Bush on verge of abolishing all bureaucrats' tax-leeching sinecures (my title)

The Washington Post ^ | October 8th, 2002 | Dana Milbank

[End The Hypocrisy]

"[President] Bush is demanding -- and the House has approved -- powers to rearrange the federal bureaucracy in ways not seen since Congress passed the Pendleton Act in 1883...If Senate Democrats go along, Bush could get rid of the 15-grade structure of the federal personnel system, in which promotions are based more on seniority than performance. Light suspects Bush would use a merit-based system. Once that was implemented at the Homeland Security Department, a domino effect that could release all 1.8 million federal workers from [the cumbersome and self-perpetuating bureaucracy of] government personnel rules."

[End The Hypocrisy]

What's holding up this long overdue reform? Perhaps union contributions to Democrat politicians, in favor of self-perpetuating, tax-leeching and often under-productive bureaucrats??? Indeed, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, organized "labor" ranks near the top of the Democrats' list of campaign contributors, with $50 million in donations in this election cycle. By contrast, unions gave just over $4 million to Republicans during the same period...

Meanwhile, though, our country remains without a Homeland Security department. Haven't the recent sniper shootings in the Washington D.C. area opened even the holdout Democrat Senators' and the predictably self-perpetuating bureaucrats' eyes to the need for this new agency, and without all the ridiculous bureaucracy that helped make our country so unsafe and also so financially indebted in the first place?

[End The Hypocrisy]

Career tenure for federal bureaucrats was railroaded down U.S. taxpayers' & voters' throats during the late 1800's, before telecommunications breakthroughs made it much easier for taxpayers to learn what was taking place. The telecommunications revolution has also made statist monopolies and centralized planning comparatively very unnecessary. Needless to say, deadwood bureaucrat beneficiaries of the lethargic bureaucratic malaise almost overwhelmingly tend to prefer those politicians who favor big government programs which keep them comparatively comfortably employed. Now the U.S. Senate is their only hope for their continued "right" to take advantage of Americans.

Anyhow, do the best employees of your local district attorneys' offices have (or need) career tenure to insulate their supposedly outstanding service from the change in administrations? No. Communications have come a long way since that civil service full-employment act came about over a century ago, and politicians have to behave less politically and more responsibly with personnel decisions as a result. Meanwhile, isn't the concept of a job guarantee rather unAmerican? Didn't the fall of the Soviet Union show that it's also imprudent? Has NASA's "trailblazing" & "price-reducing" performance justified the perpetuation of similar life tenure for its own bureaucrats? How about the U.S. postal "service's"? Don't such career guarantees typically lead to arrogant treatment of taxpayers & genuine space entrepreneurs who are presently still forced to pay their bloated salaries, while the bureaucrats amazingly delude themselves into "nobly" thinking they could earn even more in the private sector (that they often jealously stifle, as privatized Mir's story [http://www.spaceprojects.com/Mir ] shows)?

[End The Hypocrisy]

Perhaps there's no better supporting article available for justifying Bush's adamance about finally being able to fire deadweight bureaucrats than this one from Linda Chavez:

[formerly available at:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20010830-99647884.htm ]

Perpetual pursuit of government reforms

Linda Chavez
Al Gore tried it and failed. Ronald Reagan had some modest success when he attempted it. Even Jimmy Carter gave it a shot. Now President Bush is trying his hand at reforming the federal government. Let's hope he has more luck than his predecessors did. Mr. Gore tried to "reinvent government." Mr. Reagan's Grace Commission pledged to eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse." And Mr. Carter introduced "zero-based budgeting" for federal agencies to try to reduce the size of government. Despite their efforts, the size of the federal work force grew, but productivity didn't. Now Mr. Bush wants to cut the work force and improve productivity. Good luck.
The president's plan, announced during his weekly radio address, would create incentives for some current federal employees to take early retirement, out-source more jobs to contractors and base pay increases on performance rather than longevity, allowing managers to reward the best workers. If enacted -- and it will not be an easy task, especially with government employee unions fighting reform every step of the way -- the Bush plan could save a bundle.
The president complained that the federal government spends $45 billion a year on computers and technology, a huge sum, but "unlike private sector companies, this large investment has not cut the government's costs or improved people's lives in any way that we can measure."
It's no wonder why. The problem isn't lack of equipment, it's the people who are expected to use it. I've worked in government and headed two federal agencies during my career and still have many friends in government. I've encountered bright, dedicated federal workers over the years -- but unfortunately, I've encountered almost as many incompetent and just plain lazy federal employees as well.
Back in the days before voice mail, I had a secretary who refused to answer the phone. She'd let it ring 10 or 12 times, lift the receiver off the cradle and drop it back down again, disconnecting the caller. And this was in the congressional liaison office of the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This same woman filed a grievance against me when I asked that all members of Congress receive a response to their letters within two weeks.
When I was head of the Civil Rights Commission, I had a secretary who could barely speak English, much less read or write it well. Her job was to type the annual report to Congress on the commission's activities. When I discovered that much of the typed report was gibberish -- she didn't know what she was typing, they were just sequences of letters -- I offered to send her to classes to improve her English. That offer prompted a visit from the agency's solicitor, warning me that I shouldn't even suggest such a thing and certainly could not force her to take lessons.
Another woman in the agency -- a division manager -- would invite her assistant into her office every afternoon at 3 p.m. to play "Boggle," a board game involving dice the two would play noisily until quitting time. Now, federal employees can play computer games or surf the Internet to their heart's content all day long.
I estimate that about a third of the federal employees I worked with were hard-working, another third were competent but lacked initiative, and fully one third were unable or unwilling to do their jobs. The problem is, there's almost no way under the current system to adequately reward the first group or get rid of the last.
Mr. Bush's proposal attempts to deal with this problem, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. If we want accountability from federal employees, we've got to overhaul the entire system. It means getting rid of job protection for federal employees.
If an employee doesn't perform, there's no reason to keep him. If a program is reduced or eliminated, the staff should be cut accordingly, not just reshuffled within the agency.
If the government could hire and fire like much of the private sector does, agencies could do with fewer employees -- and afford to compensate the best ones commensurate with their talent. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.
Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist

[aShepard]

. Light suspects Bush would use a merit-based system

Unfortunately, I don't think it would work. There are so many redundant layers of clerical and bureauocratic workers and supervisors who have never been accountable nor ever performed a merit review, the government personnel system would be in chaos for years. Everyone would still be ranked as an above average contributor, thus assuring raises on the high end of the merit scale.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Hopefully not if Bush's "competitive sourcing" mantra is used to downsize such tax-leeches into behaving properly. Regardless, your concern is noteworthy and one that the Administration should definitely keep in mind while evaluating supervisors.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Its about time. You have no idea of how a small coal mine operators feels when dealing with a GS-15 Dept of the Interior inspector.

[bvw]

The federal pensionaires are very shrewd and well connected, both the unionized and the non-unionized -- they do form almost a solid front, as the managers know their own job's power depends not on performance as we know it, but on avoiding risk, and a mollified union is no-risk. And more that dealing with a union gives a unending fountain of non-performance issues to build one's resume with, and even presents opportunities for more staffing and a bugger budget. One does need a PR group, a legal group, and all sorts of related (sucker-fish) counselors when dealing with union issues. It just is a wonderful way to build yet a bigger understructure under a diligent federalista management type. One'e grade is dependent on the scale of the federal edifice one builds under one.

One place Mr. Bush should wipe out is the Bureaucrat College that the Ag Dept runs -- it "services" all departments and bureaus, for there many connections are formed and it is in the intra-bureacracy connections that the large "inductance" is producted -- that is the aggressive resistance to change.

[headsonpikes]

Solution?? Apparently only lead pensions will do the job.

[mad_as_he$$]

You have a better chance of growing boobs on your back than this happening!

[End The Hypocrisy]

No I don't but I think we could all benefit from your telling us. This stuff needs to get out in the open so that the rest of the country finally learns how self-serving the civil "service" farse really is. Please do tell :-)

[bert]

Dead Wood??!!

We don't have no steeenken GS15 dead wood!!!

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>You have a better chance of growing boobs on your back than this happening!<<<

Wasn't something similar said to Bush's father about the Berlin Wall's potential fall?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>We don't have no steeenken GS15 dead wood!!!<<<


Oh really?!?

[anymouse]

that's when you hand everyone their walking papers. Tell them that they have one chance for appeal to keep their job. In one week they are to provide a short list of their accomplishments and list of customers relying on their products.

These assessments will be judged by the top 3 officers of the agency. They will rank the assessments and the lower 1/3 will be shown the door. The top 1/10 will be promoted.

The middle 1/3 will be given 6 months to show marked improvement, or 1/3 of them will be shown the door.

Continue this for a couple of years and you will see a whole new attitude in federal workers and management.

[VOA]

Bush could get rid of the 15-grade structure of the federal personnel system,
in which promotions are based more on seniority than performance

Now we know why the attack on Iraq is sort of "on hold".

Looks like Dubya is preparing to take care of the Civil War this could unleash.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Looks like Dubya is preparing to take care of the Civil War this could unleash.<<<


As Morgan Freeman said at the end of the movie Seven, America's got its problems and they're worth fighting to try and solve. Go Dubya! :-)

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Tell them that they have one chance for appeal to keep their job. In one week they are to provide a short list of their accomplishments and list of customers relying on their products. <<<


I like your "can do" attitude, but bureaucrats have a habit of perpetuating demand for themselves. But if "customers" are allowed to ANONYMOUSLY evaluate the bureaucrats controling their destiny then...my oh my... :-)

[meyer]

Unfortunately, I don't think it would work. There are so many redundant layers of clerical and bureauocratic workers and supervisors who have never been accountable nor ever performed a merit review, the government personnel system would be in chaos for years. Everyone would still be ranked as an above average contributor, thus assuring raises on the high end of the merit scale.

I agree that it probably won't work, but for slightly different reasons. There are ways to set up raises whereby employees can be ranked such that the highest ranking members will get the largest raise while the lowest ranked ones will get the lowest. For example, say that you have 10 employees and a departmental budget for an average 3% raise. A good system will ask that you rank your employees and set a minimum and maximum raise such that the average equals 3%. So, your top ranked employee might get a 4.5% raise while the lessor-producing one might get a 1.5% raise.

The problem I have doesn't center around the raise issue in that manner; it centers around the government being a political body. Politicians love the personal favor system (the Torch and Trafficant come to mind) - that is, they tend to overlook merit and instead seek "favoritism" and political "hackism". The favorite or most politically inclined will get the promotions and the bigger raises unless merit can be objectified. At the same time, those that actually make the wheels of government turn, however slowly, will remain in their positions indefinately.

So, if merit can be objectified, fine. Otherwise, I don't see any way around seniority as a means of at least granting raises and such.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>So, if merit can be objectified, fine. Otherwise, I don't see any way around seniority as a means of at least granting raises and such.<<<


Why COULDN'T it be objectified, especially if outsider input is taken into account?