Bush's privitization flop

[Ravi]

Moreover, the Government Accountability Office found that the administration has overstated the savings from some competitions by undercounting the costs of running them. Collectively, they cost $225 million, or about $4,800 per job, according to White House figures.

"The competitive sourcing initiative did little to improve management, produced a ton of worthless paper, demoralized thousands of workers and cost a bundle, all to prove that federal employees are pretty good after all," said Paul C. Light, a professor of government at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

"From a legacy perspective for the president, I think this will be seen as a costly failure on his part," said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represents 150,000 employees in 31 agencies. "They have not made any progress on what their stated goal was, and that's a good thing. It has been just an endless fight to slow them down and to derail them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403457.html

 

[manifold]

LOL!!


It's threads like this that earn you the moniker of agenda ho. With the plethora of sound reasons to criticize the Bush administration, and even consider it an abject failure, you elect to pour scorn based on an initiative that didn't succeed because it was fought against, tooth and nail, right from the very beginning.

In the end, the unions and their allies in Congress largely stymied the administration's efforts. They banned the use of numerical quotas. They inserted special provisions in annual appropriations bills that denied funding for some competitions. And they walled off certain federal jobs after declaring them "inherently governmental."

 

[Ravi]

LOL!!


It's threads like this that earn you the moniker of agenda ho. With the plethora of sound reasons to criticize the Bush administration, and even consider it an abject failure, you elect to pour scorn based on an initiative that didn't succeed because it was fought against, tooth and nail, right from the very beginning.

ooops!

I still think it's stupid to add an extra layer off non-accountability.

 

[manifold]

ooops!

I still think it's stupid to add an extra layer off non-accountability.

I don't think that was the intent.

But it still was pretty stupid though. Not the concept itself, but believing it wouldn't be met with so much resistance at every turn as to ensure failure was resoundly retarded.

 

[Dogger]

With the plethora of sound reasons to criticize the Bush administration, and even consider it an abject failure, you elect to pour scorn based on an initiative that didn't succeed because it was fought against, tooth and nail, right from the very beginning.

Isn't that the GOP approach to government? Sabotage it from within and above, and then claim it doesn't work?

Republican John Dean wrote a whole book about it. In an effort to prove government doesn't work, conservatives managed to prove only that it doesn't work when they are in charge.

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

He ends quoting another lifelong Republican about the current condition of the GOP:

"Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties; that is not longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government; Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."

 

[Ravi]

Isn't that the GOP approach to government? Sabotage it from within and above, and then claim it doesn't work?

Republican John Dean wrote a whole book about it. In an effort to prove government doesn't work, conservatives managed to prove only that it doesn't work when they are in charge.

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

He ends quoting another lifelong Republican about the current condition of the GOP:

THEIR definition of capitalism...kill 'em all and let God sort it out.

 

[manifold]

THEIR definition of capitalism...kill 'em all and let God sort it out.

Just to be clear, that's not my definition.

 

[Alpha1]

Isn't that the GOP approach to government? Sabotage it from within and above, and then claim it doesn't work?

Thats certainly the Dimocrat approach to waging the war on terrorism...sabotage it from within and then claim we're losing and it can't be won....and thats proving to work for them..


Republican John Dean wrote a whole book about it. In an effort to prove government doesn't work, conservatives managed to prove only that it doesn't work when they are in charge.

Labeling Dean a Republican is akin to labeling Zell Miller a Democrat....
true but mis-leading as all hell....

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

He ends quoting another lifelong Republican about the current condition of the GOP:

A

 

[Gunny]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403457.html

Did you bother to read the article YOU posted? Perhaps you'd like to point out where EXACTLY there is this "flip-flop?" You lefties are so predictable and petty. A term is used against a Democrat and y'all spend the next four years beating it to death, to the point that you don't even know what it means.

Simply put, the idea to make government employees compete for their jobs is a good one. If you haven't been around the government before, then you might not know what it means, but if ever anyone could be called fat, lazy ticks, it's civil service employees.

It was a program that was begun under Eisenhower.

The article also states the program HAS saved over a $1B. a year.

But let's see WHO is to blame here actually.

From the outset, the program's rocky path illustrated the collective political power of federal workers. The initiative drew early criticism from politicians whose districts included many federal employees, including Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). They argued that the White House was pursuing "arbitrary" numerical job targets.

In the end, the unions and their allies in Congress largely stymied the administration's efforts. They banned the use of numerical quotas. They inserted special provisions in annual appropriations bills that denied funding for some competitions. And they walled off certain federal jobs after declaring them "inherently governmental."

The unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the NTEU, also won legislative restrictions that removed health care and retirement benefits from the cost comparisons, wiping out an advantage for many private-sector bidders.

Many contractors threw up their hands and stopped participating, said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, an Arlington-based contractor group.

A competition involving 258 administrative positions at the Labor Department, including 50 in the Mine Safety and Health Administration, illustrates why contractors lost interest, Soloway said.

