On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

Light on Leadership

Why Democrats are scared of government reform

Big government has become the big issue on the campaign trail as Republicans look for ways of tying the sluggish economy to the Democrats. Yet, Democrats have yet to answer. Their rhetoric about fixing government is tepid at best, nonexistent at worst. They seem terrified to take on the drumbeat of Republican promises for hiring and pay freezes and wholesale dismantling of government agencies.

The Democratic leadership doesn't seem to realize that there is an answer in a package of comprehensive reforms. The Obama administration has provided some of the details in a long list of reforms that are moving forward at the Office of Management and Budget.

The ideas have received scant coverage, however, and are hardly the stuff of which campaign defense is made. Drafted by OMB's talented deputy director for management Jeff Zients, the ideas make perfect sense--a faster hiring process, more competition in contracting, "cloud computing" in yet another attempt to modernize the federal information system, occasional reorganization of failed agencies such as the Minerals Mining Service, and a dogs-breakfast of other ideas such as the SAVE award.

The proposals will no doubt improve government performance. The new OMB Director Jack Lew will no doubt continue the push. He's deeply commitment to raising government performance, and brings the resume to fit the job. Lew has worked the reform issue for years. He was in charge of the State Department's renewal effort, and is ready to take it to the next level once he is confirmed.

But if President Barack Obama cares about government reform, it doesn't show. He has yet to make a major speech on the issue, and has yet to get the forklifts out of the garage for the kind of Rose Garden ceremony that the Clinton administration used to launch Al Gore's reinventing government campaign.

It is well worth remembering that Gore's campaign was announced just weeks before the Clinton health care initiative was released. The administration's pollsters knew that the public would be more receptive toward health care reform if they had at least some confidence that government could be trusted to do the right thing once it passed.

So why don't Democrats talk more about comprehensive reform? Consider a half dozen quick answers.

First, Democrats don't know how to do it. Congress long ago lost the stomach for government reform. It is difficult to assemble, hard to explain, and has that "my-eyes-glaze-over" quality that tests even the most dedicated reformers such as Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

Second, the depleted staffs at the two key drafting committees in Congress don't have the expertise to design a comprehensive package. For its part, the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee rarely turns to the systematic problems that have bedeviled the federal bureaucracy. In turn, the House Government Reform Committee hasn't produced a major package of reform since Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and his staff moved out two years ago.

Third, Democrats are scared of the federal and state employee unions. They quickly dismantled the Defense Department's pay for performance system, which was poorly implemented and deserved an overhaul. But pay for performance deserves another look. There must be some way to do it well. Democrats should bring the unions in for a tough conversation about next steps.

Fourth, Democrats don't want to take on the lobbyists who exploit the byzantine government hierarchy at will. Cozy relationships are par for the course in the federal bureaucracy. Democrats could easily argue that the Bush administration gave the lobbyists free reign to dismantle federal capacity. The Bush administration wasn't called "the wrecking crew" for nothing.

Fifth, Democrats don't want to take on their own committees. Committees love government failure. It makes for good press, big-ticket campaign coverage, and strings of investigatory hearings. They rarely produce comprehensive legislation to fix anything, however, and don't have the capacity to do much more.

Moreover, they have been virtually silent regarding the sad condition of the General Accountability Office. It has been without a Comptroller General for three years now. The agency is still producing good work, but it needs a visible leader such as David Walker to get the reform issue back on track.

Sixth, Democrats don't want to spend money to make money. They rightly worry that any investments in productivity would just prompt more Republican complaints about tax-and-spend Democrats. Comprehensive reform will surely save money, but fixing administrative systems is expensive. Reform would save as much as $10 for every $1 invested, but the public doesn't believe it. As the Center for American Progress recently reported, Americans want more of virtually everything the federal government gives them, but they think government is hopelessly inefficient. They don't want to put anything in to fix it.

It is time for another run at the reform nonetheless. Democrats should not be afraid of the "P" word--performance is the key. They can't beat something with nothing. The Obama administration should also make comprehensive reform a top priority, and create an eye-popping package. The president could turn this around with one speech that might arm Democrats with a promise that would resonate with their constituents. The sooner the better.

----------------------------------------------------------
Watch Charlene Li discuss Open Leadership in the 21st Century, and how companies from BP to Apple are changing the way corporations talk to their customers.

