And boy are we happy about that. Really, we are. Usually, Virginia goes first and Maryland and DC bring up the rear--long after the party leader has been chosen. Not this year. Very cool, indeed.
Why? Because the Washington, DC Metro area has been ground zero to the greatest disaster of our young century: the disintegration of our Federal Government. This disaster alone has beget all others: 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, New Orleans, health care, recession, etc...etc...
Let Lou Dobbs bloviate about "broken government." He has no idea how broken it is. We do. And we get to do something about it.
So if you're looking for an endorsement from me, you won't get it. I've got issues with both Clinton and Obama and I'm willing to share them here, but I'm not drawing conclusions. If you'd like an analysis of the real issues--issues that none of the candidates have really talked about--that affect government and governance, stick around as I give you an insider's tour of the wreckage our next President will inherit.
BROKEN: OVERSIGHT
One of the first acts of the GWBush administration was to cut the budgets and staffs of the Offices of the Inspectors General. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, any citizen would think that such a new agency could use some oversight. No, Bush set the Department up, consolidated the IG offices proportionally from the agencies that contributed their bureaus to DHS...and then cut the budget in 2005
What is the consequence to a reduced Inspector General staff? Lack of oversight on government loans to small businesses,
no oversight on large defense contracts,
or on our treatment of the environment.
You can add budget and procurement professionals to the list of so-called "red tape bureaucrats" that Bush cut in order to make a feeble attempt to balance a budget.
Making government more transparent takes independent and objective people. They need to have sufficient resources and autonomy to do their job. Both Obama and Clinton have drafted and sponsored legislation that increases oversight of the Defense Department, the government's Katrina efforts and both have worked to strengthen Senate ethics. But restoring transparency after eight years of degradation will be quite a task. You need to rebuild the federal infrastructure, which means hiring more feds. Not popular with the voters. I wish I heard more acknowledgement of that.
BROKEN: THE CIVIL SERVICE
For the past seven years, the Bush Administration has put Republican loyalists in the top civil service management jobs at the same time that they hamstrung the existing managers. The government has undergone nearly a decade of politicization.
Every President has a political staff. Each cabinet level and independent agency have political staff positions that the President can dole out to their buddies and associates. Their purpose is to help the President spread a vision and set the tone for government. These people should know what they are doing, but more about that in the next section.
When you pad the civil service with political cronies, you stack the bureaucratic decks with people who are not objective, who put political philosophies above competence, and who seek to demoralize and dismantle the existing staff in any way they can--legally and illegally. Keep in mind, the IG is reduced, so forget about complaining about those illegal interview questions!
Political managers are editing Government scientists' reports, killing regulations that protect consumers, and changing the purpose and direction of several government agencies without benefit of legislation.
Both Obama and Clinton have criticized the current Administration for its treatment of government scientists and whistleblowers. Here's one area that I think would greatly improve with a Democrat in office--no matter how experienced he or she may be.
BROKEN GOVERNMENT: RUN GOVERNMENT LIKE A BUSINESS: ENRON!
It's called ["competitive sourcing." www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/comp_sourcing_072403.pdf] It sounds so nice. It's so American to like competition, isn't it? Why not compete government against business and see who wins? We win! You can Google it yourself and read the various glowing federal agency websites and trumped up studies. Hint: if you add up all of the purported savings, it would eliminate the deficit! I could go on and on, but Henry Waxman really nails it.
Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending rose by 86% to $377.5 billion annually. Spending on federal contracts grew over twice as fast as other discretionary federal spending. Under President Bush, the federal government is now spending nearly 40 cents of every discretionary dollar on contracts with private companies, a record level.
Federal procurement spending is highly concentrated on a few large contractors, with the five largest federal contractors receiving over 20% of the contract dollars awarded in 2005. Last year, the largest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, received contracts worth more than the total combined budgets of the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Congress. The fastest growing contractor under the Bush Administration has been Halliburton. Federal spending on Halliburton contracts increased over 600% between 2000 and 2005.
Note to candidates: It will be extremely hard to rein in these contracts. Remember, you've got little oversight staff.
While Clinton has certainly criticized the outsourcing of federal functions, Obama has been rather vague. And although Clinton has criticized this, much of this effort began under her husband's administration. Now, to Bill Clinton's credit, his A-76 Act involved a rigorous cost-benefit analysis--much of which has been cast aside during this administration. The government doesn't have to do everything, but we need a sound and objective decision-making process for determining what it should do and how it should do it. If this is what Obama means by "changing the way we do business," I'd like to see this detailed more on his websight--and I'm just not seeing it.
BROKEN GOVERNMENT: CRONYISM
Michael D. Brown, Joseph E. Schmitz L. Paul Bremer Bernie Kerik, Margaret Spellings, Alphonso Jackson Alphonso Jackson], [David Safavian...Oh the list goes on and on.
Let Time Magazine weigh in. Washington Post.
Bush didn't invent cronyism, but he sure did raise it to an art form. Clinton has an extensive diatribe against cronyism on her website. I find this quite amusing. She does have experience in the area of hiring political appointees as she contributed candidates for political positions during her husband's first term. Some of those picks didn't quite work out. You can Google Margaret Milner Richardson yourself. You don't need me.
And Obama remains too much of an unknown. I would find it hard to believe that any politician from the Chicago area could be completely crony free.
I would have loved to have seen a frank discussion in one of the debates about how they would pick their political appointees. It would be nice if there were more press stories about who is advising them right now. Today's advisers become tomorrow's secretaries. When you see these articles, pay attention to them.
Maybe beyond the beltway, governmental housekeeping doesn't really mean much. You'd rather delve into health care, education, and economic policies. Perhaps you're more interested in how they will protect our civil liberties, environment, and food sources. I agree these things are important.
But as you go through your policy positions, please remember that it is a government that makes it all work. It is government that makes our civilization possible. It is government that, when broken, does little more than waste our money and at worse, endanger our lives. It is a government that, when continually undermined, will not be easy or fast to fix. It is the task of rebuilding an effective government that will be the next President's greatest challenge.
This is what we'll be thinking about in the DC metro area next Tuesday when we cast our ballots. I hope I've laid out some issues for your consideration as you make your choice.