GovernmentExecutive.com

Bush appointees have been headed out the door for a while, but we’ve only just gotten to the point in the presidential election, which is to say, immediately before it, where the names of potential high-level nominees start circulating. And the quality of presidential nominees is becoming a campaign issue: the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows that Barack Obama has a 14-point advantage over John McCain when voters are asked about the candidates’ abilities to appoint qualified people to serve in their administration. 44 percent of the people polled said Obama would make good appointments, while only 30 percent said the same of McCain. The American Prospect has a clever guide to making into the next administration up on their website. And our colleague Marc Ambinder has been compiling nomination dish over at his blog, and the latest edition is up here. So let’s get started too; what do you guys think of these nominees? Anyone you’d like to be your ultimate boss? Or anyone who looks like the boss from hell? Let us know in comments.

The closer the election gets, the more I've been thinking about Barack Obama's promise to "review the federal budget line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work or are unnecessary."

In their commentary on the election in GovExec today, Paul Posner and Steven Katz make the following point:

Another version of bad politics happens when the president and Congress pledge to solve problems while providing only a symbolic glimmer of the resources required to achieve results. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a case in point: Years of budget reductions and regulatory constraints left this thinly staffed agency a parody of what a real consumer protection agency should do.

So by Obama's calculation, consumer product safety would seem to fall into the category of federal programs that "don't work." So does that mean he'll shut down the CPSC? Highly unlikely. In fact, I bet he'd do the opposite if elected -- propose to beef up the agency to address the issues Posner and Katz raise.

I discussed this issue in a 2004 column:

Lofty rhetoric aside, there's simply no direct line that can be drawn between a program's performance and its budget. Some poor-performing programs deserve to be killed. Others aren't doing well because they need more money. Still others just need a different approach to management, with more or less the same amount of cash.

The point here is that virtually all presidents declare that they're going to root out poor performing programs and cut or eliminate them, and virtually none have any success in actually doing so. The Bush administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool is just the latest case in point.

That's not to suggest gathering data on federal programs isn't important. But such information should be used for the purpose of improving the management of the programs. Decisions on whether to eliminate them or slash their funding are and always will be ideological, and thus will be handled in the political realm.

From David Frum's Diary on National Review Online:

A friend with a position in the French government writes:

I might have told you already, but I met Joe Biden twice (in 2004) and he didn't strike me as a particularly serious leader. For instance, during the same meeting (April 2004), he told participants that the US troops would surely withdraw from Irak within six months ("Mark my words"!) and then asked them to consider allowing a NATO mission in Irak . At one point, while he was trying to make some kind of point, he pointed his finger as yours truly and said something like "bureaucrats are sad - look at this man"). Well, I was actually just bored to death, but that was no reason to wake me up.

Let that be a lesson to you: If Biden and Obama win next Tuesday, learn to appreciate his rhetorical skills.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Want to support recently resigned Office of Special Counsel Chief Scott Bloch in his quest to clear his name in the face of an FBI investigation? If so, you can now contribute to the Scott Bloch Legal Defense Trust.

According to the trust's Web site, Bloch's supporters include Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Jeff Bell of Capital City Partners, and apparently, 18th century political philosopher Edmund Burke (the guy who came up with the "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" line).

Death and taxes joke? Check.
Observations about building security? Check
Wide-eyed wonder about the fact that lots of people might want to work for the federal government? Definitely check.

I tend to think it’s a good thing when big publications like the New York Times pay attention to job opportunities in the federal government and to federal operations. But stories like this one about the IRS lie somewhere between helpful and annoying. In the helpful column, it’s good journalism for the Times to look at what options are open and interesting to New Yorkers who have been laid off as a result of the financial meltdown or who are otherwise unemployed. It’s good for the government’s image problem to make it clear that folks who worked in other high-powered industries are also interested in federal jobs—in other words, that it’s not just slackers who work at federal agencies.

Continue reading "Is Federal Hiring Really That Mysterious?" »

Here's a contest that I have a feeling (maybe better described as a fear) that many GovExec readers will be in a position to win.

It starts with an article my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic describing the many ways he tried to thwart airport security -- and, for the most part, succeeded. Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawley responded to the article, saying in part:

Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don’t forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if “all” we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk.

That, in turn, casued Goldberg to launch a contest, which he described as follows: "How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors?" He provided the following example:

FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison said yesterday in a press conference that his agency is well-equipped to cope with the consequences of strong winds and heavy precipitation. "FEMA has been criticized for its performance during Hurricane Katrina, but I would like to point out that Katrina was a very big hurricane," he said. "Most storms, in fact, don't become hurricanes, and it is these storms that we will focus our efforts on." Paulison went on to say that FEMA is also prepared to handle the after-effects of such moderate storms as minor flooding, downed tree branches, and missing cats.

