Bush administration puts 850,000 federal jobs up for private sector bids

AP ^ | 11/14 | RON FOURNIER,

[concerned about politics]

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.

[SunStar]

Woohoo!

[Phantom Lord]

I suspect that 850,000 Imperial Federal Government (IFG) jobs could be eliminated entirely.

[SamAdams76]

It would appear that there is a difference between the two parties.

[rintense]

Ya think?

[concerned about politics]

Strategery.

[Fabozz]

"It would appear that there is a difference between the two parties."

And it's worth a lot more than $0.10.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Yes!!! The tax-leeching bureaucrats are perhaps this country's BIGGEST problem, as is documented at:

http://www.spaceprojects.com/bureaucrats

Unfortunately, though, this streamlining will apparently take about a year to implement and won't focus on more than just the lowest levels of bureaucrats. But once they're dealt with, the unions will have less dues and votes with which to corruptly protect higher ranking bureaucrats.

[JesusIsLord]

Now, what can we do to to bring down the NEA union, the right hand of the democrat party, the left hand being trial lawyers?

[RooRoobird14]

YAYY!!!!!! Out with lazy overpaid bureacrats!!!!!

How do you like this for "re-inventing government," Al?

[joesnuffy]

Open up Mexico even wider and bring up more cheap labor

[concerned about politics]

Now, what can we do to to bring down the NEA union, the right hand of the democrat party, the left hand being trial lawyers?

I'm impressed he pulled this one off, and it's success could be a great move to prove competition works! It would work on the teachers unions too!

[Feiny]

Sounds like a good start. This should drive the libs nuts....they hate the private sector.

Now, lets cut all the pork!

[backhoe]

This is the real "Election Earthquake"- look for a quantumn change.

[BlackbirdSST]

Oh my goodness, a semi-conservative action, WOW!!!! Where's the compassion? Better yet, what's the catch, and how does this benefit the left? Blackbird.

[hobbes1]

Now, what can we do to to bring down the NEA union, the right hand of the democrat party, the left hand being trial lawyers?

Order the IRS, and DOJ, to investigate the DOCUMENTED allegations being made by Landmark LF, and Codify, and Enforce BECK.

[Recovering_Democrat]

REGARDING GOVERNMENT REFORM, HERE ARE THE BOTTOM LINES:
AL GORE:Pretender.
G.W. BUSH:
CONTENDER!!

[Wphile]

Did anyone see the Union thug on Capitol Report with Alan Murray on CNBC last night? He was representing the Federal employees union. Oh, man, what a THUG!

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

No, you see by not lowering the amount of workers in the Federal Government to 1789 levels, the Republicans are again showing they are no different from the Democrats. Only Libertarians are working to instantly and completely remove Big Government while the Republicrats continue to grow it. Steps in the right direction are not enough, we must have a complete destruction of the last 213 years of government growth, or it proves that the Republicans don't care about our Constitution. 99% right is still 1% wrong. "Purity over Progress"

[concerned about politics]

how does this benefit the left?

IT DOESN'T! It was a presidential mandate! Congress was not involved!

[CindyDawg]

He wouldn't need construction workers if he abolished the IRS. He could move his department into their buildings. LOL CD

[End The Hypocrisy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20010830-99647884.htm

Perpetual pursuit of government reforms

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

[putupon]

Open up Mexico even wider and bring up more cheap labor

Send the Mexicans home and let the laid off Federal Bums cut the grass. They need the exercise after sitting on their fat butts for so long. Get them in better shape and it will cut down on health costs too.

[VRWC_minion]

850,000 rat votes at in play. Bold move on Bush's part.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Hmmm, does this mean we'll actually have competent people like Argenbright bidding on border patrol posts? </sarcasm off

[1Old Pro]

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

That says it ALL

[Squantos]

Laz FYI !!........Stay Safe !

[concerned about politics]

850,000 rat votes at in play. Bold move on Bush's part.

The RATS already had those votes. No great loss.

[thingumbob]

Yippy!!!!

This is great news the only union votes I want the republicans to have are the non-governmental union votes....they pay for this masquarade of government efficiency too!

YIPPY!!!!!

