Oh, but this could not be. The Libertarians feel they must vote Libertarian to make a statement against the likes of Bush who is not perfect enough. Well - they voted their conscience. Do any know how they voted? Are any noticing their stance?
I would love to hear their complaints about Bush now. I am sure he is still not "ok" because he has yet to mention throwing out the Education Department, doing away with the income tax.
Progress? Surely we are not making progress because the Libertarians still are against him.
BUMP, Rush was all over this today. Rats are going to have heart attacks. This will ruin Pelosi's inaguration today.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20010830-99647884.htm
Perpetual pursuit of government reforms
by: 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
You guys sound like you are doing a great job. Hard to keep up on who belongs where with all the reorganizations that have been ongoing for years.
I remember one time we got a new 4-Star and he reorganized the reorganization before it was complete!
I know they do but there are a slew of them that are not happy unless a president comes in on day 1 and dismantles all government programs and reforms the government to as it was when started. They seem to think there is such a candidate out there.
None of this change as the American voting public wants change, they expect the pres to ignore what the public voted in and wants and return government to as it was when first created - if not done, they continually trash this man and attempt to destroy anything he can get done. They also vote to send a message and the message is sent - Democrats win. This is the Libertarian party.
This is fabulous news! Where are all the freepers that say there is no difference between Bush and Gore? Hehehehe...congratulations to the President on a great, great move!