifications. This led to widespread incompetence in the Spoils System and could potentially result in similar issues with Project 2025.
• Undermining expertise: The Spoils System often placed unqualified individuals in government positions, leading to inefficiency. Similarly, Project 2025 proposes replacing career officials, including scientists and economists, with politically appointed loyalists, potentially hampering essential government functions.
• Potential for corruption: The Spoils System became mired in corruption as government jobs went to loyal supporters regardless of qualifications. Project 2025's approach of appointing officials based on loyalty tests rather than expertise could lead to similar issues.
• Inefficiency in government operations: Both systems risk creating inefficiencies in government. The Spoils System led to mismanagement and incompetence, while Project 2025's proposals could result in similar problems due to the replacement of experienced personnel with potentially unqualified appointees.
• Politicization of civil service: Both approaches blur the line between political appointments and career civil service positions. This politicization can lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and continuity in government operations.
• Potential for abuse of power: The Spoils System allowed for abuses such as awarding lucrative government contracts to party supporters. Project 2025's expansion of executive power could potentially lead to similar abuses.

These similarities highlight how both systems, despite being separated by nearly two centuries, risk compromising the efficiency, integrity, and effectiveness of government operations by prioritizing political loyalty over merit and expertise.

Considering the schedule of government performance reporting, what should we pay attention to that would indicate the plan isn't working? I ask because this will have a massive effect on the economy and I would like some warning.

Given the current date of February 7, 2025, and the implementation of Project 2025, there are several key indicators in government performance reporting that we should monitor to assess if the plan is working as intended:

• Quarterly economic indicators: Pay close attention to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports on employment, wages, and productivity. Any significant deviations from expected trends could signal issues with the new policies.
• Annual agency reports: Most federal agencies publish annual performance reports. Look for:Changes in output indicators and their alignment with stated outcomesClarity of performance frameworks and links between outcomes and outputsQuality and comprehensibility of reported indicatorsAnalysis of overall performance, including value for money and cost-effectiveness1
• Budget execution reports: Monitor these for unexpected changes in spending patterns or program effectiveness across agencies.
• State-level economic impacts: Watch for reports on job losses, GDP reductions, and increased household energy costs in individual states2.
• Performance measurement continuity: Be alert for any reduction in frequency or detail of performance reporting, as this could indicate difficulties in data collection or a de-emphasis on transparency3.
• Congressional oversight hearings: These may provide insights into agency performance and policy implementation challenges.
• Independent watchdog reports: Look for assessments from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Inspector General offices on agency performance and policy implementation.
• Specific policy area indicators:Education: Changes in Title I funding, services for English learners, and Federal Work Study support4Labor: Shifts in overtime protections and workplace safety regulations6Healthcare: Access to prescription drugs and changes in Medicare and Medicaid programs6Energy: Trends in household energy costs and clean energy job losses2

By monitoring these indicators, you may be able to identify early warning signs of economic or governmental performance issues resulting from the implementation of Project 2025 policies.

Were there any medium or major breakdowns in the delivery of government services back then?

Yes, there were significant breakdowns in the delivery of government services during the era of the Spoils System. These breakdowns were primarily due to the appointment of unqualified individuals to government positions based on political loyalty rather than merit:

• Inefficiency in government operations: The frequent turnover of civil servants with each change of party led to inefficient governance. This constant churn disrupted the continuity of government services and hindered the development of institutional knowledge.
• Corruption: The Spoils System often resulted in corrupt practices, as appointees were more focused on personal gain and party loyalty than public service1. This corruption likely affected the quality and delivery of government services.
• Postal service disruptions: One notable example of service breakdown occurred during President Benjamin Harrison's administration, when he replaced 31,000 postmasters in a single year. Such a massive turnover in the postal service would have undoubtedly caused significant disruptions in mail delivery across the country.
• Incompetence in government positions: The appointment of unqualified individuals to important government roles led to mismanagement and ineffective governance. This incompetence would have directly impacted the quality and reliability of government services.
• Misallocation of resources: The Spoils System often involved awarding government contracts to party supporters at inflated rates, which would have led to wasteful spending and potentially reduced the resources available for essential services.

These breakdowns in government services were a significant factor in the push for civil service reform, culminating in the Pendleton Federal Civil Service Act of 1883, which began the shift towards a merit-based system for federal employment.