Read On Leadership's panel reactions to the NYC mosque controversy here

By Paul Light

 |  August 25, 2010; 9:23 AM ET |  Category:  Advice , Bad leadership , Decision-making , Federal government leadership , Leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Stonewalling at the Social Innovation Fund | Next: Make it Easier to Say "Yes" to Social Change in Government

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Mr. Obama ran on and won the election based on promises of "change we can believe in", and vowed to fight the "business as usual" climate in Washington. Since his elevation to the Presidency, Obama hasn't appeared to perform very well in his committments.

I believe that his (now shown to be empty) promises of government reform is precisely what euchred so many his naive supporters into backing him. We don't elect a king, after all, and the President must work realistically within the framework of the Constitutional separation of powers. Apparently, a lot of people suddenly forgot their 8th grade civics lessons and thought that he (as apparently he did, too) could do this all by himself.

Dr. Light makes the excellent point that the administration and the Democratic leadership should be talking more about their efforts on this point, rather than trying to scare us all with the threat of "regressing" to the "evil" Bush-era policies. I would note that many of those policies are still in place, and that much of what this administration has accomplished has only served to further alienate voters.

Running against Bush may have worked in 2008; it won't work this time out. The administration and Congressional Democrats will be judged by their actions (or lack of them) in the mid-terms and in 2012.

Posted by: EddietheInfidel | August 29, 2010 4:20 PM

Professor Light surely can provide more detail supporting an "eye popping" agenda from Obama. I'm disappointed he did not.

And I've held Prof. Light in high regard for many years, until I read his comments on Levin and McCaskell, both of whom are too partisan to deserve any genuine recognition as reformers.

Posted by: hungrypirana | August 29, 2010 3:13 PM

I could reform government Just hand me 50 billion dollars.Fixed..

Posted by: jmounday | August 29, 2010 9:06 AM

I thought this article was going to be about why the Democrats are scared to abolish the ridiculous virtual filibuster rule in the Senate, which has permitted the Republicans to abuse the system in order to stop any meaningful legislation.
Posted by: ejs2 |
===============================
What is important is not "meaningful legislation", especially legislation which represents only a minority of the country, namely the left wing of the Democratic party.

What is most important is to restore America's faith in government and restore a feeling that government belongs to everyone, not just the left wing liberals.

Maybe liberal programs are correct. But forcing them on an unwilling public is like forcing a child to eat spinach even while she is gagging. She will end up hating you and hating spinach. And it won't matter that spinach is good and contains iron. What she will care about is that you did not respect her feelings.

I agree with you about the obstructionism of the Republicans. But the Republicans do have an obligation to the red states, and I wish you felt that obligation too. I wish you were able to say, "They too are fellow Americans, and their wishes count just as mine do."

Posted by: rohit57 | August 29, 2010 8:17 AM

One thing which is obvious from many of the postings is how so many people simply hate Republicans. The 8 years of Bush have been years of debacle for the country though some of the roots of that debacle go back to Clinton.

But Americans hating other Americans will not move this nation forward. Many liberals obviously wish that Republicans did not exist. But you do not have the means to eliminate them. You have to work with the Republicans, and even more with the Tea party, which, however chaotic, seems to be genuinely idealistic.

And that means, giving up hatred for Republicans and the Tea party. Constructive criticism, yes, for there is a lot to criticize, but there is also a lot to criticize in the liberals.

But hatred is different from criticism, for the latter still allows compromise and working together. Hatred does not.

When I see the idealistic if naive comments from Tea party leaders yesterday, and some of the hateful comments coming from the left on these pages, I feel like saying to the left,

"Don't be too sure you will win by hatred. The American people do not go for it. Bush is gone, and please put his ghost to rest. Look at the future America, not the past."

