National Record of Accomplishments
When Fred Thompson ran for the Senate he promised the people of Tennessee that he would work to protect our national security, make government work for families, and improve the way Washington does business. Since he took office in 1994, he's made good on those promises with a record of achievement and leadership.
Protecting National Security
Senator Thompson is a well-respected and knowledgeable leader on foreign policy and national security affairs. He was recently named to serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the prestigious National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors Executive Branch negotiations with foreign governments on a range of national security topics.
Senator Thompson believes that the United States has a unique role in the world given our economic prosperity, military power, and the strength of our principles, democratic ideals, and values. He believes the United States should be active in promoting the concepts of free trade and open markets, holding other countries responsible for their actions and affairs, yet acting firmly and clearly where our national interests and values are at stake.
As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson held more than a dozen hearings on important national security issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and missile technology and the relaxation of export controls and sensitive "dual use" items.
Last year, he introduced the China Nonproliferation Act, which confronts proliferation by "key supplier" countries like China and Russia to rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, and Libya. This is a dangerous problem that threatens our nation's security and important interests. The bill requires an annual review of these countries' proliferation activities, establishes clear standards, reasonable penalties, adequate presidential waivers, congressional oversight, and much-needed transparency.
In September, Thompson was successful in bringing the measure to the floor during the debate on Permanent Normal Trade Status for China. The debate on the Thompson amendment provided the Senator with a valuable opportunity to bring the proliferation issue to the forefront and highlight the problem for his colleagues and the nation. In the coming year, Thompson will continue his efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Thompson has also been at the forefront of the debate on national missile defense. The threats to our country are growing largely because of weapons proliferation to rogue states. The Intelligence Community and a variety of independent commissions have determined that North Korea may have the means of striking the U.S. with a missile by 2005. As a result of these threats, Thompson is a strong supporter of a robust, multi-tier national missile defense.
He also supports increased funding for the military, with particular emphasis on expanding the force structure to deal with known threats, building new weapons and providing better training for our armed forces. Most importantly, he believes that our military personnel deserve higher pay, better benefits, improved health care, and more predictability for themselves and their families. This also includes providing military retirees and veterans with the programs and benefits that our country owes them for their service.
Thompson was successful in the 106th Congress in leading a bipartisan effort to pass legislation requiring the federal government to take responsibility for illnesses incurred by men and women who worked Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in Tennessee and across the country. His legislation establishing a compensation program for workers suffering from illnesses linked to their service at DOE facilities was approved as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
"This is a victory for the men and women who helped this country win the Cold War," Thompson said. "It's been a long, hard fight, but Congress made good on its obligation to those who are suffering as a result of their service to our country."
In 1998, Thompson was chosen by Senate leadership to serve on the special Senate task force to examine whether the Chinese government improperly obtained American satellite and missile technology. His Governmental Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on International Security and Proliferation held hearings to determine whether export control laws are effective in keeping dangerous, dual-use military technology out of the hands of potential adversaries. As a result, Congress returned satellite export control authority to the State Department.
Making Government Work for Families
In 1999, Senator Thompson joined the Senate Finance Committee, where he is working to cut taxes and reform our Social Security and Medicare programs so they will be there for future generations. Thompson is a member of a bi-partisan group of senators endorsing a plan to reform Social Security by cutting payroll taxes and allowing workers to invest in personal savings accounts, while at the same time making structural reforms to the program to ensure its solvency for future retirees.
Thompson has teamed up with Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) to push for a biennial budget. This bipartisan measure would end the yearly budget battle in Congress and replace it with a less repetitive process that enacts a two-year budget every other year.
"We create a lot of expensive agencies and programs, and then we pretty much turn our backs on them while they run for years and years," Thompson said. "A biennial budget would give us time to delve into what's working and what's not ? and it would also encourage members of Congress to stay in closer contact with constituents by freeing up more time for them to spend in their home states."
Improving the Way Washington Does Business
Senator Thompson came to Washington with a basic belief that the federal government should be smaller, more efficient, and more accountable. To make that goal a reality, he has worked for and achieved a string of significant reforms, becoming what USA Today called, "a leader on a range of clean-up Washington issues."
Thompson has taken the lead on the issue of campaign finance reform, consistently co- sponsoring a bipartisan bill to ban "soft money," the unlimited, unregulated cash raised by political parties. Thompson said, "We must get back to winning elections, not on the basis of who can raise the most money, but on the basis of competition of ideas." He believes that reform of the way in which campaigns are financed is critical to Congress' accountably in other areas. He recently cosponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, the latest version of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill, which bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on campaign ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger election laws.
At the start of the 105th Congress, Senator Thompson's colleagues elected him Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, making him among the most junior senators in history to serve as a major chairman. This Committee is charged with broad oversight of federal agencies, and Thompson used the post to demand accountability in government.
During the 106th Congress, he authored and passed several important pieces of legislation to change the way Washington works.
Following hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee that highlighted our nation's vulnerability to computer attacks - from terrorists, crime rings, and hackers - Senator Thompson authored the Government Information Security Act. The legislation, which was signed into law, provides a new framework for protecting the government's computers from outside attack by hackers.
"Effective computer security starts with effective management and this legislation will help federal agencies get a handle on preventing hackers from wreaking havoc with citizens' sensitive information," Thompson said.
In the area of regulatory reform, Thompson joined a bipartisan group of Senators to pass the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. The Act requires the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to disclose to the public the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, as well as an analysis of the impact of federal regulations on state, local, and tribal governments, small business, and economic growth.
"People have a right to know the costs and benefits of important regulatory decisions. This will help the Congress, the President, and the public better understand whether regulations are sensible and fair," Thompson said.
Thompson also scored a victory in the 106th Congress for those concerned about privacy protection on federal web sites. In December, Congress approved his legislation to ensure that Congress and the public are made aware of potential privacy violations on federal agency Internet sites. In October, Thompson released a General Accounting Office report revealing that many agencies were still using cookies - information-gathering devices that can be used to track the activities of Internet users - on their web sites without disclosing their use.
The American people have a right to know what information is being collected about them on federal web sites," Thompson said. "This bill will ensure that we know about agencies' data collection practices so that we in Congress can make sure that privacy rights of citizens are not being violated. The federal government should be setting the standard for privacy protection in cyberspace." The Thompson privacy amendment will require the Inspector General of each agency to report to Congress on how the agency collects and reviews personal information on its web site.
Shortly after he became chairman, Thompson worked with the General Accounting Office to unveil the first ever audit of the federal government. "The government failed miserably," Thompson said. "The government's deteriorating accounting systems put Congress at a severe disadvantage because we lack reliable information to assess program performance, control costs, and stop widespread waste, fraud, and abuse. We must do better."
Thompson has held a series of hearings and released numerous reports highlighting waste, fraud and abuse involving taxpayer dollars. In 2000, he introduced legislation that would require the use of a technique called ?recovery auditing,' which would be applied to a federal agency's records to identify improper payments or payment errors made by federal agencies.
"Over $20 billion in taxpayer dollars was lost by just a handful of federal programs in 1999," Thompson said. "Most agencies don't even know how much they're losing. This will provide a tool to help discover and eliminate this waste."
To address mushrooming federal regulations which are imposed with little public scrutiny, Thompson introduced the Regulatory Improvement Act. Thompson's bill promotes the public's right to know why agencies make regulatory decisions, improves the quality of government decision-making, and increases government accountability to the public.
"We all want clean air, clean water, and safer workplaces," Thompson said. "Smarter regulation could help us better achieve these goals." The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has heartily endorsed the legislation, and estimates that 60,000 lives per year could be saved through smarter regulatory priorities.
In 1997, Thompson's committee was designated by the Senate leadership to conduct an investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 federal campaigns.
The committee exposed a campaign system rife with abuse and open to foreign influence, and produced a 9,600 page report that led to several indictments and a number of on-going criminal investigations. The New York Times declared that Thompson "forced Attorney General Janet Reno and a snoozing FBI to quit ignoring any and all indications of corruption in the 1996 campaign."
Guiding all of Senator Thompson's efforts is a strong belief in the Tenth Amendment - that government closer to the people works best. He believes that federal and state government should be limited to their constitutionally defined roles, and that in recent years those roles have been distorted by interference from Washington. "Each level of government is uniquely qualified to do certain things," Thompson said. "And far too often, Washington politicians involved get involved in matters where they have no business, and where state and local governments are in a much better position to respond to people's concerns.
In the 107th Congress, Thompson will continue his efforts to change the way Washington does business, to let working families keep more of their hard-earned money, to ensure Congress works to protect our national security, and to make sure Social Security and Medicare are preserved for future generations.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020811192700/thompson.senate.gov/text/record.html
Saturday, April 28, 2007
National Defense- Official position 2002
National Missile Defense
The Cold War is over, but the world continues to be a dangerous place due to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and the means to deliver them. Today, many rogue nations, such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, have -- or will soon have -- the capability to launch a ballistic missile against the United States or our allies.
While the United States has the military capability to respond to any military threat, Senator Thompson does not believe deterrence alone is an effective means to prevent rogue nations from launching an attack. He does not wish to see American cities become hostages when our interests elsewhere in the world are challenged by a rogue state. If we have the means to deny a potential adversary this capability, then we should do so. The only way to combat this threat is for the United States to deploy a robust, multi-tiered National Missile Defense system.
In 1998, a bipartisan commission headed by former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld challenged the Clinton Administration by concluding that rogue states like North Korea and Iran could develop an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile within five years of deciding to do so. Shortly thereafter, North Korea surprised our intelligence agencies by successfully launching a three- stage rocket over Japan, demonstrating the technological know-how to hit the United States with a small warhead.
In September 1999, the Intelligence Community released a new National Intelligence Estimate of the ballistic missile threat. This report asserted that "during the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China and North Korea, probably from Iran, and possibly from Iraq." North Korea could convert its Taepo Dong-1 space launch vehicle to deliver a light payload?sufficient for a biological or chemical attack?to the United States. And Iran's missile program is not far behind. In short, some rogue states may have ICBMs much sooner than previously thought, and those missiles will be more sophisticated and dangerous than previously estimated.
All of these reports confirm the fact that the United States is faced with the real threat of a missile attack. Senator Thompson believes that the best way to confront these threats and protect American lives, is to develop and deploy a multi-tiered missile defense system. He strongly favors a layered missile defense system that includes sea-based interceptors to destroy enemy missiles as soon as they are launched, spaced-based interceptors to destroy enemy missiles as they enter space, and a land-based system to intercept missiles during re-entry. Only a layered defense with multiple systems can protect us from a missile attack.
Senator Thompson believes that, while we need to work with our Allies to address their concerns, we also need to convince the Russians that we are no longer adversaries, and that our missile defense system is not directed at them. We all share the same concerns regarding attacks from rogue states, terrorist groups, and accidental launches. Ultimately, though, the United States must do what is in our national interest.
Delaying missile defense won't delay the threats, which continue to grow. Continued American vulnerability to ballistic missile attack serves only the interests of those who would exploit that vulnerability. Many of these nations have used the threat posed by their missile programs to extract concessions from the United States and our Allies. A prominent example of this is the Clinton Administration's appeasement of North Korea, which now receives the most U.S. aid of any country in Asia, despite that country's hostility. Further, we have a legal and moral responsibility to defend the American people, and deliberate vulnerability neglects that responsibility. As Henry Kissinger, former National Security Adviser and author of the ABM Treaty, said, "Deliberate vulnerability when the technologies are available to avoid it cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political objective, and cannot be a moral objective of any American president." For the United States to deliberately remain defenseless against foreign missile attack is unconscionable.
Today, the United States spends over $10 billion a year to counter domestic terrorism and prepare for the consequences of attacks that use weapons of mass destruction, yet spends less than $2 billion a year on missile defense. This is less than one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget, and it is money well spent. But we need to do more. In addition to devoting more attention and resources at the federal, state and local levels to deal with these types of threats after they occur, we also need to prevent them by defending ourselves before they occur. That is why we must maintain our commitment to a national missile defense, and deploy a system as soon as possible.
The first responsibility of government is the defense of the country, the people, and our way of life. And while it is clear we have a legal and constitutional obligation to build a National Missile Defense, we also have a moral responsibility to protect our country and our families.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042348/thompson.senate.gov/text/space.html
The Cold War is over, but the world continues to be a dangerous place due to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and the means to deliver them. Today, many rogue nations, such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, have -- or will soon have -- the capability to launch a ballistic missile against the United States or our allies.
While the United States has the military capability to respond to any military threat, Senator Thompson does not believe deterrence alone is an effective means to prevent rogue nations from launching an attack. He does not wish to see American cities become hostages when our interests elsewhere in the world are challenged by a rogue state. If we have the means to deny a potential adversary this capability, then we should do so. The only way to combat this threat is for the United States to deploy a robust, multi-tiered National Missile Defense system.
In 1998, a bipartisan commission headed by former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld challenged the Clinton Administration by concluding that rogue states like North Korea and Iran could develop an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile within five years of deciding to do so. Shortly thereafter, North Korea surprised our intelligence agencies by successfully launching a three- stage rocket over Japan, demonstrating the technological know-how to hit the United States with a small warhead.
In September 1999, the Intelligence Community released a new National Intelligence Estimate of the ballistic missile threat. This report asserted that "during the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China and North Korea, probably from Iran, and possibly from Iraq." North Korea could convert its Taepo Dong-1 space launch vehicle to deliver a light payload?sufficient for a biological or chemical attack?to the United States. And Iran's missile program is not far behind. In short, some rogue states may have ICBMs much sooner than previously thought, and those missiles will be more sophisticated and dangerous than previously estimated.
All of these reports confirm the fact that the United States is faced with the real threat of a missile attack. Senator Thompson believes that the best way to confront these threats and protect American lives, is to develop and deploy a multi-tiered missile defense system. He strongly favors a layered missile defense system that includes sea-based interceptors to destroy enemy missiles as soon as they are launched, spaced-based interceptors to destroy enemy missiles as they enter space, and a land-based system to intercept missiles during re-entry. Only a layered defense with multiple systems can protect us from a missile attack.