Entries already are coming in to the contest. If you want to give it a shot (and potentially win a subscription to The Atlantic), you can send your entry to: Goldberg.Atlantic@gmail.com.

Air and Space magazine, a Smithsonian publication has a great feature online: The Top NASA Photos of All Time. The photos evoke all eras of the agency's history of exploration, and it's amazing how many of them are utterly iconic.

I'm in Williamsburg, Va. for the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council annual Executive Leadership Conference. It's a big event, with hundreds of industry and government folks in attendance.

I've been focusing on the workforce-related sessions, and one theme that I've noticed so far is the challenges involved in managing the changing demographics of the workforce. More than one person has noted that this is an opportune moment for the government to be in the market for new talent. Given the country's economic situation, there are likely to be a lot of people in the market for stable, rewarding work.

Of course, as Paul Light (who'll be speaking here later) has noted, it's tragic that the government has to rely on a recession to improve its hiring prospects.

With more than 1.8 million civilian employees (not counting postal workers), the federal government is one big employer. But it's not as big as the largest private sector company. That would be Wal-Mart Stores, with more than 2 million employees. And Uncle Sam's workforce pales in comparison to that of state and local government.

The Census Bureau reports that the almost 90,000 state and local governments across the country employed 16.4 million people last year, up 4.5 percent from 2002. The biggest areas of employment were education (8.8 million), hospitals (989,000), police protection (933,000) and corrections (731,000).

OK, let's test your memories: Below is a quotation from a president about his management reform effort. Can you fill in the blanks with the correct name of the crusade (and, for bonus points, name the president)?

This coming week I'll bring my senior appointees together at the White House to continue an ambitious program to upgrade management of the Federal Government. Our long-range goal is to overhaul the entire administrative system. I call this effort _______________. It's a big job. Our government has ... personnel in over 22,000 buildings, using 19,000 computers, 330 differing financial systems, and 200 payroll systems, and there's never been an effective effort to manage this growing administrative monster.

Each year we've fallen behind the private sector in management techniques. Well, we're bringing this to an end now. _______________ is geared to get results. Over a 6-year period, it'll save the taxpayers or result in a better use of tens of billions of dollars that could mean as much as the equivalent of nearly $2,000 for the average American family. And these savings won't be obtained by cutting help to the deserving but by eliminating waste and inefficiency.

Use the comments field to supply your answer. (Here's a tip: Shortly, there will be a big clue posted elsewhere on GovernmentExecutive.com.)

And remember, in the world of bureaucratic reform, everything old is new again.

Update: As the comments make pretty clear, the correct answer is Reform 88 and Ronald Reagan. In retrospect, the bit about more federal buildings than computers was kind of a giveaway. Thanks to all for playing.

Here's one of those stories that shows a commitment to public service sometimes transcends a commitment to government service: The Washington Post reports that after the Peace Corps evacuated all 113 of its volunteers from Bolivia last month -- fearing that they might get caught up in political unrest in the country -- several of them have returned on their own to try to complete projects they started.

John McCain has made a pledge to freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year a centerpiece of his government reform platform. Now Barack Obama is trying to use that pledge against him.

National Journal's Ad Spotlight notes that Obama is running radio ads in Florida saying the proposal would stall NASA spending -- a sore subject in the Sunshine State.

Here's Ad Spotlight's description of the ad -- and McCain's response:

McCain "wants to freeze NASA spending at last year's level," says Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., in the ad. "So layoffs would loom larger, and NASA would continue to be starved of funds for future exploration."

For his part, McCain visited the state Friday and promised $2 billion in additional funding for the space agency, arguing that Obama is the one who would cut NASA's budget. The Democrat once proposed delaying the Constellation program, which would return humans to the moon, to pay for his education plan.

I had the pleasure of listening to Paul Light of New York University deliver the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Lecture on Congress at the Library of Congress yesterday. As always, he had a series of choice observations:

• The upcoming change of administrations "will be the most difficult transition since Abraham Lincoln," he said. Even Franklin Roosevelt at least had more time to begin planning to address the effects of the Great Depression (his inauguration wasn't until March 4, 1933) and didn't have to deal with two wars overseas. "One wonders why anybody would want to be president during this period," Light said.
• Since Congress will be expecting an ambitious agenda to address the economic situation, and because the next president will need to tackle the "rusting out of Great Society" programs, there will be little room to pursue other grand plans. "Are we going to go to Mars any time soon? Given this agenda, I doubt it," Light said.
• There's little to fear from the impending wave of retirements among federal employees, Light argued, because "there are plenty of people lined up for the jobs." But, he added, it's a tragedy that the government has to rely on an economic recession to improve interest in the public service.
• The federal government has an inherent problem communicating with young people about the value of public service, Light said. Too often, pay, benefits and job security are touted as the prime benefits of federal employment, and not the opportunity to do meaningful work. And even efforts to emphasize the value of working as a civil servant often fall flat. For example, when Barack Obama speaks of making government "cool again," he's using the lingo of baby boomers, not members of the millennial generation, Light said.