Posted by: rohit57 | August 29, 2010 8:08 AM

A lot of Republicans say they want to reform government, but I don't believe them. They want to be back in power. Most of the "reform" they talk about is lies, either fiscally impossible or nothing but sops to the wealthy, not to mention the corporate crooks who helped us experience the current recession.
The Democrats could use this issue to good effect, and should, but I doubt they have what it takes. Less government, lower taxes for EVERYONE, and less government interference in our day to day lives?
The Dems aren't about that at all. The Republicans aren't really about that either. Neither party will do that, no matter what they say. Short of a major rebuild, our government is broken and will break us.
Freezing federal employees pay and term limits for the House and Senate would be a good start, but only the beginning of a long journey. I don't think any of those "We the people" elect want to make that journey, and they certainly won't if it interferes with their plans to spend their lives in public office getting rich off crooked deals, inside information and whatever else turns one-term Senators and Representatives into overnight millionaires.

Posted by: meand2 | August 29, 2010 1:38 AM

I thought this article was going to be about why the Democrats are scared to abolish the ridiculous virtual filibuster rule in the Senate, which has permitted the Republicans to abuse the system in order to stop any meaningful legislation.

Posted by: ejs2 | August 28, 2010 9:00 PM

Real world translation: The Democrats are Ruling Class Marxists and really don't give a hoot about anyone or anything other than amassing even greater powers, pays, privilege and prestige for themselves.

Posted by: PauvrePapillon | August 28, 2010 8:28 PM

And the Democrats blocking anything proposed by Republicans.
Posted by: BradG
===============================
OK I can handle that

Preventing the GOP from allowing our money to be stolen again!!

YEAH I can deal with more of that..

What is it you do not wan to know..?
OH you are another
mindless Glen Beck fanatic..


ISA

Posted by: vettesport | August 28, 2010 5:36 PM

Why do Both Republicans & Democrats Fear Reform? -- Because they really Fear that WE-the-People will find the TRUTH,-- that many of the Elite high-ups in CONGRESS,-- both RED & BLUE are in $BED with the Criminal $BANKsters whom caused the Economic Terrorist CRISIS!! -- THEY ARE TRYING TO COVER THEIR' TAILS!! -- Enough of this Traitor CRAP America!! -- WE-the-People are onto their B.S. & 'turn-coat' ways! -- Vote them OUT! -- WE need a new People's Patriot 3rd Party NOW!! -- The Globalist $BANKsters & WALLsters are playing us All against one-and-other! -- Stop being Suckers America. -- Prosecute these Scoundrel Traitors & $USURS!! -- Repeal the Criminal 'Federal Reserve Act'!! --- And send those Globalist Central BANKster THUGS back to Europe where they came from back in 1911-1913!! -- Demand an END to Criminal Un-Constitutional- "Fractional Reserve Banking" taht the $BANKsters use to Create DEBT thru $INTERST & Funny-Money manipulations!!! -- "ENOUGH AMERICA"!! -- If CONGRESS does Not repeal, then WE know that They are in $BED with these Globalist $BANKster Cartels!!!

Posted by: jward52 | August 28, 2010 5:25 PM

The democrats fear reform. What an ignorant statement. Who has been trying to reform Wall Street and the Big Banks and Financial institutions? The Democrats and the republicans have blocked and said NO to everything the democrats try to do to help this country. One thing wrong with this country is silly writers like the one who wrote this article.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | August 28, 2010 3:58 PM

The day this particular administration does anything to even annoy the Unions is even less likely than Palin whipping out her Mensa membership card.

Posted by: Labbymalone | August 28, 2010 3:28 PM

You poor liberals…..

You never had it so good…..

If not for Beck and Palin you would have nothing to talk about…..

Oh; I almost forgot Bush…….

Posted by: UpAndOver | August 28, 2010 2:30 PM

How can the democrats be expected to attempt serious reform when everything they do is obstructed, in the most dishonest way possible, by the republicans?

How can the democrats be expected to attempt reform when they know that the media will help the republicans undermine it?

Any reform needs to begin with the media, which distorts reality in favor of corporate (conservative) interests. American citizens need to be educated and informed, not brainwashed and misled.

Posted by: dougd1 | August 28, 2010 1:44 PM

i do believe that we have passed the stage of reform. the debaucle has gotten too big to fix.

we need to bite the bullet and redesign the entire system of government from the ground up and have it ready to install as we go about the painful, but necessary, dismantling of the current broken system.

one of the key obstacles - it cannot be done by the government - it must be done by a non-partisan group of totally non-political outsiders.

how do we go about changing government w/o interference from those currently in government?

Posted by: boblesch | August 28, 2010 12:28 PM

Reform is needed... but any reform to save money goes against the very ideology of Barack Obama. How can you grow his Government apparatchik and state run "return the wealth to its rightful owners" campaign unless he steals from the rich and hard working and gives to the lazy and welfare class?

Obama is the antithesis of responsible government

Posted by: Barack_Lies_Jobs_Die | August 28, 2010 11:23 AM

The Democrats certainly got the "change" they voted for: fatter government, more special-interest groups wasting money and time, taxes about to be raised through the roof (as soon as "Obama's" Health "reform" bill takes full effect. (I put "Obama's" in quotes because Dems refer to it as his bill, although he still hasn't read it; he simply left it in the hands of Democrats to get more taxes from us and more control over the vast profits in medicine. I don't believe most of America understands what's at stake with that bill...little things like bering required to carry medical insurance, with every citizen being taxed for the *portion their employers will pay* into the fund! That's a really underhanded way to raise taxes...and it WILL...VERY much. Yet the Dems still claim they'll lower taxes and morons will believe it.


POSTED BY: COMMON_SENSE_NOT_COMMON :
"Shouldn't you mention the single biggest roadblock to government reform: Republicans blocking anything proposed by Democrats regardless of merit?"

That's the insane reasoning (actually, LACK of reasoning) which STYMIES true reform. Dems are in such a state of denial it difficult to believe. But that's okay; wait till THEY get taxed through the nose and actually have medical benefits curtailed by that wretched bill. That might awaken them.
Listen carefully, CSNC: Obama promised to cut the national deficit by 50%, but he's already countered by planning to double it. He also claimed he would cut it without raising...in fact, while LOWERING taxes. Raising a deficit and lowering taxes can have only one result: it will bankrupt America.
You Dems scream about the civil rights of Islam, an sworn enemy to everything NOT Islamic, being trampled upon because intelligent people don't want them to build a mosque on Ground Zero. Yet at the same time you scream about NOT letting Christian churches, which have probably kept America alive this long by their faith and prayers have any rights. If you guys don't like America, LEAVE...but don't ruin it further for the rest of us.
We have a president with no past, no legal record of birth, who, having no financial resources so to speak of, was put through college by only-God-knows-who-or-what that you believe in and trust only because he's a Democrat. (Well, some like him because he's "black"...although he's only a half-breed.) I never would have though America WOULD become so dumbed-down. The man has no credentials to show of any past accomplishments except a terrible attendance record in Congress and an even worse voting record...nothing else.

Posted by: flipper49 | August 28, 2010 10:17 AM

Government regulation performs valuable functions. Chinese coal miners die in droves because their mining industry is not regulated. Even our lax levels of Government regulation of food processing keeps things from happening which you see routinely in China and some other areas of the world. There is a functioning legal system as well, which keeps some of the worst business and government predations at bay, sometimes even to the detriment of the overall public good.

All of these things cost money. Conservatives don't want to pay taxes to pay for the amenities of modern life, while at the same time insisting on enjoying all the benefits. Conservatives should move to China or India so that they can enjoy the true face of laissez-faire capitalism run amok. And live there not as a wealthy person, but as a poor person. I'll bet they would have a whole new take on the proper size and scope of government.

Posted by: stillaliberal | August 28, 2010 9:53 AM

Federal reform? Time to redefine "parity" for pay and benefits. The salaries, benefits and pensions need a return to "parity" with the civilian sector. Time to do what ANY entity does when it's broke and saddled with too many employee expenses. Cut salaries. Freeze raises and cut 2 1/2% from the pay of all Federal civilian non-law enforcement salaries every six months. Let Federal workers pay their OWN health insurance, just like us civilians. No more snow days with pay. Get to work or be fired. Furlough or outright lay off 5% of the Federal workforce NOW. With the layoffs, the workloads will be distributed to the remaining workers just like in the civilian sector. Longer hours will be required. Just like in the civilian sector. We'll know we have achieved "parity" with the civilian sector when the Federal employees remaining start to leave for greener pastures, just like in the civilian sector.

