When government sets out to act, it should consider all probable consequences, while carefully weighing alternative approaches.

Like individuals, governments have many policies and goals, which at times collide with one another. Sometimes policy collisions might result in physical collisions like the recent tragic loss of 67 people when an airliner ran into a military helicopter over Washington, D.C.

In a letter to The New York Times, Mitchell Zimmerman noted that "Although President Trump's effort to cast blame for the plane crash is plainly premature, it is not too early to consider the light that the disaster casts on his efforts to gut our government."

Zimmerman was referring to Trump's offer to pay eight months’ salary to every government employee resigning by Feb. 6, 2025.

And then he noted the inadequate staffing by air traffic controllers at the Washington airport on the night of the accident, which may well have contributed to the accident.

The offer, which went to air traffic controllers as well as other government employees, was sent out the day before the airliner crash.

This is nothing short of terrible optics!

There was already such a bad nationwide shortage of air traffic controllers that some of them are forced to work ten hour days six days a week.

Given the high stress of jobs where hundreds of lives could be lost when the controller does one wrong thing, 60-hour work weeks are beyond crazy.

They are total madness.

For controllers who feared cracking under the stress, a buyout offer might have seemed like an ideal time to bail out.

Embarrassed by the juxtaposition of the buyout offer with the Washington, D.C. crash, the administration soon began waffling on whether air traffic controllers are eligible.

It's quite possible that Mr. Trump had no legal authority to offer federal workers money for quitting in the first place. So those who take him up on the offer may ultimately find themselves stiffed --- without a job and without the promised money.

It's not easy to replace controllers who resign or retire, and it cannot be done in a hurry.

Newly hired controllers require extensive training which can take two to four years.

And they must meet stringent age, educational, and medical requirements, so not everyone who is interested in the job is eligible to apply.

What would we do if a lot of controllers quit?

• Limit the number of flights allowed at key airports, driving up the price of tickets?
• Would this be inflationary?
• How would it affect business travel?
• Or, to avoid these problems, would we just tell travelers they must take their chances?

Of course, air traffic controllers are not the only federal employees whose work is necessary to protect the lives, health, and property of Americans in general.

Rash promises to induce large numbers of these employees to quit, without considering the consequences for public welfare, are not prudent and could well amount to political malpractice.

Any good conservative understands that making large changes in complex social and economic systems without careful consideration of the costs and benefits are likely to produce terrible results. The recent airliner crash in Washington, D.C. was only a taste of the possible results of the administrative equivalent of a bull in a china shop.

One small example: Imagine how many people could be poisoned if the expert staffing at the Agriculture Department (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulate the food supply, were decimated by the proposed buyouts!

Another example: Remember that over a million Americans died from COVID-19 after the first Trump administration had gutted the office charged with combating epidemics.

Some of us can protect ourselves from airliner crashes by refraining from flying, but we all must eat and breathe.

Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. Read Professor Paul F. deLespinasse's Reports — More Here.