Senator Thompson believes that, while we need to work with our Allies to address their concerns, we also need to convince the Russians that we are no longer adversaries, and that our missile defense system is not directed at them. We all share the same concerns regarding attacks from rogue states, terrorist groups, and accidental launches. Ultimately, though, the United States must do what is in our national interest.
Delaying missile defense won't delay the threats, which continue to grow. Continued American vulnerability to ballistic missile attack serves only the interests of those who would exploit that vulnerability. Many of these nations have used the threat posed by their missile programs to extract concessions from the United States and our Allies. A prominent example of this is the Clinton Administration's appeasement of North Korea, which now receives the most U.S. aid of any country in Asia, despite that country's hostility. Further, we have a legal and moral responsibility to defend the American people, and deliberate vulnerability neglects that responsibility. As Henry Kissinger, former National Security Adviser and author of the ABM Treaty, said, "Deliberate vulnerability when the technologies are available to avoid it cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political objective, and cannot be a moral objective of any American president." For the United States to deliberately remain defenseless against foreign missile attack is unconscionable.
Today, the United States spends over $10 billion a year to counter domestic terrorism and prepare for the consequences of attacks that use weapons of mass destruction, yet spends less than $2 billion a year on missile defense. This is less than one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget, and it is money well spent. But we need to do more. In addition to devoting more attention and resources at the federal, state and local levels to deal with these types of threats after they occur, we also need to prevent them by defending ourselves before they occur. That is why we must maintain our commitment to a national missile defense, and deploy a system as soon as possible.
The first responsibility of government is the defense of the country, the people, and our way of life. And while it is clear we have a legal and constitutional obligation to build a National Missile Defense, we also have a moral responsibility to protect our country and our families.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042348/thompson.senate.gov/text/space.html
Government Waste, Fraud & Abuse- official position 2002
Govovernment Waste, Fraud & Abuse
As chairman and now ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson has worked to make government more accountable and more efficient. As government grows smaller it is even more important that it work effectively so that people who depend on it will be better served. Thompson said, "Recent public surveys have found that wasteful federal spending is the leading cause of low public confidence in government. The American people want value for their money -- good service for the least amount of money. They don't want a hollow government or one with grandiose missions that can't deliver the goods. They want a smaller one that gets results."
No one knows how much the federal government loses to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Federal agencies are not required to keep this information, and most don?t. When the Governmental Affairs Committee added up examples of waste, fraud, and abuse from various government reports, it documented more than $220 billion in taxpayer losses.
Senator Thompson has committed the resources of the Committee to press agencies to resolve the most egregious cases of government waste and mismanagement. Twenty five programs collectively known as ?high risk programs? have been identified by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse. At a hearing exploring solutions to these high risk problems, Senator Thompson said he was "deeply disturbed that so many of these areas are on the list year after year, with little improvement.
In 1999, Senator Thompson wrote individual letters to 24 major federal agencies detailing their most serious management problems, including unresolved recommendations made to each agency by the GAO and the Inspectors General (IG). Senator Thompson said at the time, ?Each year, we get reports from agencies, the media and the GAO detailing how many billions of dollars the government wastes. We bring the responsible agency up here and fuss at them, but then everyone goes back to business as usual. I am determined to be persistent and helpful in following up on getting these problems corrected once and for all.? The Committee has met with each of these agencies to ensure that they are taking action to address many of the problems of waste, fraud, and abuse plaguing the federal government.
The Committee held a series of hearings during the 105th Congress on high risk areas at the IRS, the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of the Census as well as on the government-wide high risk problems of computer security and the Year 2000 software conversion. The Committee will continue to search for solutions to get these programs off the ?high risk list.?
Senator Thompson relentlessly pursues instances of waste, fraud, and abuse among Executive Branch agencies. Such efforts include disclosing that the average cost per passenger under NASA?s charter contract ranged from $2,753 to $19,883, which resulted in the cancellation of the contract; discovering widespread fraud and mismanagement in a Department of Agriculture?s child feeding program; and the improper discharge of almost $80 million in loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Another key component of Senator Thompson?s fight against government waste, fraud, and abuse is his leadership role in the Inspector General community. Inspectors General (IGs) are statutorily-created offices at 59 federal agencies whose job it is to identify problems in federal government programs and help government run more cheaply, responsibly, and wisely. The Governmental Affairs Committee oversees the IGs.
The Committee has made good use of the IGs, relying on their work regarding computer security, dual-use and munitions controls, and regulatory reform. The Committee held hearings to study what makes an IG effective and to determine whether the Clinton Administration is providing these important officials enough support and guidance
http://web.archive.org/web/20020816084200/thompson.senate.gov/text/trash.html
As chairman and now ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson has worked to make government more accountable and more efficient. As government grows smaller it is even more important that it work effectively so that people who depend on it will be better served. Thompson said, "Recent public surveys have found that wasteful federal spending is the leading cause of low public confidence in government. The American people want value for their money -- good service for the least amount of money. They don't want a hollow government or one with grandiose missions that can't deliver the goods. They want a smaller one that gets results."
No one knows how much the federal government loses to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Federal agencies are not required to keep this information, and most don?t. When the Governmental Affairs Committee added up examples of waste, fraud, and abuse from various government reports, it documented more than $220 billion in taxpayer losses.
Senator Thompson has committed the resources of the Committee to press agencies to resolve the most egregious cases of government waste and mismanagement. Twenty five programs collectively known as ?high risk programs? have been identified by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse. At a hearing exploring solutions to these high risk problems, Senator Thompson said he was "deeply disturbed that so many of these areas are on the list year after year, with little improvement.
In 1999, Senator Thompson wrote individual letters to 24 major federal agencies detailing their most serious management problems, including unresolved recommendations made to each agency by the GAO and the Inspectors General (IG). Senator Thompson said at the time, ?Each year, we get reports from agencies, the media and the GAO detailing how many billions of dollars the government wastes. We bring the responsible agency up here and fuss at them, but then everyone goes back to business as usual. I am determined to be persistent and helpful in following up on getting these problems corrected once and for all.? The Committee has met with each of these agencies to ensure that they are taking action to address many of the problems of waste, fraud, and abuse plaguing the federal government.
The Committee held a series of hearings during the 105th Congress on high risk areas at the IRS, the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of the Census as well as on the government-wide high risk problems of computer security and the Year 2000 software conversion. The Committee will continue to search for solutions to get these programs off the ?high risk list.?
Senator Thompson relentlessly pursues instances of waste, fraud, and abuse among Executive Branch agencies. Such efforts include disclosing that the average cost per passenger under NASA?s charter contract ranged from $2,753 to $19,883, which resulted in the cancellation of the contract; discovering widespread fraud and mismanagement in a Department of Agriculture?s child feeding program; and the improper discharge of almost $80 million in loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Another key component of Senator Thompson?s fight against government waste, fraud, and abuse is his leadership role in the Inspector General community. Inspectors General (IGs) are statutorily-created offices at 59 federal agencies whose job it is to identify problems in federal government programs and help government run more cheaply, responsibly, and wisely. The Governmental Affairs Committee oversees the IGs.
The Committee has made good use of the IGs, relying on their work regarding computer security, dual-use and munitions controls, and regulatory reform. The Committee held hearings to study what makes an IG effective and to determine whether the Clinton Administration is providing these important officials enough support and guidance
http://web.archive.org/web/20020816084200/thompson.senate.gov/text/trash.html
Government Accountability- official position 2002
Government Accountability
REGULATORY REFORM
"Congress should bring more common sense into the regulatory process,? said Senator Thompson. ?Right now the Code of Federal Regulations is about 130,000 pages long, and takes up more than 21 feet of shelf space.? The regulations that fill these 200 volumes cost the average American family about $7,000 every year. ?Even well-intentioned laws can produce unsatisfactory results," Thompson said. ?We need a clean environment, safe products and safe medications. But if we regulate smarter, we can achieve our goals and make our government more effective, more efficient and more accountable than ever."
THE REGULATORY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
In 1998, Congress passed Thompson?s regulatory accounting amendment as part of the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The Thompson Amendment requires OMB to do a peer-reviewed report on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, due in February 2000. The Thompson Amendment strengthened the prior Stevens regulatory accounting amendment, enacted in 1996, by requiring: (1) independent peer review of the report; (2) OMB guidelines to the agencies to ensure the credibility of the information; (3) more details on the costs and benefits of individual agency programs, to the extent feasible; and (4) information on the costs and benefits of paperwork requirements, including tax compliance.
S. 59, the "Regulatory Right-to-Know" Act of 1999, was introduced by Thompson on January 19, 1999 and is co-sponsored by the following Senators: Christopher Bond (R-MO), John Breaux (D-LA), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chuch Hagel (R-NE), Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Trent Lott (R-MS), Charles Robb (D-VA), William Roth (R-DE), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ted Stevens (R-AK), George Voinovich (R-OH).
This legislation will continue the requirement that OMB report to Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began in 1996 with the Stevens Amendment. S. 59 also adds to previous initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make the regulatory accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. Second, this legislation will require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the regulatory system, including the incremental costs and benefits of particular programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of regulatory impacts on small business, governments, the private sector, wages and economic growth. OMB also will look back at the annual regulatory costs and benefits for the preceding 4 fiscal years, building on information generated under the Stevens Amendment. Finally, this legislation will help ensure that OMB provides better information as time goes on. Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should improve future regulatory accounting reports. Government has an obligation to think carefully and be accountable for requirements that impose costs on people and limit their freedom.
THE "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT," S. 746
On March 25, 1999, Senators Levin and Thompson reintroduced the "Regulatory Improvement Act," with broad bipartisan support. S. 746 requires agencies to issue regulatory analyses for major rules which include: (1) cost-benefit analysis examining regulatory alternatives; (2) risk assessment; (3) scientific or economic information relied upon in cost-benefut analysis and risk assessment; and (4) scientific information on substitution risks to health, safety, or the environment.
S. 746 would establish a framework for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of the regulatory process. Agencies would perform a cost-benefit analysis when issuing rules that cost $100 million or have other significant impacts. The agency would determine whether the benefits of the rule justify its costs; whether the rule is more cost-effective, or provides greater net benefits, than other regulatory options; and whether the rule adopts a flexible regulatory approach. If the rule does not do so, the agency would explain the reasons why it selected the rule, including any statutory provision that required the rule. If the rule addresses a risk to health, safety, or the environment, the agency would do a risk assessment to analyze the risk reduction benefits of the rule. Cost-benefit analyses for rules costing over $500 million and all covered risk assessments would undergo independent peer review. The Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the Regulatory Improvement Act on September 12, 1997 and February 24, 1998. S. 746 has been cosponsored by 7 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
THE TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT OF 2000
This legislation, which has been passed by the Senate, establishes a three-year pilot project to support Congressional oversight to ensure that important regulatory decisions are efficient, effective, and fair. Under the pilot project, the chairman or ranking member of a committee with jurisdiction over a particular federal agency may request the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review a proposed economically significant regulation. The GAO would then have 180 days to submit to the requesting committee a report evaluating the agency?s cost-benefit and regulatory analysis of the regulation. This report would help Congress to engage in oversight of the regulation.
S. 1198 was originally introduced as the Congressional Accountability for Regulatory Information Act of 1999 by Senator Richard Shelby. Senator Thompson introduced S. 1244, the Truth in Regulating Act of 1999. These two similar bills were synthesized along with changes made in collaboration with Senator Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The resulting bill was approved by the Committee on November 3, 1999 and by the full Senate on May 9, 2000. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform on May 10, 2000.
In addition to Senator Thompson, S. 1198 is cosponsored by the following Senators: Robert Bennett (R-UT), Kit Bond (R-MO), John Breaux (D-LA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), James Inhofe (R-OK), Robert Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Trent Lott (R-MS), Charles Robb (D-VA), William Roth, Jr. (R-DE), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).
FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND FAIRNESS
There are many public management issues that need to be addressed if the government is going to become more efficient and accountable to the taxpayers. Senator Thompson is working to ensure that the government operates with accountability, efficiency, and fiscal discipline. For example:
The Results Act, passed by congress in 1993, is designed to provide policy-makers and the public with systematic, reliable information about where federal programs and activities are going, how they will get there, and how we will know when they have arrived. Agencies have had mixed results complying with the reporting to be filed by March 31st of each year (link). Senator Thompson is working to ensure the successful implementation of the Results Act in order to hold federal agencies accountable for results.
Agencies are required, under the Chief Financial Officers Act, to report on their finiancial statements by March 1 of each year. Senator Thompson is working to ensure that agencies submit timely financial statements to ensure that federal operations have the benefit of basic information with which to manage the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Without basic financial information, agencies cannot accurately and in a timely manner, measure the full cost and financial performance of programs, cannot effectively and efficiently manage their operations, and/or cannot ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Congress passed into law the Federal Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee with a Thompson amendment. This bill will help the federal government better manage the $7 billion of travel expenses and save $90 million by requiring federal employees to use travel charge cards and streamlining the antiquated auditing procedures associated with federal travel expenses.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021006213211/thompson.senate.gov/text/accounts.html
REGULATORY REFORM
"Congress should bring more common sense into the regulatory process,? said Senator Thompson. ?Right now the Code of Federal Regulations is about 130,000 pages long, and takes up more than 21 feet of shelf space.? The regulations that fill these 200 volumes cost the average American family about $7,000 every year. ?Even well-intentioned laws can produce unsatisfactory results," Thompson said. ?We need a clean environment, safe products and safe medications. But if we regulate smarter, we can achieve our goals and make our government more effective, more efficient and more accountable than ever."
THE REGULATORY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
In 1998, Congress passed Thompson?s regulatory accounting amendment as part of the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The Thompson Amendment requires OMB to do a peer-reviewed report on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, due in February 2000. The Thompson Amendment strengthened the prior Stevens regulatory accounting amendment, enacted in 1996, by requiring: (1) independent peer review of the report; (2) OMB guidelines to the agencies to ensure the credibility of the information; (3) more details on the costs and benefits of individual agency programs, to the extent feasible; and (4) information on the costs and benefits of paperwork requirements, including tax compliance.