For years now, we've been reading the Federal Page and the endless wail for parity with the civilian sector. Well, Federal pay and the accumulated fat of pensions, benefits, holidays and the rest are now 2.4X the level of equivalent civilian sector positions. Where, oh where is the Federal Page to demand "parity now? Time for Federal employment pay and benefits to come into line with the rest of the economy since Federal pay and benefits are what is driving the current state of the economy. What "Federal Reform"? Restore parity with the private workforce. If Federal workers are so unique, so valuable, so good, they'll move along to equivalent positions as civilians in no time. They'll be in great demand I'm sure.

Posted by: JamesChristian | August 28, 2010 9:27 AM


Reform is needed... but any reform to save money goes against the very ideology of Barack Obama. How can you grow his Government apparatchik and state run "return the wealth to its rightful owners" campaign unless he steals from the rich and hard working and gives to the lazy and welfare class?

Obama is the antithesis of responsible government

Posted by: Barack_Lies_Jobs_Die | August 28, 2010 9:16 AM

If only this could be -- be still my fluttering heart - this is what the founding fathers intended. Oh to install a Congress that is brave and intelligent enough to pass this most important reform.

But I delude myself, those with political ambitions, combined with family power and wealth, are hardly interested in any kind of reform unless there is some benefit in it for them.

UpandOver, I encourage you to spread this around.

===========

Congressional Reform Act of 2011
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators.
Serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
• Two Six year Senate terms
• Six Two year House terms
• One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
• A congressman collects a salary while in office only..!..
• Receives no pay when they are out of office..!..
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
• Congressional retirement fund moves to Social Security system.
• All future funds flow into the Social Security system.
• Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
5. Congress shall no longer vote them-selves a pay raise.
• Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

Posted by: UpAndOver | August 27, 2010 9:34 AM

Posted by: asmith1 | August 28, 2010 2:46 AM

Actually the Democrat Party business model, as typified by Tammany, Chicago, Boston and others, is:
large numbers of government employees
with low qualifications
and low productivity
The premise is that government provides easy jobs for un-qualified, otherwise un-employable constituents, and they don't respond until they get the clearance from a DEM party functionary, who earns a political favor for getting government to act.
This is basic US Political History; Prof Light doesn't know this ?

Posted by: sampjack | August 27, 2010 11:36 PM


There is nothing wrong with "big government" as long as that "big government" is wasting TRILLIONS on endless "dirty little wars" on non-white people...


Posted by: demtse | August 27, 2010 8:50 PM

At some point, some day, people who don't work for local, state or federal govt' will finally say "enough already". Governments keep growing unababted at the expense of people in private industry that don't get the same benefits and now in many cases even the same compensation. CEO's aside, private industry compensation is shrinking as well as benefits while govt' hiring continues. And by the way, heard of any Senators that aren't wealthy?Why should we continue to pay for benefits for former congressmen, senators, presidents, etc. when we can't get benefits close to what they get after working for 30 years much less two terms? And it really deosn't matter much, both political parties have failed the American people miserably. All they really care about is getting re-elected. Through out the incumbents ! That's a real start to true reform.

Posted by: rrininger | August 27, 2010 3:31 PM

There may be some genuine efficiencies in what Light proposes, but I'm suspicious that "reform" often means "wrecking." Repubs are too ready to do that. (And some readers' comments are too quick to praise US business practice, which is no model with its overpaid CEOs.)

He'd be more credible if he got the name right: old name General Accounting Office, new name Government Accountability Office.

Posted by: wsks | August 27, 2010 2:49 PM

Why? rhetorical question right?

The govt is the left.

It is who they rely on for votes.

It is their essence of policy.

To reform big govt is to admit they've been wrong all these years.

Admitting it is the FIRST step to recovery.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 27, 2010 10:29 AM

Could it happen..?..

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators.
Serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
• Two Six year Senate terms
• Six Two year House terms
• One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension:
• A congressman collects a salary while in office only..!..
• Receives no pay when they are out of office..!..

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
• Congressional retirement fund moves to Social Security system.
• All future funds flow into the Social Security system.
• Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress shall no longer vote them-selves a pay raise.
• Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

Posted by: UpAndOver | August 27, 2010 9:34 AM

Because Democrats aren't very bright?

Posted by: georges2 | August 27, 2010 8:25 AM

I usually disagree with the WP. But in this case Paul Light is spot on. I would add that both parties are to blame. Ron Paul seems to be one of the few that will stick his neck out.