And of course, I'd feel bad if I didn't put in a little plug for his latest book, A Government Ill Executed.

Allan Holmes already has covered this over at Tech Insider, but I can't resist weighing in: In this week's New Yorker, Joe Biden outlines his role in a potential Obama administration. In his mind, it involves a central role in formulating and carrying out substantive policies, and does not involve anything to do with restructuring and managing the federal bureaucracy. Here's Ryan Lizza's description in the magazine of Obama's discussions with Biden about the vice presidency:

He also tested Biden’s understanding of how broad his role would be, as opposed to that of another contender—apparently, Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas and the only woman known to be on Obama’s short list. “He said, ‘Well, you know, if I offered this to somebody’—he named her, a person—he said, ‘That person would be very happy if I assigned them to reorganize the government.’ And he said, ‘They’d be very happy doing that. How about you?’ ” That didn’t sound like much of a job to Biden. “No,” he told Obama. “That’s not what I want to do.”

When Obama announced a broad government reform plan on Sept. 22, it sounded like Biden would play a key role: "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will create a focused team within the White House that will work with agency leaders and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to improve results and outcomes for federal government programs while eliminating waste and inefficiency," the plan stated.

But apparently, the consensus among Democrats now is that the vice president is too valuable to waste on such an endeavor. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 Democratic standard-bearer, told Lizza he thought President Clinton made a mistake in placing Vice President Al Gore in charge of his National Performance Review effort to overhaul government. “I think when he was given reinventing government, it put him on the sidelines,” Kerry said.

On the McCain ticket on the other hand, Sarah Palin has made it plain that government reform will be part of her portfolio.

John McCain's Freudian slip characterization of Barack Obama was among the most entertaining moments of last night's debate. You'll find it at the tail end of this clip, right around the 3:00 mark:

Now the only question is whether he'll get the chance to be "President Government."

From the official White House transcript of President Bush's remarks at a Cabinet meeting yesterday on the Treasury Department's plan to buy equity stakes in financial institutions:

For example, the equity purchases in the banks is designed so that these shares will eventually be sold back to the government.*

*banks

Remember the Lurita Doan who vigorously defended herself in front of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., against allegations that she engaged in improper political activity while serving as head of the General Services Administration? Well, it turns out that was the nice Lurita Doan.

Now that she's no longer in government, Doan apparently feels free to take the gloves off in dealing with Waxman. She sent Government Executive a copy of a letter she faxed over to Waxman yesterday in his response to his report alleging that Bush administration officials had engaged in "unprecedented" efforts to aid Republican candidates before the 2006 elections.

It's worth reading the whole letter, but here are some choice excerpts:

I note that you have, once again, initiated your unique brand of vicious, partisan politics by releasing a deliberately false report prior to an important election. ... As a previous victim of your partisan manipulations, and your deliberately dishonest statements, I feel compelled to speak out against your false assertions, disparaging my service and my character for the sole purpose of your own partisan agenda.

Once again, you have falsely asserted that, as the administrator of GSA, I improperly attempted to use government resources or my office to influence an election. This assertion, masquerading as an official committee report, is especially reprehensible because you, more than anyone else, know that it is utterly false. ...

Your flawed report is also curious for what it does not contain. Nowhere is there mention that you relied heavily on the flawed investigation of Special Counsel, Mr. Scott Bloch. Nor is there any mention of the fact that the OSC Director, Mr. Bloch, was forced to hire an outfit called "Geeks on Call" to quickly come in and erase all the files of his government computers dealing with this investigation when it became clear that the evidence had been doctored. ...

I now understand you and your ubiquitous hypocrisy. I know how your witch hunts and kangaroo courts work. So please, invite me to testify. I can't wait.

There aren't many growth industries these days, but here's one: federal regulation. Or so says the New York Times.

I've now been contacted by three different readers about our
October cover:

They all have asked the same question, in tones accusing us of political bias: When are you going to put John McCain on the cover? The answer, for the record, is that we already did, in September:

Interestingly, at the time we ran the September cover, no one contacted me to ask whether and when we would feature Obama -- even though unlike with McCain issue, we hadn't at that time already published an issue with him on the cover.