S. 59, the "Regulatory Right-to-Know" Act of 1999, was introduced by Thompson on January 19, 1999 and is co-sponsored by the following Senators: Christopher Bond (R-MO), John Breaux (D-LA), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chuch Hagel (R-NE), Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Trent Lott (R-MS), Charles Robb (D-VA), William Roth (R-DE), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ted Stevens (R-AK), George Voinovich (R-OH).
This legislation will continue the requirement that OMB report to Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began in 1996 with the Stevens Amendment. S. 59 also adds to previous initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make the regulatory accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. Second, this legislation will require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the regulatory system, including the incremental costs and benefits of particular programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of regulatory impacts on small business, governments, the private sector, wages and economic growth. OMB also will look back at the annual regulatory costs and benefits for the preceding 4 fiscal years, building on information generated under the Stevens Amendment. Finally, this legislation will help ensure that OMB provides better information as time goes on. Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should improve future regulatory accounting reports. Government has an obligation to think carefully and be accountable for requirements that impose costs on people and limit their freedom.
THE "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT," S. 746
On March 25, 1999, Senators Levin and Thompson reintroduced the "Regulatory Improvement Act," with broad bipartisan support. S. 746 requires agencies to issue regulatory analyses for major rules which include: (1) cost-benefit analysis examining regulatory alternatives; (2) risk assessment; (3) scientific or economic information relied upon in cost-benefut analysis and risk assessment; and (4) scientific information on substitution risks to health, safety, or the environment.
S. 746 would establish a framework for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of the regulatory process. Agencies would perform a cost-benefit analysis when issuing rules that cost $100 million or have other significant impacts. The agency would determine whether the benefits of the rule justify its costs; whether the rule is more cost-effective, or provides greater net benefits, than other regulatory options; and whether the rule adopts a flexible regulatory approach. If the rule does not do so, the agency would explain the reasons why it selected the rule, including any statutory provision that required the rule. If the rule addresses a risk to health, safety, or the environment, the agency would do a risk assessment to analyze the risk reduction benefits of the rule. Cost-benefit analyses for rules costing over $500 million and all covered risk assessments would undergo independent peer review. The Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the Regulatory Improvement Act on September 12, 1997 and February 24, 1998. S. 746 has been cosponsored by 7 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
THE TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT OF 2000
This legislation, which has been passed by the Senate, establishes a three-year pilot project to support Congressional oversight to ensure that important regulatory decisions are efficient, effective, and fair. Under the pilot project, the chairman or ranking member of a committee with jurisdiction over a particular federal agency may request the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review a proposed economically significant regulation. The GAO would then have 180 days to submit to the requesting committee a report evaluating the agency?s cost-benefit and regulatory analysis of the regulation. This report would help Congress to engage in oversight of the regulation.
S. 1198 was originally introduced as the Congressional Accountability for Regulatory Information Act of 1999 by Senator Richard Shelby. Senator Thompson introduced S. 1244, the Truth in Regulating Act of 1999. These two similar bills were synthesized along with changes made in collaboration with Senator Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The resulting bill was approved by the Committee on November 3, 1999 and by the full Senate on May 9, 2000. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform on May 10, 2000.
In addition to Senator Thompson, S. 1198 is cosponsored by the following Senators: Robert Bennett (R-UT), Kit Bond (R-MO), John Breaux (D-LA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), James Inhofe (R-OK), Robert Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Trent Lott (R-MS), Charles Robb (D-VA), William Roth, Jr. (R-DE), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).
FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND FAIRNESS
There are many public management issues that need to be addressed if the government is going to become more efficient and accountable to the taxpayers. Senator Thompson is working to ensure that the government operates with accountability, efficiency, and fiscal discipline. For example:
The Results Act, passed by congress in 1993, is designed to provide policy-makers and the public with systematic, reliable information about where federal programs and activities are going, how they will get there, and how we will know when they have arrived. Agencies have had mixed results complying with the reporting to be filed by March 31st of each year (link). Senator Thompson is working to ensure the successful implementation of the Results Act in order to hold federal agencies accountable for results.
Agencies are required, under the Chief Financial Officers Act, to report on their finiancial statements by March 1 of each year. Senator Thompson is working to ensure that agencies submit timely financial statements to ensure that federal operations have the benefit of basic information with which to manage the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Without basic financial information, agencies cannot accurately and in a timely manner, measure the full cost and financial performance of programs, cannot effectively and efficiently manage their operations, and/or cannot ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Congress passed into law the Federal Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee with a Thompson amendment. This bill will help the federal government better manage the $7 billion of travel expenses and save $90 million by requiring federal employees to use travel charge cards and streamlining the antiquated auditing procedures associated with federal travel expenses.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021006213211/thompson.senate.gov/text/accounts.html
Federalism- official position 2002
Federalism
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a federal government of limited and defined powers, with most governmental activity taking place at the state and local levels. This fundamental principle of "federalism," embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been circumvented in recent decades as the federal government has infringed on state sovereignty and concentrated more power in Washington. Senator Thompson has been working to reverse this trend and to return power to states and communities. He has been an independent voice for a smaller federal government, and has cast his vote against measures to federalize what should be state and local issues.
There is renewed interest in the relationship between the federal government, states and localities as Congress seeks to improve the effectiveness of federal programs and determine which programs are best administered at the state or local levels. The federal presence in state and local government is large, witnessed by the fact that federal grants comprise 23 percent of total state spending. However, many things required by the federal government are never paid for by the federal government. Senator Thompson is concerned with the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments, which force our nation's governor's, mayors, and other state and local elected officials to raise taxes or cut services in order to pay for them.
The Tenth Amendment was designed to protect states from Washington's big government tendencies ? but this pillar of our Democracy was attacked by the Clinton Administration. In 1998, President Clinton tried to overturn the long-standing Reagan executive order on federalism with a new order that justified federal intervention in state and local affairs. Senator Thompson offered an amendment on the Senate floor, which passed unanimously, calling on the President to revoke his executive order. The new executive order was suspended shortly thereafter.
In June of 1999, Senator Thompson introduced the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214). The bill was approved by a bi-partisan vote of 12-2 by the Governmental Affairs Committee in August of that year, but did not pass the Senate prior to the end of the 106th Congress. The Federal Accountability Act would have required the report accompanying any public bill or joint resolution from a Senate and House committee or conference report to contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill or resolution preempts state or local government law and the reasons for this preemption. The Act would also have established a rule of construction providing that courts would not construe a statute or regulation to preempt state or local law unless the statute or regulation explicitly stated that such preemption was intended or unless there was a direct conflict with state law.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020811185350/thompson.senate.gov/text/federalism.html
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a federal government of limited and defined powers, with most governmental activity taking place at the state and local levels. This fundamental principle of "federalism," embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been circumvented in recent decades as the federal government has infringed on state sovereignty and concentrated more power in Washington. Senator Thompson has been working to reverse this trend and to return power to states and communities. He has been an independent voice for a smaller federal government, and has cast his vote against measures to federalize what should be state and local issues.
There is renewed interest in the relationship between the federal government, states and localities as Congress seeks to improve the effectiveness of federal programs and determine which programs are best administered at the state or local levels. The federal presence in state and local government is large, witnessed by the fact that federal grants comprise 23 percent of total state spending. However, many things required by the federal government are never paid for by the federal government. Senator Thompson is concerned with the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments, which force our nation's governor's, mayors, and other state and local elected officials to raise taxes or cut services in order to pay for them.
The Tenth Amendment was designed to protect states from Washington's big government tendencies ? but this pillar of our Democracy was attacked by the Clinton Administration. In 1998, President Clinton tried to overturn the long-standing Reagan executive order on federalism with a new order that justified federal intervention in state and local affairs. Senator Thompson offered an amendment on the Senate floor, which passed unanimously, calling on the President to revoke his executive order. The new executive order was suspended shortly thereafter.
In June of 1999, Senator Thompson introduced the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214). The bill was approved by a bi-partisan vote of 12-2 by the Governmental Affairs Committee in August of that year, but did not pass the Senate prior to the end of the 106th Congress. The Federal Accountability Act would have required the report accompanying any public bill or joint resolution from a Senate and House committee or conference report to contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill or resolution preempts state or local government law and the reasons for this preemption. The Act would also have established a rule of construction providing that courts would not construe a statute or regulation to preempt state or local law unless the statute or regulation explicitly stated that such preemption was intended or unless there was a direct conflict with state law.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020811185350/thompson.senate.gov/text/federalism.html
Education- official position 2002
Education
America?s K-12 education system is not achieving the results it should be. Forty percent of American children can?t read at their grade level. For 35 years, the federal government has been dictating how states and local communities use federal education dollars. Senator Thompson believes that when it comes to educating America?s children, parents and teachers make better decisions than bureaucrats in Washington.
In 2001, Senator Thompson is continuing his efforts to return control of education to states and local communities. He supports President Bush?s blueprint for education, which consolidates over 50 existing federal programs into just seven flexible categories to provide much-needed flexibility to parents and teachers. This legislation would build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 ("Ed-Flex") to further move decision-making about our students? education to the parents and teachers who know best.
In 2000, Senator Thompson supported the Affordable Education Act of 2000. This bill, which was passed by the Senate, would have helped families save for their children?s education by increasing the amount they could contribute to an education savings account from the current $500 to $2,000 per year, by allowing education savings account funds to be used for K-12 expenses (such as tutors, computers or uniforms), and by making withdrawals from state and private pre-paid tuition plans tax-free. In addition, this bill would have helped state and local government modernize existing schools or build new schools by easing tax-exempt bond rules.
Senator Thompson was an original cosponsor of the 1999 Ed-Flex bill. This landmark legislation gave states and local school officials greater freedom from federal regulation in the use of federal funds to administer education programs in their districts. Under Ed-Flex, it is the states, and not the federal Department of Education, that can grant local school districts temporary waivers from cumbersome federal requirements.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020811185618/thompson.senate.gov/text/edu.html
America?s K-12 education system is not achieving the results it should be. Forty percent of American children can?t read at their grade level. For 35 years, the federal government has been dictating how states and local communities use federal education dollars. Senator Thompson believes that when it comes to educating America?s children, parents and teachers make better decisions than bureaucrats in Washington.
In 2001, Senator Thompson is continuing his efforts to return control of education to states and local communities. He supports President Bush?s blueprint for education, which consolidates over 50 existing federal programs into just seven flexible categories to provide much-needed flexibility to parents and teachers. This legislation would build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 ("Ed-Flex") to further move decision-making about our students? education to the parents and teachers who know best.
In 2000, Senator Thompson supported the Affordable Education Act of 2000. This bill, which was passed by the Senate, would have helped families save for their children?s education by increasing the amount they could contribute to an education savings account from the current $500 to $2,000 per year, by allowing education savings account funds to be used for K-12 expenses (such as tutors, computers or uniforms), and by making withdrawals from state and private pre-paid tuition plans tax-free. In addition, this bill would have helped state and local government modernize existing schools or build new schools by easing tax-exempt bond rules.
Senator Thompson was an original cosponsor of the 1999 Ed-Flex bill. This landmark legislation gave states and local school officials greater freedom from federal regulation in the use of federal funds to administer education programs in their districts. Under Ed-Flex, it is the states, and not the federal Department of Education, that can grant local school districts temporary waivers from cumbersome federal requirements.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020811185618/thompson.senate.gov/text/edu.html
Computer Security- official position 2002
Computer Security
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) reminded a packed hearing room on March 2, 2000, ? that the federal government?s underlying information infrastructure is "riddled with vulnerabilities which represent severe security flaws and risks to our national security, public safety, and personal privacy "Year after year, expert witnesses have told this committee that an underlying cause of federal information security vulnerabilities is inadequate security program planning and management," said Thompson.
"What is most alarming to me is that after all this time, and all these reports and expert testimony, there is still no organization-wide approach to preventing cyberattacks. And the security program management is totally inadequate. This is yet another example of how difficult it is to get the federal bureaucracy to move, even in an area important as this."
Kevin Mitnick, a self-described reformed hacker, testified that all computer systems, government and industry, are vulnerable to attack. Mitnick, who served 59 months and 7 days for breaking into Digital Equipment Corporation?s computers said, "If someone has the time, the money and motivation, they can get into any computer."
Also testifying were Jack Brock with the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector General of NASA, Roberta Gross. Both expressed support for the Thompson/Lieberman bill (S. 1993) which mandates good management practices. Brock said, "We support S. 1993. It provides a better management framework for addressing information security issues and provides a mechanism for independently checking how those issues are being addressed."
The third and final panel offered an industry perspective with testimony from Ken Watson, Manager of Critical Infrastructure Protection at Cisco Systems, Inc. and James Adams, CEO of Infrastructure Defense, Inc., a security consulting company. Adams added, "By stepping up to the plate and tackling computer security with an innovative, bold approach, the Thompson-Lieberman bill significantly boosts the chances of reversing the current bureaucratic approach to a dynamic problem."
S. 1993, the Government Information Security Act was introduced by then Chairman Thompson and Ranking Minority Member Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) on November 19, 1999. This legislation was the result of the Governmental Affairs Committee oversight work in the area of information security and cyberterrorism.
It is intended to protect Federal government information systems from cyberattack. Among other things, S.1993 would strengthen the Office of Management and Budget?s information security duties, consistent with its existing responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act; establish Federal agency accountability for information security as needed to cost-effectively protect the assets and operations of the agency; provide for the application of a unified and logical set of government-wide controls by including national security systems within the application of the legislation; and require agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their information security programs and practices.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042107/thompson.senate.gov/text/compsec.html
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) reminded a packed hearing room on March 2, 2000, ? that the federal government?s underlying information infrastructure is "riddled with vulnerabilities which represent severe security flaws and risks to our national security, public safety, and personal privacy "Year after year, expert witnesses have told this committee that an underlying cause of federal information security vulnerabilities is inadequate security program planning and management," said Thompson.
"What is most alarming to me is that after all this time, and all these reports and expert testimony, there is still no organization-wide approach to preventing cyberattacks. And the security program management is totally inadequate. This is yet another example of how difficult it is to get the federal bureaucracy to move, even in an area important as this."
