Lets fix bureaucratic inefficiency with a new bureaucrat

[Chief_Pedant]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Well, Bush got rid of most of bureaucrats watching over Wall Street & the financial industry. How’s that working out for you?

Which reminds me, those bureaucrats running the Social Security Agency seem to be doing fine, compared to Wall Street. Remember how Bush et. al. were pushing for privatizing Social Security, so all our Social Security money could be put into the stock market, to earn so much better returns. It didn’t happen (thank heaven), and none of those Republicans seems to be talking about that any more.

I am uninterested in sidetracking this debate to what Mr Bush did wrong. It’s a common knee-jerk reaction, particularly on this Board, to defend Mr Obama by reminding the Board of Mr Bush’s incompetence. Mr Bush’s incompetence has no bearing as a justification for Mr Obama’s errors.

Nor is it a question of oversight or regulation. As I have pointed out, we already have a $70M agency, with a Director, charged with that. It is the general principle that we need one more person and one more layer to fix what isn’t being done now, instead of actually holding the current Director and the current agency accountable. It is by such a paradigm that inefficiency grows in bureaucracies; one more person, earnestly spending their entire day making sure the next person over is doing their job. It always starts with Just One More. And the higher the position of that One More, the better a bet it is that her staff and budget will grow, duplicative of (in this case) the identical responsiblity of OMB or not. Of course, it won’t be long before the Office of Coordination between OMB and the Chief Perfomance Officer will be needed. Just one more drop in the bucket, and only a trivial part of the overall government. Insignificant, even, and nothing to complain about.

ETA: can’t help myself reminding you there is no money in Social Security accounts anywhere. It’s just chits. Only time will tell if stock or the Federal Government ended up being a better choice. And I have no position on either side. Be happy to debate the specifics elsewhere…

[John_Mace]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Which reminds me, those bureaucrats running the Social Security Agency seem to be doing fine, compared to Wall Street. Remember how Bush et. al. were pushing for privatizing Social Security, so all our Social Security money could be put into the stock market, to earn so much better returns. It didn’t happen (thank heaven), and none of those Republicans seems to be talking about that any more.

I don’t remember that, because it was never a proposal, although that is common meme around here. The proposal was that some fraction of your SS $$ could be put into one of 5 government-chosen, very conservative funds. And you had to switch them into the most conservative once you reached a certain age. And this would be voluntary. Now, you may need the government to tell you how to invest your retirement money, but I don’t. So his proposal would let us both do what we wanted.

[RTFirefly]

@Chief_Pedant

to RTFirefly’s point that my “implication (is) that it’s pointless to hire people to improve the performance of government agencies is bullshit,” I am not making that point.

Forgive me. I misinterpreted “Lets fix bureaucratic inefficiency with a new bureaucrat” and “hey, we fixed homeland security issues with a whole new Department of Homeland Security” as being facetious, and

Do these people (Mr Obama in this particular case) never learn? Any takers on a bet about which budgets will actually get cut and which performance will actually improve in real life? I will make a bet that every agency put under a performance spotlight will be able to generate paper saying their performance improved. These people didn’t get to be bureaucrats and consultants (Is there a difference, except for the pay scale?) for nuttin’.

as a blanket belief that bureaucratic gridlock is immutable.

I’m not sure what you did mean by these things, but I’ll take it as read that my interpretation was incorrect. My apologies.

I am suggesting that we already have an entire bureaucratic structure in place to do precisely that, and to do it for Mr Obama.

What’s pointless is hiring some else to oversee them. Or to do the same thing.

I would suggest that you’re ignoring something fundamental about organizations.

Let’s make it about something different, just to make it a nonpartisan example. Suppose you’ve got a bunch of people, six or eight layers down in an organization (large company, government, doesn’t matter), that are supposed to be making sure that project management techniques are integrated into the organization’s processes. They may win a few, they may lose a few, and they may be ignored a lot.

But if someone the head honcho knows by name, and who might even occasionally get some face time with the big guy/gal, is put in charge of seeing that this integration takes place, all those other people six or eight layers down will suddenly have the wind at their back. They’ll win a lot more often, though they may still lose a few, but they damned sure won’t be ignored very much, because they’ll be backed up by someone the head honcho knows.

Same thing here. I can’t say how successful Ms. Killefer will be, but she’ll be ignored a lot less than someone six or eight layers down in the bureaucracy would be.

And it’s particularly irritating to me to do that when the problem you are addressing is waste in government!

There’s also different meanings of waste in government. An IG can look into whether the contractors spent half the money for Program XYZ on hookers and blow. However, the IG isn’t there to question whether Program XYZ is serving any useful purpose in the first place, but Obama says Killefer will be going through the Federal budget line by line, and eliminating programs that aren’t needed.

For me this is a classic case of more government not solving the problem–more government is the problem.

Well, that certainly says where you’re coming from.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

However, the IG isn’t there to question whether Program XYZ is serving any useful purpose in the first place, but Obama says Killefer will be going through the Federal budget line by line, and eliminating programs that aren’t needed.

Well, that certainly says where you’re coming from.

Yeah, and I’ve got a bridge for sale about 50 miles north of where I live that you might be interested in. I’ll give you a good deal on it!

To be honest, this is small fry stuff, and it doesn’t really bother me. But let’s be honest. Unless he gets the SCOTUS to rule that line item vetoes are OK, all he’s going to be able to do is suggest to Congress that they eliminate these things. Seems like every president comes into office promising to end waste and improve efficiency. I can’t see how this is anything other than a feel good measure, even if I think Obama has a better chance of doing some of the things he has promised that many of his predecessors.

[RTFirefly]

@WF_Tomba

Maybe you should let him answer a question that was addressed to him before taking your WAG.

And maybe I should wait until the future gets here before making predictions about it.

It would certainly improve my success rate, but it would kinda take the fun out of it.

[RTFirefly]

@John_Mace

Yeah, and I’ve got a bridge for sale about 50 miles north of where I live that you might be interested in. I’ll give you a good deal on it!

To be honest, this is small fry stuff, and it doesn’t really bother me. But let’s be honest. Unless he gets the SCOTUS to rule that line item vetoes are OK, all he’s going to be able to do is suggest to Congress that they eliminate these things.

Sending a budget to Congress with certain programs zeroed out is more than just a ‘suggestion,’ but you’re right that if Congress wants to put a program back in that the President has left out of his budget, then Congress can do that.

Still, enough Congresscritters would have to be willing to fight to keep the program alive.

You’re right, it IS probably small stuff, but it’s worth doing. If Killeher gets $8 billion worth of programs cut from Obama’s 2010 budget, and Congress puts $5B of them back, she’s still earned her salary many times over. And useless programs that aren’t cut, cost us money not just one year, but every year.

Also, speaking as a liberal, it’s important to cut programs where you can, because it’s easier to sell people on the programs you do regard as essential if they can see you’re serious about not wasting their money.

Seems like every president comes into office promising to end waste and improve efficiency. I can’t see how this is anything other than a feel good measure, even if I think Obama has a better chance of doing some of the things he has promised that many of his predecessors.

Clinton was, by most accounts, quite effective at improving governmental efficiency, so it can be done.

What can’t be done is to identify, say, 10% of the Federal budget that’s “waste, fraud, and abuse” to cut. An order of magnitude smaller is probably about as good as it gets. (On the revenue side, NYT reporter David Cay Johnston says that we’re losing hundreds of billions in uncollected taxes due to tax evasion - people hiding money in the Caymans and the like - but reading his book drove me nuts with the absence of footnotes and cites, so I regard that as yet another unsubstantiated claim. But again, it’s worth doing what we can about it. Nobody ever wants to pay taxes, but there’s a whole different level of unhappiness about it if it seems that other people are able to avoid that responsibility.)

[Voyager]

@Chief_Pedant

Nor is it a question of oversight or regulation. As I have pointed out, we already have a $70M agency, with a Director, charged with that. It is the general principle that we need one more person and one more layer to fix what isn’t being done now, instead of actually holding the current Director and the current agency accountable. It is by such a paradigm that inefficiency grows in bureaucracies; one more person, earnestly spending their entire day making sure the next person over is doing their job. It always starts with Just One More. And the higher the position of that One More, the better a bet it is that her staff and budget will grow, duplicative of (in this case) the identical responsiblity of OMB or not. Of course, it won’t be long before the Office of Coordination between OMB and the Chief Perfomance Officer will be needed. Just one more drop in the bucket, and only a trivial part of the overall government. Insignificant, even, and nothing to complain about.

The problem with expecting OMB to do this is that OMB can point out areas of inefficiency, but they don’t have the political clout to do anything about them. (Nor should they.) As someone remarked on Marketplace yesterday, every one of these programs has someone behind it - a lobbyist, member of Congress, or whatever. The money isn’t going to be found from cutting the per diem of federal employees, but by eliminating entire programs. That is going to be tough, but it will be impossible without someone basically in the White House who can count on the support of the president.

As an example, if a weapons program is in trouble, you can be sure that the exact extent of the problem has been carefully documented. That isn’t going to kill it. You need some political might at DoD and Congress to kill it and save the money. The head of the DoD equivalent of OMB is not going to be the one to do it.

[Voyager]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Well, Bush got rid of most of bureaucrats watching over Wall Street & the financial industry. How’s that working out for you?

They were still there, but had the eyes shut. Getting incompetent regulators is not going to give you good regulation. To be fair, the SEC under Clinton was the first to give Madoff a clean bill of health, so there is an entire mindset problem to deal with.