We make no endorsement in the presidential race. Our cover stories simply represent an effort to try to discern what each candidate would do as the government's top executive, and what they would expect of the career federal officials who would be asked to implement their policies.

The members of the National Federation of Federal Employees like their president, Richard N. Brown. They really, really like him. This week, Brown was reelected to a four-year term as president of the union, winning 86 percent of the vote in a race against NFFE member Greg Guthrie. The election took place at the union's national convention in Milwaukee, Wis.

If you're pondering whether the federal government has the capacity to move swiftly to implement a plan to overhaul the nation's financial structure to address the current economic crisis, consider this: The Fish and Wildlife Service has been working since February 2005 on new regulations governing falconry in the United States. Three and a half years is apparently how long it takes to upgrade the rules to "reflect current practices in the traditional use of raptors for sport hunting."

Is the widening economic crisis a boon to federal hiring? Computerworld reports that daily visits to the government's job portal, USAjobs.gov, have increased by 45 percent over the past six months. The Office of Personnel Management won't speculate on the reasons for the spike, but others figure it might have something to do with job losses across the U.S. economy. If there's any kind of silver lining to this crisis in the federal sector it has two facets: As the stock market tanks, those on the verge of retirement may decide to stick around for awhile, and as agencies face the need to replenish the talent pool, they'll apparently have a lot of candidates to choose from.

What do you do after spending more than 2,100 hours flying fighter jets, including a stint as a member of the elite Air Force Thunderbirds unit?

How about working for the government's central procurement agency? That's what Air Force Maj. Nicole Malachowski, the first woman to fly with the Thunderbirds, is doing. The General Services Administration announced Tuesday that Malachowski has joined the agency as a White House fellow for one year.

“GSA is an amazing agency that helps our nation in more ways than most people realize,” Malachowski said. “I’m thrilled to be here and looking forward to working on everything from presidential transition to emergency response and recovery issues.”

In the event of a flu pandemic, who should get first crack at vaccines and other treatment options? The conventional response is that health care workers, first responders and those most at risk for coming down with the disease should be at the front of the line.

But in a new report from the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, a panel of federal and state officials challenge that notion. They argue that some other people hold jobs so critical to the continued functioning of the country and its economy that they should be considered essential, too.

“Alongside healthcare workers and first responders, priority should be given to the people who provide the public with basic essentials for good health and well-being, ranging from grocery store employees and communications personnel to truck drivers and utility workers,” said Nancy Kass, deputy director of public health at the Berman Institute.

"Sometimes people in government never get thanked enough for all the hours they keep."

--President Bush, after a meeting with Treasury Department employees Friday.

How would John McCain go about implementing his sweeping plans for overhauling government? Maybe the same way Bill Clinton did.

In last night's vice presidential debate, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, offered up the following when asked what her portfolio as vice president would include:

John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs.

Just yesterday, we published an Associated Press report on how Postal Service volunteers may step up to distribute antibiotics in the event of a future anthrax attack.

Apparently, at least one postal carrier already has a head start in drug distribution -- and is paying the price for it. The Beaverton, Ore., Valley Times reports that Ronald Richard Berkan has been sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for selling marijuana on his route. Berkan also had to resign from the Postal Service after nearly 15 years of service and had to forfeit $3,000 of the money he made peddling weed.

Berkan's dope distribution scheme apparently went on for years, and he had at least one customer who was under 21.

(Hat tip: IEC Journal)

Belatedly, I must take note of Robert O'Harrow's piece in today's Washington Post about the Food and Drug Administration's apparent effort to use a contract with an Alaska Native corporation to funnel money to a Washington public relations firm.

This is just the latest in a long line of reports about the growing -- and questionable -- use of ANC contracts by federal agencies. We've published dozens of stories about it over the years.

For background on the whole ANC contracting issue, see this excellent 2005 Government Executive story by Kimberly Palmer.

I wonder what Sarah Palin's position on the practice is.

The Environmental Protection Agency proudly announced the grand reopening of several of its regional libraries yesterday.

"The reopening of regional libraries in Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City and the library at headquarters will help the agency better share information," EPA officials said in a press release. "Also, all EPA libraries received additional funding for equipment, staffing, or materials to further enhance the public's access to environmental information."

What went unstated in the release was the fact that EPA had moved swiftly in 2006 to shutter the libraries and digitize materials in them. At the time, an EPA official said that "when libraries go digital, everyone benefits." The move came in anticipation of proposed Bush administration budget cuts.

Congress responded by mandating that the agency reopen the closed libraries, and provided additional funding for them.

Now, EPA says, "all libraries will be staffed by a professional librarian to provide services to the public and EPA staff via phone, e-mail, or in person."