Kevin Mitnick, a self-described reformed hacker, testified that all computer systems, government and industry, are vulnerable to attack. Mitnick, who served 59 months and 7 days for breaking into Digital Equipment Corporation?s computers said, "If someone has the time, the money and motivation, they can get into any computer."
Also testifying were Jack Brock with the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector General of NASA, Roberta Gross. Both expressed support for the Thompson/Lieberman bill (S. 1993) which mandates good management practices. Brock said, "We support S. 1993. It provides a better management framework for addressing information security issues and provides a mechanism for independently checking how those issues are being addressed."
The third and final panel offered an industry perspective with testimony from Ken Watson, Manager of Critical Infrastructure Protection at Cisco Systems, Inc. and James Adams, CEO of Infrastructure Defense, Inc., a security consulting company. Adams added, "By stepping up to the plate and tackling computer security with an innovative, bold approach, the Thompson-Lieberman bill significantly boosts the chances of reversing the current bureaucratic approach to a dynamic problem."
S. 1993, the Government Information Security Act was introduced by then Chairman Thompson and Ranking Minority Member Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) on November 19, 1999. This legislation was the result of the Governmental Affairs Committee oversight work in the area of information security and cyberterrorism.
It is intended to protect Federal government information systems from cyberattack. Among other things, S.1993 would strengthen the Office of Management and Budget?s information security duties, consistent with its existing responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act; establish Federal agency accountability for information security as needed to cost-effectively protect the assets and operations of the agency; provide for the application of a unified and logical set of government-wide controls by including national security systems within the application of the legislation; and require agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their information security programs and practices.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042107/thompson.senate.gov/text/compsec.html
Campaign Finance Reform- official position 2002
Campaign Finance Reform
Americans have less and less faith in their government. One of the main reasons is that they are distrustful of the system we have in place to elect our political leaders. People look at the huge amounts of money in the system that both political parties raise to elect their candidates and they ask: "Where does such a system leave the average citizen with his or her $100 contribution?"
Senator Thompson too has the simple belief that there is too much money in the system. He believes that an excellent witness on this topic is Barry Goldwater. In testifying before Congress in 1983, he said that big money "eats at the heart of the democratic process. It feeds the growth of special interests groups created solely to channel money into political campaigns. It creates the impression that every candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers. And it causes elected officials to devote more time to raising money than their political duties. If present trends continue, voter participation will drop significantly, public respect will fall to an all time low, political campaigns will be controlled by slick packaging artists, and neglect of public duties by absentee officials will undermine government operations." His predictions were accurate and his concerns are still valid today.
Senator Thompson witnessed first hand the corruption in our campaign finance system during the Governmental Affairs Committee's special investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 federal campaigns. The Committee exposed a campaign finance system rife with abuse and open to foreign influence, and produced a 9,600-page report that led to several indictments and a number of on-going criminal investigations.
Senator Thompson has been a supporter of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance legislation. That bill would ban the unlimited amounts of soft money that currently flow into the coffers of the national parties and helped create the numerous scandals and violations we saw in the 1996 presidential campaign. Senator Thompson believes that by banning soft money contributions and fully disclosing the source of donations to political campaigns the American people will be able to have more confidence that the decisions made by their leaders
http://web.archive.org/web/20021006213721/thompson.senate.gov/text/campref.html
Americans have less and less faith in their government. One of the main reasons is that they are distrustful of the system we have in place to elect our political leaders. People look at the huge amounts of money in the system that both political parties raise to elect their candidates and they ask: "Where does such a system leave the average citizen with his or her $100 contribution?"
Senator Thompson too has the simple belief that there is too much money in the system. He believes that an excellent witness on this topic is Barry Goldwater. In testifying before Congress in 1983, he said that big money "eats at the heart of the democratic process. It feeds the growth of special interests groups created solely to channel money into political campaigns. It creates the impression that every candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers. And it causes elected officials to devote more time to raising money than their political duties. If present trends continue, voter participation will drop significantly, public respect will fall to an all time low, political campaigns will be controlled by slick packaging artists, and neglect of public duties by absentee officials will undermine government operations." His predictions were accurate and his concerns are still valid today.
Senator Thompson witnessed first hand the corruption in our campaign finance system during the Governmental Affairs Committee's special investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 federal campaigns. The Committee exposed a campaign finance system rife with abuse and open to foreign influence, and produced a 9,600-page report that led to several indictments and a number of on-going criminal investigations.
Senator Thompson has been a supporter of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance legislation. That bill would ban the unlimited amounts of soft money that currently flow into the coffers of the national parties and helped create the numerous scandals and violations we saw in the 1996 presidential campaign. Senator Thompson believes that by banning soft money contributions and fully disclosing the source of donations to political campaigns the American people will be able to have more confidence that the decisions made by their leaders
http://web.archive.org/web/20021006213721/thompson.senate.gov/text/campref.html
Biennial Budget- official position 2002
Biennial Budget
"The current budget process is broken,? says Senator Thompson. ?We need to enact sensible reforms, such as the biennial budget legislation, to give Congress more time for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as conducting oversight and long-range planning, and spending more time at home with the people who sent us here."
Senator Thompson is working to do just that. He, along with Senators Pete Domenici and Joe Lieberman, has introduced S. 92, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. This legislation converts the annual budget, appropriations and authorization process to a two-year cycle. This bill makes budgeting and appropriating a priority for the first session of each Congress, with the second session reserved for the consideration of authorization bills and oversight of federal programs.
This legislation enjoys bipartisan support and was the subject of a joint hearing held by the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget this past January. In March, the Committee approved legislation and sent it to the full Senate for consideration by a vote of 9 - 4 vote.
Senator Thompson has also led the fight to improve control over federal emergency spending and in preventing future government shutdowns. Under Senator Thompson's leadership, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee approved two additional budget process reform bills. S. 557 is intended to help control government spending designated as emergencies by requiring that any spending designated as an "emergency" must meet certain criteria. Further, the bill establishes a point of order in the Senate against spending designated as an "emergency." The point of order can be waived by an affirmative vote of a simple majority.
S. 558 is intended to prevent a federal government shutdown when Congress and the President fail to reach a timely agreement on the annual appropriations bills. This bill would ensure that federal government activities depending on such funding would continue without threat of interruption due to lack of funding.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616094300/thompson.senate.gov/text/biennial.html
"The current budget process is broken,? says Senator Thompson. ?We need to enact sensible reforms, such as the biennial budget legislation, to give Congress more time for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as conducting oversight and long-range planning, and spending more time at home with the people who sent us here."
Senator Thompson is working to do just that. He, along with Senators Pete Domenici and Joe Lieberman, has introduced S. 92, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. This legislation converts the annual budget, appropriations and authorization process to a two-year cycle. This bill makes budgeting and appropriating a priority for the first session of each Congress, with the second session reserved for the consideration of authorization bills and oversight of federal programs.
This legislation enjoys bipartisan support and was the subject of a joint hearing held by the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget this past January. In March, the Committee approved legislation and sent it to the full Senate for consideration by a vote of 9 - 4 vote.
Senator Thompson has also led the fight to improve control over federal emergency spending and in preventing future government shutdowns. Under Senator Thompson's leadership, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee approved two additional budget process reform bills. S. 557 is intended to help control government spending designated as emergencies by requiring that any spending designated as an "emergency" must meet certain criteria. Further, the bill establishes a point of order in the Senate against spending designated as an "emergency." The point of order can be waived by an affirmative vote of a simple majority.
S. 558 is intended to prevent a federal government shutdown when Congress and the President fail to reach a timely agreement on the annual appropriations bills. This bill would ensure that federal government activities depending on such funding would continue without threat of interruption due to lack of funding.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616094300/thompson.senate.gov/text/biennial.html
War On Terror- official position 2002
America's War on Terrorism
On September 11, 2001, the United States fell victim to the worst terrorist attack in our history as more than 3000 persons were killed in attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon, and in a thwarted attack that led to a plane crash in Pennsylvania. From his Senate office, Senator Thompson watched with members of his staff as the events unfolded on television.
While the Senate offices were soon evacuated, Senator Thompson returned to the Capitol that night to join a bi-partisan group of senators for a display of unity on the Capitol steps. He later appeared on television with several colleagues to help reassure the American people that their government was functioning and would respond to the attacks.
Speaking on the Senate floor the following day, Senator Thompson said, "If this giant has been sleeping as some say, it has been awakened once again and will not rest until an example is made of those who would murder our innocent citizens and tear at the very fabric of our national existence...America's response in this matter should set a lasting example of what happens to those who unleash bloody attacks, especially on our own soil. The time for carefully measured pinprick responses to terrorists activities has passed."
That weekend, the Senator returned to Tennessee. He traveled from Nashville to Memphis, and then to Knoxville, Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities, speaking at churches and schools about the events of September 11 and the task ahead. At Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, he said, "We will not cower, we will not hide. When we finish our mourning, we will continue on. And with God's blessing, we will remain the beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world."
In the weeks and months since September 11, Senator Thompson has worked in the Senate to support President Bush's war against terrorism. As Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, he has participated in hearings covering issues including computer security, homeland defense, aviation security, the economic stimulus package, and the Postal Service's anthrax investigation.
The Aviation Security Act, signed into law by President Bush on November 19, includes Senator Thompson's amendment requiring that those responsible for airport security be held accountable for meeting measurable performance goals, particularly involving the detection of dangerous objects.
"We're changing the basic mind set with regard to measuring airport security performance," Senator Thompson said. "The primary concern of the American people is the bottom line - whether dangerous objects are getting past screeners and whether or not unauthorized individuals are gaining access to secure areas in our airports. That's what we're going to measure from now on, and that's how employee performance will be judged. This is the kind of thing that will help restore confidence in air travel."
In January of 2002, Thompson was part of a bi-partisan group of Senators that traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries involved in the war on terror. While in Afghanistan, the group met with interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and members of his Cabinet. They also had the opportunity during the trip to meet with U.S. troops serving in the region.
In February of 2002, it was announced that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, of which Senator Thompson is a member, and the House Intelligence Committee, will hold joint hearings into the events surrounding September 11 and the federal government's response to terrorism.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616034647/thompson.senate.gov/text/america.html
On September 11, 2001, the United States fell victim to the worst terrorist attack in our history as more than 3000 persons were killed in attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon, and in a thwarted attack that led to a plane crash in Pennsylvania. From his Senate office, Senator Thompson watched with members of his staff as the events unfolded on television.
While the Senate offices were soon evacuated, Senator Thompson returned to the Capitol that night to join a bi-partisan group of senators for a display of unity on the Capitol steps. He later appeared on television with several colleagues to help reassure the American people that their government was functioning and would respond to the attacks.
Speaking on the Senate floor the following day, Senator Thompson said, "If this giant has been sleeping as some say, it has been awakened once again and will not rest until an example is made of those who would murder our innocent citizens and tear at the very fabric of our national existence...America's response in this matter should set a lasting example of what happens to those who unleash bloody attacks, especially on our own soil. The time for carefully measured pinprick responses to terrorists activities has passed."
That weekend, the Senator returned to Tennessee. He traveled from Nashville to Memphis, and then to Knoxville, Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities, speaking at churches and schools about the events of September 11 and the task ahead. At Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, he said, "We will not cower, we will not hide. When we finish our mourning, we will continue on. And with God's blessing, we will remain the beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world."
In the weeks and months since September 11, Senator Thompson has worked in the Senate to support President Bush's war against terrorism. As Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, he has participated in hearings covering issues including computer security, homeland defense, aviation security, the economic stimulus package, and the Postal Service's anthrax investigation.
The Aviation Security Act, signed into law by President Bush on November 19, includes Senator Thompson's amendment requiring that those responsible for airport security be held accountable for meeting measurable performance goals, particularly involving the detection of dangerous objects.
"We're changing the basic mind set with regard to measuring airport security performance," Senator Thompson said. "The primary concern of the American people is the bottom line - whether dangerous objects are getting past screeners and whether or not unauthorized individuals are gaining access to secure areas in our airports. That's what we're going to measure from now on, and that's how employee performance will be judged. This is the kind of thing that will help restore confidence in air travel."
In January of 2002, Thompson was part of a bi-partisan group of Senators that traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries involved in the war on terror. While in Afghanistan, the group met with interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and members of his Cabinet. They also had the opportunity during the trip to meet with U.S. troops serving in the region.
In February of 2002, it was announced that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, of which Senator Thompson is a member, and the House Intelligence Committee, will hold joint hearings into the events surrounding September 11 and the federal government's response to terrorism.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616034647/thompson.senate.gov/text/america.html
Agriculture- official position
Agriculture
Senator Thompson recognizes that Tennessee farmers work hard to produce outstanding agricultural products. With approximately 80,000 farms covering 43 percent of the state, Tennessee is a major producer of agricultural commodities such as cattle, lumber, dairy products, tobacco, cotton, nursery products, soybeans, poultry, and hogs.
During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Thompson has been a strong proponent of trade policies that open foreign markets for our farmers goods. He supports Trade Promotion Authority and other policies that will open new export markets for Tennessee's agricultural products.
Senator Thompson believes that excessive taxation prevents farmers from keeping more of their income and saving for the future. He has been a supporter of fundamental tax reform that will create a simpler and fairer tax system. In 2001, Senator Thompson voted to eliminate both the marriage penalty tax and the death, or estate, tax. The death tax forced farmers who worked hard over their lifetimes to face tax rates as high as 55 percent if they wanted to pass their farms on to their children. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act signed by President Bush eliminates the death tax by 2010.
Senator Thompson also believes that farmers have suffered from burdensome and often unnecessary federal government regulations. In 2000, Senator Thompson cosponsored the Truth in Regulating Act to promote Congressional oversight of proposed federal regulations.
While Senator Thompson has fought for general improvements to assist farmers, he also realizes that Tennessee's farmers have continued to face unique challenges in recent years. This year, he worked to ensure that 31 Tennessee counties were eligible to receive federal agricultural disaster assistance. Farmers in these counties experienced setbacks in production caused by extreme weather conditions, flooding, and insect infestations in 2001.