"W" Rules!!! Tommy boy must be beside himself today! NOW if Trent Lott has grown a backbone we might really make a dent in this bloated bureaucracy.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>850,000 rat votes at in play. Bold move on Bush's part.<<<


Plus their rat families, and the merchants who depend upon them (all at taxpayer expense of course).

[dennisw]

I suspect that 850,000 Imperial Federal Government (IFG) jobs could be eliminated entirely.

Best bennies in the universe for these politically correct, affirmative actioned lard asses. The jig is up!
Same PC dummies bungled the sniper shootings by just looking for white guys. And have never apologized for this outrage.

(Many Feds are OK and competent but the idiots in your ranks are ruining it for you)

[End The Hypocrisy]

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

>That says it ALL<


I bet this figure doesn't even take into account lost productivity within society which the bureaucrats' regulatory conduct (and misconduct) presently still wreak upon society. Here's a concise, well-documented & picturesque story about how NASA bureaucrats sabotaged a commercial, privately owned, nontax-supported space station just because it was 25 times cheaper to build and also to operate than NASA's own (predictably still unfinished) space station:

http://www.spaceprojects.com/Mir

[LS]

Yah, no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I'm sure Algore would have done the same thing. (Sarcasm off).

[concerned about politics]

Plus their rat families, and the merchants who depend upon them (all at taxpayer expense of course).

Yeh. The Democrats kept them employed. I'm sure the dems had their votes already. Nothing will change there.

[stands2reason]

You forgot. The quickest way to getting us back to 1789 is to elect the most socialist leftists to office, specifically Hillary! to the Oval Office.
See, when the sheeple see what it's really like to live under a socialist system, they will rise as one and rebel against the state, demanding we return back at once to our original ideal of government! (leftist disruptor posing as Freeper)

[dennisw]

I respect all unions except gov't unions. Gov't unions are always in cahoots w/ the party of expanded governmet. The 'cRATS!

Go get 'em GW!

[glory]

Makes you wonder how much schools would save taxpayers if there was widespread competition too doesn't it?

[concerned about politics]

First - landslide election, non-union controled Homeland security, two judges, Nancy, and now this.
Sorry Dems. God IS on our side. LOL

[BlackbirdSST]

IT DOESN'T! It was a presidential mandate! Congress was not involved! What does Congress have to do with it? This President doesn't do something even semi-conservative without pandering to the left. So, the questions stand! Blackbird.

[glock rocks]

union snub bump

[VRWC_minion]

The RATS already had those votes. No great loss.

When they get a real job maybe they become republicans.

[nicmarlo]

850,000 rat votes at in play. Bold move on Bush's part.

Yep; very bold.

[concerned about politics]

? This President doesn't do something even semi-conservative without pandering to the left. So, the questions stand! Blackbird.

Well....I've looked and I can't find any left wing pandering here.
Maybe someone else can dig up some dirt for you? You can ask around, I guess.
Good luck with your search, though.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>I'm sure the dems had the bureaucrats', their families, and pandering merchants' votes already. Nothing will change there.<<<

Well...maybe these [soon-to-be former] bureaucrats will now become more pro-entrepreneurial conservatives. Now that they'll need to look for jobs, they'll have to become more tuned in to what the private sector wants, and would potentially want from them if allowed to grow. Regardless, at least these bureaucrats won't be in tax-subsidized positions of power any longer, from which they've been benefiting Democrap donors & voters.

[Cable225]

99% right is still 1% wrong. "Purity over Progress"

That's the official motto of the "Axis of Whiny Weasels" here at FR. You uttered it without permission, boy are you in trouble!

[NEWwoman]

Makes so much sense, no wonder Dems hate it.

I love it when Dems panties are in a bunch.

[pabianice]

Imagine! A head of the FAA who has actually flown an aircraft!

[A2J]

Bush needs to be very careful as government workers have families and friends who may not appreciate the potential loss of jobs.

I think he needs to build the case to the workers as well that they will benefit from such a move in order to win them over.

[My2Cents]

This news belies the theory of some detractors that Bush would sit on the lead and coast to a victory in 2004. Now that he has a Congress he can work with, he'll press for major changes.