Bush to Allow Private Sector Bids (Wait until you hear Federal Unions SCREAM!)

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush plans to subject as many as 850,000 federal jobs to competition from the private sector, administration officials said Thursday, a sweeping reform long sought by Republicans and stiffly opposed by labor unions.

Nearly half of the government's civilian work force could be affected by the plan to be published in the Federal Register on Friday. After a 30-day public review period, Bush can impose the new rules without congressional approval.

``This is inherent to getting the taxpayers the best deal for their dollars and the best service from the government,'' said Trent Duffy, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

Bush and his fellow Republicans have long favored opening public sector jobs to competition from outside government. They argue that competitive bidding will force government bureaucracies to improve service and lower costs - or lose business to the private sector.

Public employee unions are expected to fight the proposal, which could cost their rank and file jobs.

The proposal comes at the heels of last week's GOP victories in congressional elections ,which emboldened Bush and his agenda. The White House is poised to beat back union opposition to another administration initiative, this one in Congress: the creation of the Homeland Security Department.

Current federal rules allow for public-private competition, administration officials say, but the regulations are so cumbersome that private firms are often reluctant to seek government contracts.

Under the plan, ``commercial activities'' conducted by the government - from lawn mowing to hanging drywall and secretarial work - will be open to competition. There are 850,000 such jobs in the federal work force; Bush has set a goal of putting 50 percent of those jobs up for grabs in the first stage of the plan, officials said, with the intention of eventually opening the total 850,000 to competition.

Traditional high-ranking government positions would not be subject to the proposal, according to administration officials who outlined the proposal.

One reform would encourage agencies to complete competitive bid reviews within a year. Under current rules, the competitive bid process can take four years - a delay that scares off private sector bids, officials said.

Rules under which the government buys goods and services will be streamlined to allow for more competitive bidding, officials said.

The Government Accounting Office has determined that public-private competition will save taxpayers 30 percent on each contract.

Expecting opposition from public employees unions, administration officials argue that the initiative would encourage unions to compete and win contracts; it does not mandate that the private sector takeover the jobs.

Bush picked this new fight with federal unions one day after it became clear that he had won another battle with them. With Republicans ready to take full control of Congress, Democrats were largely abandoning their demands for union protections at the new Department of Homeland Security.

The House easily passed a bill that would establish the department on Wednesday, and the Senate was ready to follow suit.

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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.