Tennessee's farmers feed millions of Americans, preserve the rural way of life, and provide high-quality products to consumers all over the world. Senator Thompson will continue to work with his Congressional colleagues to assist Tennessee's farmers.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616032046/thompson.senate.gov/text/ag.html
Senator Thompson recognizes that Tennessee farmers work hard to produce outstanding agricultural products. With approximately 80,000 farms covering 43 percent of the state, Tennessee is a major producer of agricultural commodities such as cattle, lumber, dairy products, tobacco, cotton, nursery products, soybeans, poultry, and hogs.
During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Thompson has been a strong proponent of trade policies that open foreign markets for our farmers goods. He supports Trade Promotion Authority and other policies that will open new export markets for Tennessee's agricultural products.
Senator Thompson believes that excessive taxation prevents farmers from keeping more of their income and saving for the future. He has been a supporter of fundamental tax reform that will create a simpler and fairer tax system. In 2001, Senator Thompson voted to eliminate both the marriage penalty tax and the death, or estate, tax. The death tax forced farmers who worked hard over their lifetimes to face tax rates as high as 55 percent if they wanted to pass their farms on to their children. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act signed by President Bush eliminates the death tax by 2010.
Senator Thompson also believes that farmers have suffered from burdensome and often unnecessary federal government regulations. In 2000, Senator Thompson cosponsored the Truth in Regulating Act to promote Congressional oversight of proposed federal regulations.
While Senator Thompson has fought for general improvements to assist farmers, he also realizes that Tennessee's farmers have continued to face unique challenges in recent years. This year, he worked to ensure that 31 Tennessee counties were eligible to receive federal agricultural disaster assistance. Farmers in these counties experienced setbacks in production caused by extreme weather conditions, flooding, and insect infestations in 2001.
Tennessee's farmers feed millions of Americans, preserve the rural way of life, and provide high-quality products to consumers all over the world. Senator Thompson will continue to work with his Congressional colleagues to assist Tennessee's farmers.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020616032046/thompson.senate.gov/text/ag.html
The Republican Dilemma
Chris Adamo wrote an interesting article that describes the current Republican dilemma, and what a Thompson candidacy means:
He describes Thompson as the only candidate who has consistently been a champion of the conservative ideals. Senator Thompson is alone when it comes to qualifications and a record to back up his claim as the true conservative. All he needs to do is talk the talk like he walks the walk.
With the 2008 Presidential campaign season looming, Republicans stand to make
great gains as a result of this pattern of abominable liberal behavior.
Yet
it is critical to this effort that they remain loyal to those things that
bolstered the conservative wing of the party. Only by so doing can they
unmistakably define themselves as a clear alternative to the increasing liberal
tilt of the Democrats.
Among the chief contenders for the White House, this
contrast would be best borne, by far, by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
Of those with a large current showing in the polls, only Thompson can highlight
his own past conservatism with no excuses or back peddling. Thompson merely
needs to loudly proclaim the things for which he has stood and allow the
opposition, in all of its hysteria, to make his case for him.
Rudy Guiliani,
on the other hand, finds himself on the wrong side of two of the three currently
dominating controversies, having staunchly supported both partial-birth abortion
and gun control throughout his political life.
Being far too entrenched as a
liberal, Guiliani amazingly seeks to appeal to conservative America on the basis
that, unlike those who shift to the right for electability purposes, he remains
committed to his liberal mindset. In essence, conservative America is asked to
accept the absurd notion that Rudy ’s unwavering devotion to such defining
principles of liberalism somehow make him less of a liberal than those who
waffle and pander.Ultimately, this strategy promises to be no more convincing to
the voting public than Hillary and her latest bumbling foray into "Ebonics."
He describes Thompson as the only candidate who has consistently been a champion of the conservative ideals. Senator Thompson is alone when it comes to qualifications and a record to back up his claim as the true conservative. All he needs to do is talk the talk like he walks the walk.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Fred Thompson- Neil Cavuto Interview Part 1
Neil Cavuto's Exclusive Interview with Fred Thompson Part 1
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Part II: Federal Workforce Challenges
Part 2 of Senator Thompson's report on challenges facing the new administration:
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE NEW
ADMINISTRATION
PART 2: FEDERAL WORKFORCE CHALLENGES
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
This is one in a series of transition reports that describes core capacity problems facing the Federal Government, discusses their nature and root causes, and proposes ways of solving them. The reports are intended to stimulate action on the part of the incoming Administration and Congress, and to provide them a framework for this important task. This report deals with Federal workforce challenges. Other reports address financial management and the need for results-oriented governance at the Federal level.
The Federal Government’s workforce problems have received little attention, although many experts recognize that they are reaching an increasingly critical stage. Most agencies face serious challenges in hiring, retaining, developing, and motivating a workforce with the right skills to achieve their mission results. These problems have been exacerbated in recent years by random ‘‘downsizing’’ that reduced agency staffs without regard to the skills, experience, and performance of departing employees in relation to agency missions. Typically, downsizing was accomplished by ‘‘buyouts’’ and early retirement offers to experienced employees— thereby causing significant ‘‘brain drain.’’ There is mounting evidence that workforce deficiencies at agencies limit their capacity to serve the public and make them more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs is responsible for overseeing the government-wide application of the Federal merit system and human resources policies. The current civil service system, a product of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, was created in large part to further standardize some human resource requirements and incorporate into law the merit system principles of fairness, equity, and earned achievement in public employment.
There is broad consensus that this system lacks the flexibility necessary to meet today’s workforce needs. Such flexibility would enable individual workers and their agencies to focus less on conforming to centralized human resource requirements and more on developing human resource policies and practices that support their own mission-related needs.
One expert observed that the current system ‘‘underwhelms at almost every task it undertakes . . . It is slow in the hiring, almost useless in the firing, overly permissive in the promoting, [and] out of touch with actual performance in the rewarding . . .’’ 1 Agencies also suffer from inefficient and wasteful organizational structures with bloated hierarchies and excessive layers of management. Even more fundamentally, the basic civil service model—built around a 30-year career from entry level to retirement with virtually guaranteed job security—does not fit a contemporary workforce that favors greater mobility and has different motivations than in the past.
Strategic workforce planning is essential to the success of private sector organizations. They realize the importance of having employees with the right skills and abilities to accomplish their missions.
However, Federal workforce issues have been neglected for years. The Comptroller General describes workforce management as the ‘‘missing link’’ in efforts to improve the Federal Government’s performance and accountability. The Administration, especially the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is only now acknowledging the seriousness of the government’s workforce problems. Furthermore, the agency charged with administering the Federal Government’s personnel laws, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), has lacked the requisite leadership from the Administration to address successfully these problems. Most agencies are far behind the curve in addressing these problems. Therefore, the problems require immediate attention and concerted action. The following are a few recommendations to begin to address these problems:
· The Administration must provide much greater leadership in addressing critical workforce problems. In particular, it needs to develop specific remedial plans for which they and the agencies can be held accountable. With this greater leadership, the Administration would encourage OMB and OPM to move away from the status quo and consider personnel reforms in an open and objective way. It is obvious to all that the current system is broken. OPM should become a partner in developing solutions.
· Agencies need to undertake comprehensive workforce planning to: (1) determine their workforce needs in relation to their current functions; (2) assess how their existing workforce compares to their needs; and (3) develop strategies to bridge the gaps between the workforce they need and the one they have.
· In accordance with OMB guidance, agencies should establish Results Act performance goals and measures to address their most serious workforce problems and thereby assume accountability for solving them. Agencies should start with problems that lend themselves to immediate action such as improving recruitment practices and linking employee performance appraisals to performance results. (See below.)
· OPM should ensure that agencies’ program managers fully understand and use the many personnel flexibilities that are now available to them under current laws and regulations. As noted above, OPM also should help develop changes to current laws and regulations to ensure that agencies can effectively obtain and manage the workforces they need to achieve their mission results.
· Agencies should directly link performance assessments and rewards for agency managers to the agency’s performance results. Steps should be taken as well to ensure that all agency employees are accountable for their performance and are rewarded based on their performance.
· Agencies should take immediate action to reduce recruiting and hiring delays and provide better feedback to job applicants. The foregoing recommendations are just a start toward resolving the Federal Government’s critical workforce problems. Additional recommendations are sure to emerge if these long neglected problems get the attention they clearly require.
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE CRISIS
No longer a ‘‘quiet crisis.’’ For some time now, experts have referred to a ‘‘quiet crisis’’ in the Federal public service. Clearly, the workforce problems confronting the Federal Government have reached an even more critical stage in recent years. A workforce capable of conducting the Federal Government’s business is crucial to the effective implementation of government policies. One leading expert, Paul C. Light of The Brookings Institution, observed: Ultimately, effective governance is impossible if government cannot attract talented citizens to serve at all levels of the hierarchy. As Alexander Hamilton warned 200 years ago in The Federalist Papers, ‘‘a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government.’’ Citizens cannot have confidence in the integrity of the democratic process if their leaders cannot honor the promises they make, but those leaders cannot honor the promises they make if government cannot attract the talent necessary to both draft and execute the laws. 2
Paul Light paints a bleak picture of a current Federal personnel system ‘‘that underwhelms at almost every task it undertakes.’’
Specifically:
It is slow in the hiring, almost useless in the firing, overly permissive in the promoting, out of touch with actual performance in the rewarding, penurious in the training, and utterly absent in the management of a vast and hidden workforce of contractors and consultants who work side by side, desk by desk with the civil service. 3
The impact of non-strategic ‘‘downsizing.’’ The staffs of many Federal agencies suffer from imbalances in skills and experience as well as structural problems. The spate of ‘‘downsizing’’ during the 1990’s substantially reduced the number of regular, full-time Federal employees. Whether this downsizing really made the Federal Government much smaller is doubtful. According to Paul Light, the ‘‘era of big government’’ is still very much with us. 4 It clearly did not make the government smarter. The downsizing was accomplished indiscriminately through attrition, early retirements, and ‘‘buyouts’’ that resulted in random, across-the-board staff reductions.
Little or no consideration was given to the relative impact of the jobs eliminated—or the skills, experience, or performance of departing employees—on accomplishing agency missions. There is no evidence that this downsizing improved the efficiency or effectiveness of the Federal Government. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the non-strategic way in which downsizing was accomplished actually detracted from the capacity of agencies to carry out essential functions and made them more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) found that lack of strategic planning during the initial phases of downsizing threatened the ability of some agencies to achieve their missions. The Comptroller General recently testified that ‘‘it is by no means clear that the current workforce is adequately balanced to properly execute agencies’ missions today, nor that adequate plans are in place to ensure the appropriate balance in the future.’’ 5 His testimony illustrates the perverse consequences of non-strategic downsizing. Agencies hoped to offset the loss of skilled employees by greater reliance on information technology (IT). However, due to staff reductions, they lack the skilled employees needed to take advantage of technology, and they are at a competitive disadvantage in hiring IT professionals.
They also appear to lack the necessary in-house expertise to oversee IT work that they have outsourced to contractors. 6
A top-heavy Federal workforce. Downsizing also has distorted the shape of the Federal workforce, making it more top heavy and less efficient. Not surprisingly, the greatest impact of downsizing occurred at the lowest levels of government. As Paul Light puts it, ‘‘The Federal Government eliminated primarily the jobs that were the easiest to cut, meaning the ones with the highest attrition and the lowest political profile.’’ 7 While middle management levels ostensibly were reduced, this often amounted to nothing more than changing titles. Thus, in reality, the number of political appointees, senior executives, and middle managers remained steady while layers of hierarchy actually expanded.
This effect is apparent in the title glut of recent years. From 1993 to 1998, a number of new senior level positions were established with such titles as ‘‘deputy to the deputy secretary,’’ ‘‘principal assistant deputy under secretary,’’ and ‘‘associate principal deputy assistant secretary.’’ 8 While contributing to greater layering and diffused accountability, high numbers of political appointees also are expensive. According to the Congressional Budget Office, capping the number of political appointees at 2,000 would save the taxpayers about $900 million in salary costs over 10 years. 9
HOW WORKFORCE PROBLEMS IMPEDE AGENCY MISSIONS
The Comptroller General regards workforce (or what he refers to as ‘‘human capital’’) problems as an impending crisis for the Federal Government. He has labeled human capital management as the ‘‘missing link’’ in efforts to improve the Federal Government’s performance and accountability. 10 He adds that human capital management is likely to emerge as a new government-wide problem area when GAO updates its ‘‘high-risk list’’ of Federal program activities most vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement:
[T]he widespread lack of attention to strategic human capital management may be creating a fundamental weakness in Federal management, possibly even putting at risk the Federal Government’s ability to efficiently, economically, and effectively deliver products and services to the taxpayers in the future. These shortcomings in the Federal
Government’s human capital management systems could well earn them GAO’s high-risk designation when the next High Risk Series is issued in 2001. 11
Likewise, Inspectors General (IGs) at nine major Federal agencies have listed workforce problems as one of the top 10 most serious management challenges that their agencies face. 12 Staffing problems underlie many other IG-identified top 10 management challenges at a number of major agencies, such as the lack of expertise to effectively oversee Federal contracts and grants and to provide effective service to the public.
GAO and IG reports are replete with specific examples of how staffing problems adversely affect the ability of Federal agencies to accomplish their missions.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ‘‘An insufficient mix of staff with the proper skills’’ was a key factor causing GAO to designate HUD programs across the board as high risk. 13 Along the same lines, the HUD IG recently testified: The adequacy of staff resources in the Department has long been a concern of the OIG and a root cause of many of HUD’s material weaknesses. Our audits have consistently found a mismatch between the number and complexity of HUD’s programs and the capability of HUD staff to administer those programs. 14
These longstanding workforce problems were exacerbated by random downsizing at HUD, as well as more recent staffing upheavals brought on by the Department’s ‘‘community builders’’ initiative. Despite the apparent lack of staff capacity to effectively carry out its existing programs, HUD consistently seeks to add more programs to the workload of its already beleaguered staff.
