Attempting to get 100% accountability would be more wasteful, rigid, and inefficient than permitting some degree of fuzziness and latitude......
Very much in agreement.
On the other hand, there are limits because there are no blank checks, and because ultimately one has to show some results.
Generally, you "show results" by bashing the previous guy or coming up with PR gimics. It's all illusion, IMO. I read a story about consolidation and re-allignment in programs. Been there, seen that.
Take a program in office XYZ and a similar program in office ABC and then rename office ABC to ABC1 and rename office XYZ to ABC2. There, I've consolidated and re-alligned...can I have my Senior Executive Service bonus now?
Reduce government staff? Easy. Riff the suckers, watch them scramble to contractors with a 20% raise and then get a contract with the same government office to perform the exact same services for 50% more than the government was paying in the first place.
It's like plugging a dam of 1,000 holes with one finger. Plug up one hole and more water comes out the other holes. But they'll be a news conference claiming success at reducing the number of government employees [showing results] and everyone will cheer.
I don't know whether you saw a poll a good many years ago. It was conducted on members of Congress. In a nutshell, 80% of Congress thought that the American public was too stupid to understand the budget. 80% is bipartisan as far as I'm concerned. And maybe that 80% is right. But when you see a news conference, imagine the political speaker introducing the topic by saying "You're too stupid to understand the real issue." Then you understand why what follows is drivel. And all indications are that the vast majority of people believe their parties' drivel; maybe that's proof that the 80% was correct all along.
jttmab |