In May 2007, the department awarded the work to GAP Solutions, a small, minority-owned firm in Virginia whose bid promised $62 million in savings over five years. But at the behest of unions, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) had the jobs declared inherently governmental, prohibiting the contractor from taking over the work.

The company had already hired some employees, but when Labor officials terminated the $71 million contract, they refused to reimburse the firm for its upfront costs, Soloway said. (GAP Solutions officials declined to comment.)

Hmmm ....

Other than the fact that Bush reintroduced the program, and it has not achieved the results HE desired, I don't even see where HE is involved, and I damned sure don't see where he changed his poistion on the topic.

And Hell, I'll even say that I COMPLETELY AGREE with Bush on this one, and it's just too bad the bureaucracy is so adept at protecting and perpetuating itself.

 

[Ravi]

Calm down Gunny, I've already been slapped for it once today.

I did used to work for the government and I agree, there is a lot of waste. There is also a point to be made for continuity. Changing players leads to stupid mistakes and making employees that know what they are doing compete for their own jobs is pretty silly.

 

[Gunny]

Calm down Gunny, I've already been slapped for it once today.

I did used to work for the government and I agree, there is a lot of waste. There is also a point to be made for continuity. Changing players leads to stupid mistakes and making employees that know what they are doing compete for their own jobs is pretty silly.

I am not discussing continuity. Of course continuity matters.

There is NOTHING silly about making government employees compete for their jobs. Everybody else has to, and "continuity" is not a reason to keep an employee that is arrogant, lazy and just punches the clock because he/she knows they are assured a comfy retirement at 20.

Try doing THAT in the Marines. When you become noncompetitive for promotion in the Marines, you're gone. Period. Nothing used to piss me off more than some civilian sauntering down the hall of the Navy Annex with no sense of urgency because they just didn't give a shit while we had to bust our asses to make up for their lack of productivity.

The knowledge that "once you're in, you're in" and the common knowledge and unwritten rule that it "takes an act of Congress to get rid of civilian" has created a perfect breeding ground for leeches.

The size of our government is ridiculous and it most certainly needs to be trimmed down. They keep downsizing the military while increasing our OpTempo. Trim out a job and either than remain civilian picks up the slack or gets replaced.

If private companies will do some of the lower-level administrative work for less than civil service employees, then they should be awarded the jobs and those civil service jobs cut.

Are you aware that secretaries in DC in the civil service are GS-8s & 9s? They make roughly the equivalent of a 1stLt. Because they can type. A 1stLt has to have 4 years of college and make it through OCS or be a service academy grad. A GS-8 needs high school typing. Those same postitions are held by GS-3-5's away from DC.

Sorry, but those are MY -- and YOUR -- tax dollars NOT at work.

 

[Ravi]

After they already have the job I do think it's silly.

As for the Marines, would you outsource them?

What have we ever privatized that's actually been a success?

 

[cbi0090]

After they already have the job I do think it's silly.

As for the Marines, would you outsource them?

What have we ever privatized that's actually been a success?

A lot!!! Public works projects for starts. But the problem is not whether a private concern can compete, they definitely can, the problem is how to prove it. Internal audits within private corporations have to be complete, accurate and include all costs for management to make decisions. This is not the case for governments. They calculate things completely different.

I recently spent a year and a half trying to point that very thing out to a large county in Florida and it was nothing but an uphill battle. They wanted to say they were competitive with private industry but they had to "cook" the books so badly to make it look that way it would be actually criminal if it was a public corporation. The "true" internal audit we conducted revealed an overhead rate of nearly 400% for their operational staff, compared to typical rates of 100 to 140% for private companies?!?

 

[Gunny]

After they already have the job I do think it's silly.

As for the Marines, would you outsource them?

What have we ever privatized that's actually been a success?

What's silly is suggesting outsourcing the Marines. For one thing, you could never find a company that would agree to work for the price Marines get, much less to lowball it.

You're disregarding the point of my argument. You think it's silly that people should have to earn their money? THAT is silly. Where's the reasoning behind rewarding unproductive people? Why are they unproductive? Because people like you think they are entitled to something just because they managed to get in the front door.

It doesn't work like that in the civilian sector. You don't produce, you're gone.

And btw, the professional corps of the Marine Corps is about 15 - 20 % of it's total strength. The rest are 1st and second term Marines. About 15-20% of them will stay while about 15-20% at the top of the professional corps will retire. So roughly 80% of the Marine Corps turns over every 3-4 years.

And as I previsously stated, if you don't compete for promotion in the Corps, you're gone. You compete for promotion starting at E-3. E-3's and E-4s have composite scores based on basic skills. If they do not meet the composite score listed for their MOS, they don't get promoted.

E-5s and above compete on boards held at Headquarters, US Marine Corps. The general ratio is if they have 75 slots coming open for promotion, they choose the top 100 names. 25 people are going home.