Social Security Administration (SSA). The IG at SSA has noted that the combined effect of staff downsizing and hiring restrictions, on the one hand, and the increasing volume and complexity of caseloads on the other, threatens SSA’s ability to provide quality service to the public:
The quality of service SSA provides to its customers continues to be a challenge facing the Agency. . . . The [Social Security Advisory] Board expressed concern about the effect of personnel downsizing and hiring restrictions on SSA’s service delivery mechanism. Such constraints limit the Agency’s ability to strengthen and revitalize employee ranks by bringing in new employees with new skills. This condition exists at the same time that caseloads continue to grow in volume and complexity. . . . The effects of low staffing levels for the customer include: delays in scheduling appointments; crowded reception areas; long waiting times; and inadequate telephone service. At the same time, the Agency is affected by attrition, high turnover, and increased backlogs of pending actions. 15 SSA’s Performance Report for Fiscal Year 1999 confirms that it is falling short of many of its customer service performance goals.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Experts maintain that the combined effect of increasing applications and inexperienced staff at the Commerce Department’s PTO has resulted in undeserving patents slipping through. This, in turn, poses a critical threat to an economy that runs on intellectual property. One expert was quoted as saying, ‘‘Patent quality in this country is a joke. It’s getting worse.’’ 16
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Last year, NASA lost all four of its spacecraft bound for Mars. This cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and brought the entire Mars program to a halt. These problems did not stem from the risks inherent in space exploration. Instead, they resulted from simple negligence resulting in part from inexperienced staff and inadequate oversight of contractors. Likewise, GAO reports that an insufficient staff with the proper qualifications poses threats to the performance and safety of NASA’s space shuttle program. 17
THE NEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN WORKFORCE
MANAGEMENT
Rethinking current systems. Solutions to our workforce problems will not come easily. For one thing, the Federal Government faces daunting recruiting challenges both at professional and leadership levels. In this regard, Paul Light observes: Sad to say, when young Americans are asked to picture themselves in public service careers, particularly at the Federal level, they picture themselves in deadend jobs where seniority, not performance, rules. And when more seasoned Americans are asked to picture themselves in appointive office, they picture themselves in a nomination and confirmation process characterized by endless inspection, over-disclosure, and delays at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. 18
Clearly, the basic assumptions underlying the current civil service system no longer hold true today. In particular, we need to rethink our current civil service paradigm of a large and permanent Federal bureaucracy composed of cradle-to-grave careerists.
We need to develop a new paradigm to fit a contemporary National workforce that features much greater mobility and very different motivations than in the past. In this regard, Paul Light states: Designed to sustain 30-year careers with one way in at the entry level and one way out at retirement, the government- centered public service is increasingly unattractive to a workforce that will change jobs and sectors frequently, and to workers who are much more focused on challenging work than security. Gone are the days when talented employees would endure hiring delays and a mind-numbing application process to get an entry-level government job. Gone, too, are the days when talented employees would accept slow but steady advancement through towering government bureaucracies in exchange for a 30-year commitment.
In the midst of a growing labor shortage, government is becoming an employer of last resort, one that caters more to the security-craver than the risk-taker. 19
Comptroller General Walker also emphasizes the need to rethink our current approach to the Federal workforce in light of changing conditions:
Changes in the demographics of the Federal workforce, in the education and skills required of its workers, and in basic Federal employment structures and arrangements are all continuing to unfold. The Federal workforce is aging; the baby boomers, with their valuable skills and experience, are drawing nearer to retirement; new employees joining the Federal workforce today have different expectations from the generation that preceded them. In response to an increasingly competitive job market, Federal agencies will need the tools and flexibilities to attract, hire, and retain top-flight talent. . . . Agencies’ employment structures and working arrangements will also be changing, and the workplace will need to accommodate a greater mix of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; more contracting-out; less job security; and the possibility of additional government downsizing and realignments. 20
Improving the basics. It will be difficult to overcome some of the challenges the Federal Government faces in attracting the kind of workforce it needs. The government does not do a good job even in areas that are readily within its control. A recent survey of new hires by the Federal Government’s own Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) identified basic problems in the recruiting process.
For example, respondents reported that the time between submission of an application and being scheduled for an interview was unreasonably long, as was the time between being told they had a job and being able to report for work. The respondents also complained of not receiving timely feedback, or receiving no feedback at all, on the status of their applications. Finally, they did not receive the quality of service they expected from Federal hiring personnel.
Among other things, the MSPB recommended that agencies expedite their hiring processes and improve service to applicants. 21
THE PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRAST
Approaches to workforce management represent a stark contrast between the private sector and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has devoted little attention to workforce planning.
As discussed previously, this lack of attention was most pronounced in the recent downsizing. Downsizing was nothing but a numbers game. Agencies simply reduced in-house staffing without reducing or streamlining any of their functions. By contrast, private sector firms take a strategic approach to workforce issues.
They analyze which of their functions are important and effective, and which are not. They concentrate on improving the important things that they do. With regard to staffing, successful private sector organizations give very high priority to analyzing their workforce needs and ensuring that they are met. These firms systematically identify the skills and characteristics that their leaders and employees need to get the job done and make the investments needed to hire, develop, and retain a workforce that embodies and can sustain these competencies.
In 1999, GAO surveyed private sector firms that are regarded as leaders in workforce or ‘‘human capital’’ management in order to identify common principles that underlay their success. GAO identified 10 such common principles in all, which included the following:
· Treat human capital management as being fundamental to strategic business management. Integrate human capital considerations when identifying the mission, strategic goals, and core values of the organization as well as when designing and implementing operational policies and practices.
· Hire, develop, and sustain leaders according to leadership characteristics identified as essential to achieving specific missions and goals. Identify the leadership traits needed to achieve high performance of mission and goals. Build and sustain the organization’s pool of leaders through recruiting, hiring, development, retention, and succession policies and practices targeted at producing leaders with the identified characteristics.
· Hire, develop, and retain employees according to competencies. Identify the competencies—knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors—needed to achieve high performance of mission and goals, and build and sustain the organization’s talent pool through recruiting, hiring, development, and retention policies and practices targeted at building and sustaining those competencies.
· Use performance management systems, including pay and other meaningful incentives, to link performance to results. Provide incentives and hold employees accountable for contributing to the achievement of mission and goals. Reward those employees who meet or exceed clearly defined and transparent standards of high performance.
· Measure the effectiveness of human capital policies and practices.
Evaluate and make fact-based decisions on whether human capital policies and practices support high performance of mission and goals. Identify the performance return on human capital investments. 22
LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON WORKFORCE PLANNING
Unfortunately, the Executive Branch has paid scant attention to Federal workforce issues. There are some indications that its central management agencies—OMB and OPM—are beginning to take the Federal Government’s workforce crisis seriously. However, they are coming to these problems quite late and, as a result, most agencies remain far behind the curve.
For the past 3 fiscal years, OMB has included a set of so-called ‘‘Priority Management Objectives’’ (PMOs) as part of the Government-wide Performance Plan under the Government Performance and Results Act (‘‘Results Act’’). The PMOs are designed to capture the Federal Government’s ‘‘biggest management challenges.’’ Although the PMOs for FY 1999 and 2000 made no mention of Federal workforce problems, the FY 2001 version includes a PMO entitled, ‘‘Align Federal human resources to support agency goals.’’ 23 It states that OPM will:
· design a ‘‘prototype workforce planning model’’ to help agencies strategically assess their human resources needs;
· ‘‘work with’’ agencies on labor-management initiatives to ‘‘empower’’ managers and employees to improve customer service and get mission results;
· encourage agencies to make better use of existing personnel flexibilities and submit any necessary legislative proposals.
In addition, OMB’s guidance for agency Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act for FY 2001 specifically addresses workforce issues for the first time. It states:
The annual plan should include a performance goal(s) covering major human resources strategies, such as recruitment, retention, skill development and training, and appraisals linked to program performance, that help support the agency’s programs. 24
This new emphasis on workforce problems is encouraging. However, given the lack of emphasis in the past, most agencies have yet to address these problems. GAO has found that strategic workforce management was ‘‘notably absent’’ from agency Annual Performance Plans submitted under the Results Act. 25 Thus, there is much ground to make up.
The lack of foresight and leadership on the part of the Administration is particularly striking. Indeed, one publication recently editorialized on OPM’s late entry into Federal workforce problems: The Office of Personnel Management has watched for years as the effects of downsizing and aging on the Federal workforce have reached crisis proportions. Now it comes out with a strategic plan to help agencies improve retention, hiring, training and other human-resource issues. In short, the OPM plan is too late . . . OPM should be leading the effort to address nagging human-resource issues well before the crisis stage. Unfortunately, it took until this year for the Administration to acknowledge that human resources is a government-wide management priority. . . What would have been far more useful for the next Administration and Congress when they take office in January is not a list of ideas to solve problems, but a list of problems that have been solved. 26
Based on reviews of OPM’s past Results Act plans and reports, GAO found that OPM has made little progress toward the following key outcomes:
· The Federal Government has an appropriately constituted workforce with the proper skills to carry out its missions.
· Federal employees are evaluated, rewarded, and otherwise held accountable for their performance. 27
According to the GAO report, ‘‘OPM officials said that fundamental changes to the performance management framework were not deemed necessary.’’ 28 OPM has displayed resistance to change in the status quo. Its reaction to legislative reforms the Comptroller General proposed for GAO’s own workforce is a case in point. GAO faces essentially the same workforce challenges as most other agencies. To its credit, GAO is actively attempting to resolve them. However, in a letter to Congress, OPM Director Lachance stated that the personnel reforms GAO sought, which the Comptroller General deemed essential to restructuring his workforce,‘‘ would be inconsistent with the Administration’s policies for the Executive Branch.’’ She added, ‘‘If Congress chooses to allow these changes for GAO, it must be clear in the legislative history that it has done so without precedence for the Executive Branch.’’ 29
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
The incoming Administration will have to give much higher priority to addressing the Federal Government’s workforce crisis if it is to effectively execute its agenda and provide our citizens the essential services they need. The new Administration should start by charging OPM and OMB with developing new approaches that fit contemporary workforce trends as well as the needs of the Federal Government of the 21st Century.
This will require both long-term and short-term strategies. Over the long term, there is a clear need to reconsider what the Federal Government should do and how best to do it. As past problems with downsizing demonstrate, it makes no sense to restructure the Federal workforce without restructuring what the workforce needs to do. Only after current Federal operations and structures themselves have been redesigned and rationalized can the government’s workforce be redesigned in a meaningful way. This is the difference between random ‘‘downsizing’’ and strategic ‘‘rightsizing.’’ At the same time, the Federal Government needs to develop near-term approaches that can at least ameliorate the current crisis in Federal workforce management. The following recommendations cover some actions that need to be started immediately.
Greater leadership on critical workforce problems. OMB and OPM have acknowledged the seriousness of the Federal Government’s workforce problems. Now, the White House, OMB, and OPM, need to demonstrate strong executive leadership by putting forward specific proposals to address these problems. For example, OMB should develop more results-oriented goals to address workforce problems in the Government-wide Performance Plan. It also needs to include specific performance targets and measures to accompany those goals. For its part, OPM needs to be more open-minded and objective when it comes to changes in current personnel requirements.
There is overwhelming sentiment that Federal personnel systems are fundamentally broken. They clearly don’t enable agencies to align their workforces with their missions and to hold employees accountable for their performance. Yet, as illustrated by its reaction to GAO’s proposals, OPM seems to be reflexively hostile to even modest reforms.
Workforce planning. As discussed previously, many agencies face serious staff deficits and imbalances in terms of having the work- force they need to perform their current missions efficiently and effectively.
An initial means of addressing this problem is for agencies to undertake comprehensive workforce planning. Specifically, agencies should: (1) determine their workforce needs (number of employees, skill, experience levels, etc.) in relation to their current functions; (2) assess how their existing workforce compares to their needs; and (3) develop strategies to bridge the gaps between the workforce they have and the workforce they need. These strategies should encompass hiring, training, reorganizing, and ‘‘rightsizing’’ as appropriate. OPM is in the early stages of developing an automated program that will assist agencies in some aspects of evaluating their workforces. However, OPM will have to do much more to produce a useful and comprehensive workforce planning model that agencies need.
Performance goals to address workforce problems. In accordance with OMB guidance, agencies should establish Results Act performance goals and measures to address their most serious workforce challenges and to ensure accountability. Comprehensive performance goals and strategies probably need to await completion of the workforce planning referred to above. However, agencies can start with those areas that lend themselves to immediate action such as improving their recruitment practices and linking employee performance appraisals to performance results. (See below.)
Personnel flexibilities. OPM must ensure that agencies are aware of, and fully understand how to use, those personnel flexibilities that are now available to them by law and current regulations.
Given the complex and arcane nature of personnel requirements, it is clear that many agencies lack this understanding now. As stated above, OPM also needs to objectively consider and assist in developing changes to current personnel laws, rules, and practices to enable agencies to effectively develop, align, and manage their workforces so as to accomplish their mission results. The question is not whether fundamental changes are needed, but what they should be. Any increase in flexibility must be linked to accountability, as well as adherence to the merit system principles.
Linking performance to results. Accountability for performance results will become a reality for Federal employees when it is directly linked to their individual performance assessments and rewards.
Some agencies have already started doing this for senior managers. OPM recently issued regulations requiring such a linkage for Senior Executive Service staff. Obviously, it is more difficult to link agency performance results to the individual performance of non-managerial employees. However, much can be done to enhance performance accountability on the part of all employees.
Improving recruiting practices. The Federal Government faces many serious recruitment and retention challenges, some of which it has limited ability to influence. However, as recent reports and a host of anecdotes indicate, the government brings some recruitment problems on itself that are entirely within its control and easily remedied. For example, the MSPB report suggests that the government could improve its recruiting chances significantly by reducing inordinate delays in hiring decisions and simply treating applicants with common courtesy.
The foregoing recommendations are by no means exhaustive.
Now that the Federal Government’s workforce problems are finally getting attention, more solutions are sure to emerge. However, the above recommendations are intended to initiate discussion by all interested parties in improving the way the government works.
ENDNOTES
1. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service (The Brookings Institution, 1999).
2. Id. p. 2.
3. Id.
4. Another recent book by Paul C. Light, The True Size of Government (The
Brookings Institution, 1999), puts the results of downsizing into perspective. He
points out that most of the Federal employee reductions were defense-related and
were attributable primarily to the end of the Cold War. He also notes that a substantial
but unknown number of former Federal jobs migrated to a ‘‘shadow’’ Federal
workforce made up of contractors, other private sector employees, and State
and local government employees who are engaged, directly or indirectly, in carrying
out Federal mandates.
5. Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, GAO/T–GGD–
00–77 (March 9, 2000), p. 5.
6. Id. pp. 4–5.
7. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, note 1, p. 8.
8. Id. p. 10.
9. Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options (March 2000), p. 279.
10. Id. p. 1.
11. Id. p. 5.
12. These agencies are: EPA, GSA, HUD, Justice, NASA, NSF, OPM, SSA, and
USAID.
13. See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development, GAO/OCG–99–8 (January 1999), pp. 7–8.
14. See Statement of Susan Gaffney before the Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation of the Senate Banking Committee on Management and Performance
Issues Facing HUD (September 26, 2000), p. 3.
15. Letter dated December 7, 1999, to Chairman Thompson from SSA IG James
G. Huse, p. 8.
16. Surge in Ideas, Turnover Swamps Patent Office, USA Today (September 11,
2000). The head of the Patent Office dismissed these concerns, stating: ‘‘We’re not
overwhelmed . . . We’re doing a great job.’’ However, the agency’s Performance Report
confirms that there is a problem. The agency fell short of its goal for cycle time
of inventions processed, and stated that achieving the goal in the future ‘‘remains
a challenge.’’ The agency pointed to the need for hiring to meet increased workloads.
Annual Program Performance Report of the Department of Commerce, FY 1999, pp.
99–100.
17. Space Shuttle: Human Capital and Safety Upgrade Challenges Require Continued
Attention, GAO/NSIAD/GGD–00–186 (August 2000).
18. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, note 1, p. 2.
19. Id. p. 1.
20. Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, note 4, p. 2.
21. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search
Experiences of New Hires (February 2000), pp. vii–viii. The full report can be found
at www.mspb.gov/studies/studies.html.
22. Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG–
00–14G (September 2000), pp. 29–31.
23. See Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 298.
24. OMB Circular No. A–11, Part 2, § 220.9(d) (2000).
25. Id. p. 11.
26. OPM Plan: Too Little, Too Late, Federal Times (October 30, 2000), p. 16.
27. Observations on the Office of Personnel Management’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance
Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, GAO/GGD–00–156 (June
2000), pp. 3–4.
28. Id., p. 4.
29. Letters dated June 21, 2000, from OPM Director Janice R. Lachance to Representatives
Steny Hoyer and Henry Waxman.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_senate_print&docid=f:67613.pdf
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE NEW
ADMINISTRATION
PART 2: FEDERAL WORKFORCE CHALLENGES
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
This is one in a series of transition reports that describes core capacity problems facing the Federal Government, discusses their nature and root causes, and proposes ways of solving them. The reports are intended to stimulate action on the part of the incoming Administration and Congress, and to provide them a framework for this important task. This report deals with Federal workforce challenges. Other reports address financial management and the need for results-oriented governance at the Federal level.
The Federal Government’s workforce problems have received little attention, although many experts recognize that they are reaching an increasingly critical stage. Most agencies face serious challenges in hiring, retaining, developing, and motivating a workforce with the right skills to achieve their mission results. These problems have been exacerbated in recent years by random ‘‘downsizing’’ that reduced agency staffs without regard to the skills, experience, and performance of departing employees in relation to agency missions. Typically, downsizing was accomplished by ‘‘buyouts’’ and early retirement offers to experienced employees— thereby causing significant ‘‘brain drain.’’ There is mounting evidence that workforce deficiencies at agencies limit their capacity to serve the public and make them more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs is responsible for overseeing the government-wide application of the Federal merit system and human resources policies. The current civil service system, a product of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, was created in large part to further standardize some human resource requirements and incorporate into law the merit system principles of fairness, equity, and earned achievement in public employment.
There is broad consensus that this system lacks the flexibility necessary to meet today’s workforce needs. Such flexibility would enable individual workers and their agencies to focus less on conforming to centralized human resource requirements and more on developing human resource policies and practices that support their own mission-related needs.
One expert observed that the current system ‘‘underwhelms at almost every task it undertakes . . . It is slow in the hiring, almost useless in the firing, overly permissive in the promoting, [and] out of touch with actual performance in the rewarding . . .’’ 1 Agencies also suffer from inefficient and wasteful organizational structures with bloated hierarchies and excessive layers of management. Even more fundamentally, the basic civil service model—built around a 30-year career from entry level to retirement with virtually guaranteed job security—does not fit a contemporary workforce that favors greater mobility and has different motivations than in the past.
Strategic workforce planning is essential to the success of private sector organizations. They realize the importance of having employees with the right skills and abilities to accomplish their missions.
However, Federal workforce issues have been neglected for years. The Comptroller General describes workforce management as the ‘‘missing link’’ in efforts to improve the Federal Government’s performance and accountability. The Administration, especially the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is only now acknowledging the seriousness of the government’s workforce problems. Furthermore, the agency charged with administering the Federal Government’s personnel laws, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), has lacked the requisite leadership from the Administration to address successfully these problems. Most agencies are far behind the curve in addressing these problems. Therefore, the problems require immediate attention and concerted action. The following are a few recommendations to begin to address these problems:
· The Administration must provide much greater leadership in addressing critical workforce problems. In particular, it needs to develop specific remedial plans for which they and the agencies can be held accountable. With this greater leadership, the Administration would encourage OMB and OPM to move away from the status quo and consider personnel reforms in an open and objective way. It is obvious to all that the current system is broken. OPM should become a partner in developing solutions.
· Agencies need to undertake comprehensive workforce planning to: (1) determine their workforce needs in relation to their current functions; (2) assess how their existing workforce compares to their needs; and (3) develop strategies to bridge the gaps between the workforce they need and the one they have.
· In accordance with OMB guidance, agencies should establish Results Act performance goals and measures to address their most serious workforce problems and thereby assume accountability for solving them. Agencies should start with problems that lend themselves to immediate action such as improving recruitment practices and linking employee performance appraisals to performance results. (See below.)
· OPM should ensure that agencies’ program managers fully understand and use the many personnel flexibilities that are now available to them under current laws and regulations. As noted above, OPM also should help develop changes to current laws and regulations to ensure that agencies can effectively obtain and manage the workforces they need to achieve their mission results.
· Agencies should directly link performance assessments and rewards for agency managers to the agency’s performance results. Steps should be taken as well to ensure that all agency employees are accountable for their performance and are rewarded based on their performance.
· Agencies should take immediate action to reduce recruiting and hiring delays and provide better feedback to job applicants. The foregoing recommendations are just a start toward resolving the Federal Government’s critical workforce problems. Additional recommendations are sure to emerge if these long neglected problems get the attention they clearly require.
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE CRISIS
No longer a ‘‘quiet crisis.’’ For some time now, experts have referred to a ‘‘quiet crisis’’ in the Federal public service. Clearly, the workforce problems confronting the Federal Government have reached an even more critical stage in recent years. A workforce capable of conducting the Federal Government’s business is crucial to the effective implementation of government policies. One leading expert, Paul C. Light of The Brookings Institution, observed: Ultimately, effective governance is impossible if government cannot attract talented citizens to serve at all levels of the hierarchy. As Alexander Hamilton warned 200 years ago in The Federalist Papers, ‘‘a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government.’’ Citizens cannot have confidence in the integrity of the democratic process if their leaders cannot honor the promises they make, but those leaders cannot honor the promises they make if government cannot attract the talent necessary to both draft and execute the laws. 2
Paul Light paints a bleak picture of a current Federal personnel system ‘‘that underwhelms at almost every task it undertakes.’’
Specifically:
It is slow in the hiring, almost useless in the firing, overly permissive in the promoting, out of touch with actual performance in the rewarding, penurious in the training, and utterly absent in the management of a vast and hidden workforce of contractors and consultants who work side by side, desk by desk with the civil service. 3
The impact of non-strategic ‘‘downsizing.’’ The staffs of many Federal agencies suffer from imbalances in skills and experience as well as structural problems. The spate of ‘‘downsizing’’ during the 1990’s substantially reduced the number of regular, full-time Federal employees. Whether this downsizing really made the Federal Government much smaller is doubtful. According to Paul Light, the ‘‘era of big government’’ is still very much with us. 4 It clearly did not make the government smarter. The downsizing was accomplished indiscriminately through attrition, early retirements, and ‘‘buyouts’’ that resulted in random, across-the-board staff reductions.
Little or no consideration was given to the relative impact of the jobs eliminated—or the skills, experience, or performance of departing employees—on accomplishing agency missions. There is no evidence that this downsizing improved the efficiency or effectiveness of the Federal Government. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the non-strategic way in which downsizing was accomplished actually detracted from the capacity of agencies to carry out essential functions and made them more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) found that lack of strategic planning during the initial phases of downsizing threatened the ability of some agencies to achieve their missions. The Comptroller General recently testified that ‘‘it is by no means clear that the current workforce is adequately balanced to properly execute agencies’ missions today, nor that adequate plans are in place to ensure the appropriate balance in the future.’’ 5 His testimony illustrates the perverse consequences of non-strategic downsizing. Agencies hoped to offset the loss of skilled employees by greater reliance on information technology (IT). However, due to staff reductions, they lack the skilled employees needed to take advantage of technology, and they are at a competitive disadvantage in hiring IT professionals.
They also appear to lack the necessary in-house expertise to oversee IT work that they have outsourced to contractors. 6
A top-heavy Federal workforce. Downsizing also has distorted the shape of the Federal workforce, making it more top heavy and less efficient. Not surprisingly, the greatest impact of downsizing occurred at the lowest levels of government. As Paul Light puts it, ‘‘The Federal Government eliminated primarily the jobs that were the easiest to cut, meaning the ones with the highest attrition and the lowest political profile.’’ 7 While middle management levels ostensibly were reduced, this often amounted to nothing more than changing titles. Thus, in reality, the number of political appointees, senior executives, and middle managers remained steady while layers of hierarchy actually expanded.
This effect is apparent in the title glut of recent years. From 1993 to 1998, a number of new senior level positions were established with such titles as ‘‘deputy to the deputy secretary,’’ ‘‘principal assistant deputy under secretary,’’ and ‘‘associate principal deputy assistant secretary.’’ 8 While contributing to greater layering and diffused accountability, high numbers of political appointees also are expensive. According to the Congressional Budget Office, capping the number of political appointees at 2,000 would save the taxpayers about $900 million in salary costs over 10 years. 9
HOW WORKFORCE PROBLEMS IMPEDE AGENCY MISSIONS
The Comptroller General regards workforce (or what he refers to as ‘‘human capital’’) problems as an impending crisis for the Federal Government. He has labeled human capital management as the ‘‘missing link’’ in efforts to improve the Federal Government’s performance and accountability. 10 He adds that human capital management is likely to emerge as a new government-wide problem area when GAO updates its ‘‘high-risk list’’ of Federal program activities most vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement:
[T]he widespread lack of attention to strategic human capital management may be creating a fundamental weakness in Federal management, possibly even putting at risk the Federal Government’s ability to efficiently, economically, and effectively deliver products and services to the taxpayers in the future. These shortcomings in the Federal
Government’s human capital management systems could well earn them GAO’s high-risk designation when the next High Risk Series is issued in 2001. 11
Likewise, Inspectors General (IGs) at nine major Federal agencies have listed workforce problems as one of the top 10 most serious management challenges that their agencies face. 12 Staffing problems underlie many other IG-identified top 10 management challenges at a number of major agencies, such as the lack of expertise to effectively oversee Federal contracts and grants and to provide effective service to the public.
GAO and IG reports are replete with specific examples of how staffing problems adversely affect the ability of Federal agencies to accomplish their missions.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ‘‘An insufficient mix of staff with the proper skills’’ was a key factor causing GAO to designate HUD programs across the board as high risk. 13 Along the same lines, the HUD IG recently testified: The adequacy of staff resources in the Department has long been a concern of the OIG and a root cause of many of HUD’s material weaknesses. Our audits have consistently found a mismatch between the number and complexity of HUD’s programs and the capability of HUD staff to administer those programs. 14
These longstanding workforce problems were exacerbated by random downsizing at HUD, as well as more recent staffing upheavals brought on by the Department’s ‘‘community builders’’ initiative. Despite the apparent lack of staff capacity to effectively carry out its existing programs, HUD consistently seeks to add more programs to the workload of its already beleaguered staff.
