But it is reasonable that a large number could be eliminated over the course of one or two terms as president.

Not reasonably. Go back and look at the results of the hiring freezes under Obama, sequestrations, government shutdowns, with an eye toward who gets hurt. Hiring freezes in the IRS cost us tax money, they also make it difficult to hire and retain good talent in any Dept. Sequestrations actually cost government contractors good money - and we do it in the end anyway. Government shutdowns are dumb - Congress votes to pay gov workers for being in limbo - but many would have been hurt.

You go into the gov for a variety of reasons, but you stay for the stability and benefits, plus it isn't bad work. I remember doing a calculation one day which supported what I thought. Non-government pay is higher, but I took the past 5 years and netted the periods of unemployment to come to my actual pay over that period. It was better to stay in the government when you looked at the benefits. I could actually see retirement in the Gov. I would get a small pension, plus my equivalent of a 401k. The stability was well worth it, as you could plan.

I lived on a boat in a Marina for a period. Fellows would divorce, separate, lose their jobs, ruined for a period of time and live in boats, lamenting in front of the communal TV in the clubhouse. I could identify with 90% of their problems, and empathetic to the rest. I was one of the few with a retirement plan, and mine was loose, just sketched out once a year with guesstimates, etc., when my annual report came in from the gov.