It's a dog eat dog world. No one's entitled, and neither should civil service employees be.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A govt employee who has a perm position practically has to commit a horrible crime to get fired. It's a disgrace how GS level employees are given a free ride with no reprimands for insubordination, on the taxpayers dime. I'm all for accountability in the civil service system. If it were up to me I'd cut 20 percent of all civilian service funding within the depts.

 

[Ravi]

A lot!!! Public works projects for starts. But the problem is not whether a private concern can compete, they definitely can, the problem is how to prove it. Internal audits within private corporations have to be complete, accurate and include all costs for management to make decisions. This is not the case for governments. They calculate things completely different.

I recently spent a year and a half trying to point that very thing out to a large county in Florida and it was nothing but an uphill battle. They wanted to say they were competitive with private industry but they had to "cook" the books so badly to make it look that way it would be actually criminal if it was a public corporation. The "true" internal audit we conducted revealed an overhead rate of nearly 400% for their operational staff, compared to typical rates of 100 to 140% for private companies?!?

And yet you were able to put a stop to it because you had the power of accountability. Public works, you mean like road work???

 

[Ravi]

What's silly is suggesting outsourcing the Marines. For one thing, you could never find a company that would agree to work for the price Marines get, much less to lowball it.

You're disregarding the point of my argument. You think it's silly that people should have to earn their money? THAT is silly. Where's the reasoning behind rewarding unproductive people? Why are they unproductive? Because people like you think they are entitled to something just because they managed to get in the front door.

It doesn't work like that in the civilian sector. You don't produce, you're gone.

And btw, the professional corps of the Marine Corps is about 15 - 20 % of it's total strength. The rest are 1st and second term Marines. About 15-20% of them will stay while about 15-20% at the top of the professional corps will retire. So roughly 80% of the Marine Corps turns over every 3-4 years.

And as I previsously stated, if you don't compete for promotion in the Corps, you're gone. You compete for promotion starting at E-3. E-3's and E-4s have composite scores based on basic skills. If they do not meet the composite score listed for their MOS, they don't get promoted.

E-5s and above compete on boards held at Headquarters, US Marine Corps. The general ratio is if they have 75 slots coming open for promotion, they choose the top 100 names. 25 people are going home.

It's a dog eat dog world. No one's entitled, and neither should civil service employees be.

We're talking about two different things. I have no problem with getting rid of people that don't perform. There was no evidence that these people weren't performing.

I don't want to outsource the marines. It seems to me a lot of military jobs are now done by private contractors and seeing the awarded contracts it is hard to imagine it's costing the taxpayers less.

 

[cbi0090]

And yet you were able to put a stop to it because you had the power of accountability. Public works, you mean like road work???

Roads, bridges, capital improvements, utilities, and such. No, I wasn't. Politics prevailed and they squelched the whole effort. In the end, they would have had to eliminate over half their staff and those who remained would have had to actually be good at what they do. Accountability is not part of government vernacular.
It starts with competing impressions of need, then just a dedication of money. What makes one need greater than the other is strictly based on complaints or pressure. Totally reactionary. This why they get blind-sided constantly and why politics is not the way to run a country. Once decisions are made and laws and enforcement of those laws are put into place the politicians should stand aside.

 

[cbi0090]

We're talking about two different things. I have no problem with getting rid of people that don't perform. There was no evidence that these people weren't performing.

I don't want to outsource the marines. It seems to me a lot of military jobs are now done by private contractors and seeing the awarded contracts it is hard to imagine it's costing the taxpayers less.

Actually, they do cost much less but not because the individual is more efficient. A public servant can be the best at what they do, but in a governmental setting will still be inefficient because of the overhead attached to them. That includes all of their superiors, who aren't directly involved in the operations, (think how many that can be) all of the support personnel providing paychecks, health care, pensions, human resources, etc! Now add that all up! In government settings, even when divided among all those who actually work, it is a heavy load. Sometimes as high as 3 to 4 times as much.
Exampe: When I was doing some work for FEMA, in California (Northridge Earthquake), the state government had mental health counselors (they had a different name- it was funny) that did nothing but walk around, wring their hands, and ask you how you were doing every day and if you needed a back rub (no kidding). They made around $80K a year and there was about a half of dozen of them for our group of around 100. Their theory was that because we are looking at stress (cracks in concrete) every day, we would internalize it and become stressed! So their job was to go around and make sure we weren't going to go postal, due to all the stress we were seeing!?!
I'm not making this up. I don't have that much imagination!
It's a silly example but it demonstrates how costs get added up toward something within government because someone came in and "convinced" someone that it was needed.

 

[Ravi]

I'd have to see some actual savings benefit before thinking outsourcing the government was more effective and cheaper.

But the roads thing made me laugh. Notorious for going over budget and taking for ever. And every time I drive by any road construction there are about 15 paid onlookers for every person working. Yeah, government contracts, what a hoot.