Why is it that we have a Department of Education and spend umpteen billions per year on it? My grandfather got a great education without federal money. Of course now school systems spend $100 to 500 million on a high school with all the amenities. They they cry that more money is needed for the kid's sake. Give me a break.

All federal salaries need to be cut 10%. And at least 10% of federal employees need to be fired. Many don't work much anyway.

Posted by: txengr | August 27, 2010 5:39 AM

It is not the goals that are in question, it is the tactics. Pelosi and company have burned the bridges of bi-partisanship in June of 2009 when they forced through legislation on cap and trade.

Pelosi was so proud of burning those rotten people on the other side of the aisle - she dug a deep hole for her own party.

Do not vote for any incumbents this year!

Posted by: alance | August 26, 2010 11:41 PM

First off, the big problem will always be the Senate - since the Republicans block everything there with substantial institutional rules that allow obstructionism, it's hard to get any painful legislation done. And this legislation would ruffle a lot of lobbyists feathers.

That said, as a progressive liberal I'm disappointed in the Democrats. Aside from Bernie Sanders I think they're all lacking in fortitude, and Obama is far too hesitant to challenge the Republicans.

The leadership is failing America. But if people think the Republicans will lead us out of our morass, they're delusional. Republicans put us here in the first place.

Posted by: dmblum | August 26, 2010 11:09 PM

Government reform would make the Democrats have to admit that there is a problem with government. To the Democrats more government is ALWAYS the answer. To them it is of no consequence that there are dozens of Departments that have the same tasks as other Departments. Government needs to be run as a business. Answerable to the taxpayer. But since the Democrats couldn't run a popcorn stand the idea of running Government like a business is out of the question. Our Government is too big and too expensive. It fails in many of it's jobs. Our Government needs to shed a huge amount of it's responsibilities. Get back to basics. Our Government is broken. A review of all Departments and their jobs is in order. Then get out the pink slips, alot of them.

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 26, 2010 9:15 PM

with goverment reform...
the dem insiders on the payroll will be cut loose...
the dem insiders that can wreck a Republican administration won't be there...
thats why the dems are afriad...
because the dem insiders can't keep implementing the dem agenda no matter who is in power...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 26, 2010 8:23 PM

Nice article but it is obvious that the writer doesn't have a wealth of business experience. Here's how business's do it:

1. Zero Based Budgeting: Every year every department must justify its existence and get approval for the following years budget.

2. Across the board budget cuts: In tough times businesses have across the board expense cuts without a reduction in productivity or customer service. There is fat in every organization and sometimes you have to cut resources.

3. Staff Reductions: In tough times Companies reduce staff, generally the least productive, the ones with poor performance ratings.

4. Pay for performance. Every private industry does it, why doesn't government. Each manager has goals, generally they have to find ways to produce more with the same or fewer resources just to stay employed.

Given the inertia in government and the greed and stubborness of unions whose leit motif is more for less this can only happen with huge GOP majorities and control of the White House. The Democrats are the party of government and government employees. All of the incentives are for building bigger bureaus with bigger staffs. It is ruinious.

Posted by: jkk1943 | August 26, 2010 8:18 PM

All good arguments for TERM LIMITS.....but that won't happen...!!!

Posted by: SeniorVet | August 26, 2010 7:00 PM

"Democrats are scared of the federal and state employee unions."

And that sums it up in one sentence.
Very Greek.

Posted by: Elisa2 | August 26, 2010 6:17 PM

People don't want what the Democrats have proposed. There is no merit to the monsters they have hatched.

Posted by: susangate1 | August 26, 2010 6:03 PM

Except for 'being scared of the unions', you could substitute the word Republican for Democrat and write the same article. There you could just add 'afraid to take on wall street, afraid to take on the defense lobby, afraid to take on agri-business and you'd get the same number of afraids.

Posted by: mgferrebee | August 26, 2010 4:49 PM

And the Democrats blocking anything proposed by Republicans.

Posted by: BradG | August 26, 2010 4:44 PM

Shouldn't you mention the single biggest roadblock to government reform: Republicans blocking anything proposed by Democrats regardless of merit?

Posted by: Common_Sense_Not_Common | August 26, 2010 4:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company