Whether it’s a cafeteria worker in some federal building in downtown Washington or a Blackwater (rebranded as “Xe”)-like paramilitary “guard” of some governmental installation, most taxpayers are not aware that for every actual federal employee, there are (according to the November 23rd Washington Post), three federal contract workers. At last count, made in 2005, the federal contractor workforce was over 7.6 million employees. That doesn’t even count the money such as what the feds pay local Afghan warlords to stay the course and fight on our side. The actual total federal workforce (including the military, the post office, and these contractors) probably places the total number of federal workers at between 12 and 13 million people.
And since we live in the time of “slogans but no solutions,” it is easy to focus on what is perceived to be the “bloated” federal bureaucracy, institute hiring and wage freezes, etc., but miss this mega-billion dollar contractor-elephant in the room issue. Writing for the Post, NYU’s Paul Light writes about the frustration of the best federal employees, who often quit early in the game out of bureaucratic frustration, and Washington’s reluctance to address the sheer bulk and mass of its workforce. Across-the-board meat-axe cuts and hiring freezes seem simple, efficient and easily implementable, but these do not implement long-term solutions to the actual bureaucratic structures themselves. And they do not differentiate among and between important services and unnecessary staffing. Further, “fire a bureaucrat and replace with a contractor” is smoke and mirrors, but it is all too common with the government.
The feds have a really bad habit, often born out of placating popular opinion. When a crisis hits, the government generally adds a new federal bureaucracy to deal with the problem. Makes folks seem like they’re doing something, but in reality, the bloat increases. 9/11 is a case in point. What did we really add to our national security with the addition of Homeland Security that some realignment of existing agencies wouldn’t have fixed? Instead, we have a new behemoth with turf wars (like with the Departments of Justice, Defense, Interior, Treasury and State) and tons of new federal employees. Are we really safer and better off? Or did we just pay for a very expensive optical comfort level that could have easily been accomplished without such a bloat? Did we make matters worse by creating unnecessary overlapping jurisdictions, where bureaucrats fight with each other rather than cooperate to solve problems?
Realize that notwithstanding the perception of overpaid senior bureaucrats, the highest levels in our government often use numbers of employees under their jurisdiction for bragging rights that would be replaced in the business world by vastly bigger salaries and bonuses. Would we better served by paying managers a bonus to get rid of workers (give them a percentage of sustainable savings, paid over years to insure that workers are not simply rehired later)? And what impact does dumping hundreds of thousands of workers off federal payrolls do for an economy looking for something to stimulate consumer demand… also a likely side effect of stopping unemployment insurance for millions of displaced workers?
Light writes about past efforts to downsize: “The Republican agenda will do much more harm than good. The new House majority needs only look back to President Ronald Reagan's agenda for the evidence. Like many presidents before him, Reagan started his term with a pay freeze, brought in a blue-ribbon commission of business experts to probe for savings, and attacked the middle-level bloat through what was widely known as the ‘bulge project.’
“Nothing worked. The federal hierarchy grew taller and wider, the federal workforce aged into higher ranks, and the bottom of government shrunk as contractors took on many of the inbox duties once reserved for federal employees. [President Obama’s bi-partisan] Fiscal Commission's notion that the federal government should adopt a 2:3 downsizing strategy [hire two replacements for every three departures] for filling vacancies will fare no better. It's a random shooting that will further eviscerate the front lines of government, where the goods and services are actually delivered, and that will fuel further growth in the contracting workforce.”
In the end, we need a systematized methodology for ground-up reexamination of entire bureaucracies, a parallel template for contractors, a reward system for instituting systemic cuts that improve and do not impair governmental operations and a mechanism to cushion the blow of displacing large numbers of workers when strong action is required. We also can’t miss the huge cost-creators and think that we can just go on maintaining our standard of living without huge sacrifices.
The Administration seems to have committed the U.S. to remain in Afghanistan until 2014 (supporting a mega-corrupt regime) with combat forces… and indefinitely thereafter with training and support forces. But when we eventually leave, is there the slightest doubt what is going to happen? Are the trillions of dollars for this campaign what Americans need or want? Can we afford more mega-stupid dog tricks?
Are we remotely competent in this theater of operations? Think so? Try this report from the cover of the November 23rd New York Times: “For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement… But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO [this is where we come in ] appear to have achieved little.” And we are committed to this debacle for another decade? A Department of Defense report to the Congress, released November 24th, describes our Afghan war effort as “uneven,” with the few minor advances in security vastly outweighed by “numerous challenges.” Who are we kidding? It’s not happening according to plan!
When are we going create an operational structure that deals with the biggest ticket items in government spending instead of dealing with chipping and chopping at less-than-obvious targets? On November 26th, the Afghan war that we are fighting is now longer than the war that helped bring down the Soviet Union (9 years and 50 days). We must be slow learners.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment