As a federal employee, you probably think that my view on contractors is dim and that I don't think any of the work should be contracted out. You're wrong. Contracting out work has resulted in some amazing accomplishments. Before we get into the advantages, we should discuss the necessities: There are small and large businesses that specialize in particular areas. Said businesses provide specialized products and services that we all rely on. There are a myriad of goods AND services that contractors provide to the government, so it would be impossible to provide a list. Let's just say that the government couldn't possibly survive without contractors providing support.
This leads to some of the amazing achievements that have been realized because of contracting. If it wasn't for contracting, nuclear power would never have become a reality. The sound barrier may not have been broken. The helicopter wouldn't have developed as fast as it did, nor would the airplane. And the list goes on. If it wasn't for contractors like Bethlehem shipbuilding, it is unlikely the 16" guns that were mounted on WW II battleships would have been developed in time to play an important part in winning the war. The M-1 Garand, once called the "greatest battle implement ever devised" by George S. Patton, was developed by a government employee (John Garand). It was manufactured by a then-government owned facility (Springfield Armory). But that is a very rare exception to the fact that most of the innovation in the military came from contractors. The most well-remembered example is John Browning. Designer of several automatic weapons for the U.S., his .50 caliber machine gun has been in service with the U.S. military for over 50 years, and his 1911 .45 caliber pistol is still fielded by military and police almost 100 years since it's initial production
But the biggest achievement was space flight. Sure, the Soviets were the pioneers of unmanned satellites and orbiting humans. But NASA's achievements in the 1960s were the results of concerted efforts between contractors and the government. North American built the Command and Service module; Grumman built the Lunar module; Boeing, North American, and Douglas all built the stages that made up the Saturn V. Not to mention the too-long-to-list roster of other contractors that made space exploration a reality.
Does the government do some things better than contractors? Indeed. We enforce the laws, deliver the mail, and guard the nation. And quite frankly, it takes sworn personnel to accomplish that. I would advocate against privatizing those functions that are necessary to ensure a safe, secure nation where freedom is not a privilege but a basic human right.
But I am also smart enough to know that accomplishing this mission cannot be done without the support of expert contractors who share this desire. I submit that there is a definitive, crucial need for contractors. Without them, our government couldn't function.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Federal Pay Freeze
Okay. I'm a Democrat. I get it. We all have to accept that the budget situation and the deficit are becoming very critical. After years of unchecked spending during the Bush administration and a refusal to raise taxes, President Obama inherited the largest federal debt in history. Compounding matters, he also walked into an economy that was in almost as bad a shape as the one Franklin Delano Roosevelt inherited in 1933. Had the President paid more attention to the economy and jobs, he wouldn't have lost the House in the mid-terms. Now, he has to do the politically savvy thing and make sure that the incoming majority understands that he shares their concerns insofar as federal spending is concerned.
The most public way to do that is to address the salaries of his own employees (of which I am one). Ergo, he decided to freeze all civilian pay for the next two years as well as the locality adjustment for 2011. Of course, there are plenty of uninformed people out there that are cheering this move, as they truly believe that a government can run on auto-pilot. They don't understand what the rest of the planet has understood since the days of the Roman Republic: it takes a civil service comprised of educated professionals to run a government. The Chinese understood this so well that they started conducting civil service written examinations in the 6th century.
So it ticks me off to hear someone with a high school education point a finger at me and say that I am under-worked and overpaid. Suppose I told you that I busted my butt for 8 years in college and law school? What if I told you that I worked overnight at the Post Office for all 8 of those years? And then did an UNPAID internship in a federal agency my last semester of law school? Would you say I'm worth the base salary I make of just over $50,000.00? Because I live in Boston, I get a locality adjustment that adds $12,000.00 to my base salary. And without getting too specific about where I work, let's just say that when your boss screws you over on pay and overtime, I'm the first person you call.
But the REAL problem with the freeze is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem of the debt and the deficit. The plain fact is that when Bill Clinton left office, there was a budget surplus, and the national debt was being reduced so fast, that the national debt clock had to be unplugged, because it couldn't keep up. So the obvious question is why you would freeze the pay of a group that is likely to spend and contribute to the economic recovery with their disposable income?
This isn't to insinuate that the freeze won't help, but it's far from the solutions needed to turn around the economy. What really needs to happen are some very unpopular measures. First, the President needs to remind the American people that the debt was run up during the previous administration. The cost of the war and the largest increase in federal personnel in the history of the civil service took place when the Republicans had the House and the Senate and the White House. That is a fact that everyone is forgetting.
Second, real cost cutting has to take place, and not just in the civil service. This move will undoubtedly reduce the work force: if you are at retirement age and you were holding off so that your retirement may increase slightly over the next 2 years, you now have no incentive to stick around. So this measure will accomplish the goals the President wants to accomplish. Unfortunately, those moves are for the most part symbolic measures that won't accomplish real savings.
Third, the President needs to make people understand that the Republicans have zero interest in bipartisanship. They are only interested in taking the White House back. He needs to make sure the American people know that the bad guys are on the other side of the aisle.
The most public way to do that is to address the salaries of his own employees (of which I am one). Ergo, he decided to freeze all civilian pay for the next two years as well as the locality adjustment for 2011. Of course, there are plenty of uninformed people out there that are cheering this move, as they truly believe that a government can run on auto-pilot. They don't understand what the rest of the planet has understood since the days of the Roman Republic: it takes a civil service comprised of educated professionals to run a government. The Chinese understood this so well that they started conducting civil service written examinations in the 6th century.
So it ticks me off to hear someone with a high school education point a finger at me and say that I am under-worked and overpaid. Suppose I told you that I busted my butt for 8 years in college and law school? What if I told you that I worked overnight at the Post Office for all 8 of those years? And then did an UNPAID internship in a federal agency my last semester of law school? Would you say I'm worth the base salary I make of just over $50,000.00? Because I live in Boston, I get a locality adjustment that adds $12,000.00 to my base salary. And without getting too specific about where I work, let's just say that when your boss screws you over on pay and overtime, I'm the first person you call.
But the REAL problem with the freeze is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem of the debt and the deficit. The plain fact is that when Bill Clinton left office, there was a budget surplus, and the national debt was being reduced so fast, that the national debt clock had to be unplugged, because it couldn't keep up. So the obvious question is why you would freeze the pay of a group that is likely to spend and contribute to the economic recovery with their disposable income?
This isn't to insinuate that the freeze won't help, but it's far from the solutions needed to turn around the economy. What really needs to happen are some very unpopular measures. First, the President needs to remind the American people that the debt was run up during the previous administration. The cost of the war and the largest increase in federal personnel in the history of the civil service took place when the Republicans had the House and the Senate and the White House. That is a fact that everyone is forgetting.
Second, real cost cutting has to take place, and not just in the civil service. This move will undoubtedly reduce the work force: if you are at retirement age and you were holding off so that your retirement may increase slightly over the next 2 years, you now have no incentive to stick around. So this measure will accomplish the goals the President wants to accomplish. Unfortunately, those moves are for the most part symbolic measures that won't accomplish real savings.
Third, the President needs to make people understand that the Republicans have zero interest in bipartisanship. They are only interested in taking the White House back. He needs to make sure the American people know that the bad guys are on the other side of the aisle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)