Social Security Administration (SSA). The IG at SSA has noted that the combined effect of staff downsizing and hiring restrictions, on the one hand, and the increasing volume and complexity of caseloads on the other, threatens SSA’s ability to provide quality service to the public:
The quality of service SSA provides to its customers continues to be a challenge facing the Agency. . . . The [Social Security Advisory] Board expressed concern about the effect of personnel downsizing and hiring restrictions on SSA’s service delivery mechanism. Such constraints limit the Agency’s ability to strengthen and revitalize employee ranks by bringing in new employees with new skills. This condition exists at the same time that caseloads continue to grow in volume and complexity. . . . The effects of low staffing levels for the customer include: delays in scheduling appointments; crowded reception areas; long waiting times; and inadequate telephone service. At the same time, the Agency is affected by attrition, high turnover, and increased backlogs of pending actions. 15 SSA’s Performance Report for Fiscal Year 1999 confirms that it is falling short of many of its customer service performance goals.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Experts maintain that the combined effect of increasing applications and inexperienced staff at the Commerce Department’s PTO has resulted in undeserving patents slipping through. This, in turn, poses a critical threat to an economy that runs on intellectual property. One expert was quoted as saying, ‘‘Patent quality in this country is a joke. It’s getting worse.’’ 16
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Last year, NASA lost all four of its spacecraft bound for Mars. This cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and brought the entire Mars program to a halt. These problems did not stem from the risks inherent in space exploration. Instead, they resulted from simple negligence resulting in part from inexperienced staff and inadequate oversight of contractors. Likewise, GAO reports that an insufficient staff with the proper qualifications poses threats to the performance and safety of NASA’s space shuttle program. 17
THE NEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN WORKFORCE
MANAGEMENT
Rethinking current systems. Solutions to our workforce problems will not come easily. For one thing, the Federal Government faces daunting recruiting challenges both at professional and leadership levels. In this regard, Paul Light observes: Sad to say, when young Americans are asked to picture themselves in public service careers, particularly at the Federal level, they picture themselves in deadend jobs where seniority, not performance, rules. And when more seasoned Americans are asked to picture themselves in appointive office, they picture themselves in a nomination and confirmation process characterized by endless inspection, over-disclosure, and delays at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. 18
Clearly, the basic assumptions underlying the current civil service system no longer hold true today. In particular, we need to rethink our current civil service paradigm of a large and permanent Federal bureaucracy composed of cradle-to-grave careerists.
We need to develop a new paradigm to fit a contemporary National workforce that features much greater mobility and very different motivations than in the past. In this regard, Paul Light states: Designed to sustain 30-year careers with one way in at the entry level and one way out at retirement, the government- centered public service is increasingly unattractive to a workforce that will change jobs and sectors frequently, and to workers who are much more focused on challenging work than security. Gone are the days when talented employees would endure hiring delays and a mind-numbing application process to get an entry-level government job. Gone, too, are the days when talented employees would accept slow but steady advancement through towering government bureaucracies in exchange for a 30-year commitment.
In the midst of a growing labor shortage, government is becoming an employer of last resort, one that caters more to the security-craver than the risk-taker. 19
Comptroller General Walker also emphasizes the need to rethink our current approach to the Federal workforce in light of changing conditions:
Changes in the demographics of the Federal workforce, in the education and skills required of its workers, and in basic Federal employment structures and arrangements are all continuing to unfold. The Federal workforce is aging; the baby boomers, with their valuable skills and experience, are drawing nearer to retirement; new employees joining the Federal workforce today have different expectations from the generation that preceded them. In response to an increasingly competitive job market, Federal agencies will need the tools and flexibilities to attract, hire, and retain top-flight talent. . . . Agencies’ employment structures and working arrangements will also be changing, and the workplace will need to accommodate a greater mix of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; more contracting-out; less job security; and the possibility of additional government downsizing and realignments. 20
Improving the basics. It will be difficult to overcome some of the challenges the Federal Government faces in attracting the kind of workforce it needs. The government does not do a good job even in areas that are readily within its control. A recent survey of new hires by the Federal Government’s own Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) identified basic problems in the recruiting process.
For example, respondents reported that the time between submission of an application and being scheduled for an interview was unreasonably long, as was the time between being told they had a job and being able to report for work. The respondents also complained of not receiving timely feedback, or receiving no feedback at all, on the status of their applications. Finally, they did not receive the quality of service they expected from Federal hiring personnel.
Among other things, the MSPB recommended that agencies expedite their hiring processes and improve service to applicants. 21
THE PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRAST
Approaches to workforce management represent a stark contrast between the private sector and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has devoted little attention to workforce planning.
As discussed previously, this lack of attention was most pronounced in the recent downsizing. Downsizing was nothing but a numbers game. Agencies simply reduced in-house staffing without reducing or streamlining any of their functions. By contrast, private sector firms take a strategic approach to workforce issues.
They analyze which of their functions are important and effective, and which are not. They concentrate on improving the important things that they do. With regard to staffing, successful private sector organizations give very high priority to analyzing their workforce needs and ensuring that they are met. These firms systematically identify the skills and characteristics that their leaders and employees need to get the job done and make the investments needed to hire, develop, and retain a workforce that embodies and can sustain these competencies.
In 1999, GAO surveyed private sector firms that are regarded as leaders in workforce or ‘‘human capital’’ management in order to identify common principles that underlay their success. GAO identified 10 such common principles in all, which included the following:
· Treat human capital management as being fundamental to strategic business management. Integrate human capital considerations when identifying the mission, strategic goals, and core values of the organization as well as when designing and implementing operational policies and practices.
· Hire, develop, and sustain leaders according to leadership characteristics identified as essential to achieving specific missions and goals. Identify the leadership traits needed to achieve high performance of mission and goals. Build and sustain the organization’s pool of leaders through recruiting, hiring, development, retention, and succession policies and practices targeted at producing leaders with the identified characteristics.
· Hire, develop, and retain employees according to competencies. Identify the competencies—knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors—needed to achieve high performance of mission and goals, and build and sustain the organization’s talent pool through recruiting, hiring, development, and retention policies and practices targeted at building and sustaining those competencies.
· Use performance management systems, including pay and other meaningful incentives, to link performance to results. Provide incentives and hold employees accountable for contributing to the achievement of mission and goals. Reward those employees who meet or exceed clearly defined and transparent standards of high performance.
· Measure the effectiveness of human capital policies and practices.
Evaluate and make fact-based decisions on whether human capital policies and practices support high performance of mission and goals. Identify the performance return on human capital investments. 22
LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON WORKFORCE PLANNING
Unfortunately, the Executive Branch has paid scant attention to Federal workforce issues. There are some indications that its central management agencies—OMB and OPM—are beginning to take the Federal Government’s workforce crisis seriously. However, they are coming to these problems quite late and, as a result, most agencies remain far behind the curve.
For the past 3 fiscal years, OMB has included a set of so-called ‘‘Priority Management Objectives’’ (PMOs) as part of the Government-wide Performance Plan under the Government Performance and Results Act (‘‘Results Act’’). The PMOs are designed to capture the Federal Government’s ‘‘biggest management challenges.’’ Although the PMOs for FY 1999 and 2000 made no mention of Federal workforce problems, the FY 2001 version includes a PMO entitled, ‘‘Align Federal human resources to support agency goals.’’ 23 It states that OPM will:
· design a ‘‘prototype workforce planning model’’ to help agencies strategically assess their human resources needs;
· ‘‘work with’’ agencies on labor-management initiatives to ‘‘empower’’ managers and employees to improve customer service and get mission results;
· encourage agencies to make better use of existing personnel flexibilities and submit any necessary legislative proposals.
In addition, OMB’s guidance for agency Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act for FY 2001 specifically addresses workforce issues for the first time. It states:
The annual plan should include a performance goal(s) covering major human resources strategies, such as recruitment, retention, skill development and training, and appraisals linked to program performance, that help support the agency’s programs. 24
This new emphasis on workforce problems is encouraging. However, given the lack of emphasis in the past, most agencies have yet to address these problems. GAO has found that strategic workforce management was ‘‘notably absent’’ from agency Annual Performance Plans submitted under the Results Act. 25 Thus, there is much ground to make up.
The lack of foresight and leadership on the part of the Administration is particularly striking. Indeed, one publication recently editorialized on OPM’s late entry into Federal workforce problems: The Office of Personnel Management has watched for years as the effects of downsizing and aging on the Federal workforce have reached crisis proportions. Now it comes out with a strategic plan to help agencies improve retention, hiring, training and other human-resource issues. In short, the OPM plan is too late . . . OPM should be leading the effort to address nagging human-resource issues well before the crisis stage. Unfortunately, it took until this year for the Administration to acknowledge that human resources is a government-wide management priority. . . What would have been far more useful for the next Administration and Congress when they take office in January is not a list of ideas to solve problems, but a list of problems that have been solved. 26
Based on reviews of OPM’s past Results Act plans and reports, GAO found that OPM has made little progress toward the following key outcomes:
· The Federal Government has an appropriately constituted workforce with the proper skills to carry out its missions.
· Federal employees are evaluated, rewarded, and otherwise held accountable for their performance. 27
According to the GAO report, ‘‘OPM officials said that fundamental changes to the performance management framework were not deemed necessary.’’ 28 OPM has displayed resistance to change in the status quo. Its reaction to legislative reforms the Comptroller General proposed for GAO’s own workforce is a case in point. GAO faces essentially the same workforce challenges as most other agencies. To its credit, GAO is actively attempting to resolve them. However, in a letter to Congress, OPM Director Lachance stated that the personnel reforms GAO sought, which the Comptroller General deemed essential to restructuring his workforce,‘‘ would be inconsistent with the Administration’s policies for the Executive Branch.’’ She added, ‘‘If Congress chooses to allow these changes for GAO, it must be clear in the legislative history that it has done so without precedence for the Executive Branch.’’ 29
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
The incoming Administration will have to give much higher priority to addressing the Federal Government’s workforce crisis if it is to effectively execute its agenda and provide our citizens the essential services they need. The new Administration should start by charging OPM and OMB with developing new approaches that fit contemporary workforce trends as well as the needs of the Federal Government of the 21st Century.
This will require both long-term and short-term strategies. Over the long term, there is a clear need to reconsider what the Federal Government should do and how best to do it. As past problems with downsizing demonstrate, it makes no sense to restructure the Federal workforce without restructuring what the workforce needs to do. Only after current Federal operations and structures themselves have been redesigned and rationalized can the government’s workforce be redesigned in a meaningful way. This is the difference between random ‘‘downsizing’’ and strategic ‘‘rightsizing.’’ At the same time, the Federal Government needs to develop near-term approaches that can at least ameliorate the current crisis in Federal workforce management. The following recommendations cover some actions that need to be started immediately.
Greater leadership on critical workforce problems. OMB and OPM have acknowledged the seriousness of the Federal Government’s workforce problems. Now, the White House, OMB, and OPM, need to demonstrate strong executive leadership by putting forward specific proposals to address these problems. For example, OMB should develop more results-oriented goals to address workforce problems in the Government-wide Performance Plan. It also needs to include specific performance targets and measures to accompany those goals. For its part, OPM needs to be more open-minded and objective when it comes to changes in current personnel requirements.
There is overwhelming sentiment that Federal personnel systems are fundamentally broken. They clearly don’t enable agencies to align their workforces with their missions and to hold employees accountable for their performance. Yet, as illustrated by its reaction to GAO’s proposals, OPM seems to be reflexively hostile to even modest reforms.
Workforce planning. As discussed previously, many agencies face serious staff deficits and imbalances in terms of having the work- force they need to perform their current missions efficiently and effectively.
An initial means of addressing this problem is for agencies to undertake comprehensive workforce planning. Specifically, agencies should: (1) determine their workforce needs (number of employees, skill, experience levels, etc.) in relation to their current functions; (2) assess how their existing workforce compares to their needs; and (3) develop strategies to bridge the gaps between the workforce they have and the workforce they need. These strategies should encompass hiring, training, reorganizing, and ‘‘rightsizing’’ as appropriate. OPM is in the early stages of developing an automated program that will assist agencies in some aspects of evaluating their workforces. However, OPM will have to do much more to produce a useful and comprehensive workforce planning model that agencies need.
Performance goals to address workforce problems. In accordance with OMB guidance, agencies should establish Results Act performance goals and measures to address their most serious workforce challenges and to ensure accountability. Comprehensive performance goals and strategies probably need to await completion of the workforce planning referred to above. However, agencies can start with those areas that lend themselves to immediate action such as improving their recruitment practices and linking employee performance appraisals to performance results. (See below.)
Personnel flexibilities. OPM must ensure that agencies are aware of, and fully understand how to use, those personnel flexibilities that are now available to them by law and current regulations.
Given the complex and arcane nature of personnel requirements, it is clear that many agencies lack this understanding now. As stated above, OPM also needs to objectively consider and assist in developing changes to current personnel laws, rules, and practices to enable agencies to effectively develop, align, and manage their workforces so as to accomplish their mission results. The question is not whether fundamental changes are needed, but what they should be. Any increase in flexibility must be linked to accountability, as well as adherence to the merit system principles.
Linking performance to results. Accountability for performance results will become a reality for Federal employees when it is directly linked to their individual performance assessments and rewards.
Some agencies have already started doing this for senior managers. OPM recently issued regulations requiring such a linkage for Senior Executive Service staff. Obviously, it is more difficult to link agency performance results to the individual performance of non-managerial employees. However, much can be done to enhance performance accountability on the part of all employees.
Improving recruiting practices. The Federal Government faces many serious recruitment and retention challenges, some of which it has limited ability to influence. However, as recent reports and a host of anecdotes indicate, the government brings some recruitment problems on itself that are entirely within its control and easily remedied. For example, the MSPB report suggests that the government could improve its recruiting chances significantly by reducing inordinate delays in hiring decisions and simply treating applicants with common courtesy.
The foregoing recommendations are by no means exhaustive.
Now that the Federal Government’s workforce problems are finally getting attention, more solutions are sure to emerge. However, the above recommendations are intended to initiate discussion by all interested parties in improving the way the government works.
ENDNOTES
1. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service (The Brookings Institution, 1999).
2. Id. p. 2.
3. Id.
4. Another recent book by Paul C. Light, The True Size of Government (The
Brookings Institution, 1999), puts the results of downsizing into perspective. He
points out that most of the Federal employee reductions were defense-related and
were attributable primarily to the end of the Cold War. He also notes that a substantial
but unknown number of former Federal jobs migrated to a ‘‘shadow’’ Federal
workforce made up of contractors, other private sector employees, and State
and local government employees who are engaged, directly or indirectly, in carrying
out Federal mandates.
5. Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, GAO/T–GGD–
00–77 (March 9, 2000), p. 5.
6. Id. pp. 4–5.
7. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, note 1, p. 8.
8. Id. p. 10.
9. Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options (March 2000), p. 279.
10. Id. p. 1.
11. Id. p. 5.
12. These agencies are: EPA, GSA, HUD, Justice, NASA, NSF, OPM, SSA, and
USAID.
13. See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development, GAO/OCG–99–8 (January 1999), pp. 7–8.
14. See Statement of Susan Gaffney before the Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation of the Senate Banking Committee on Management and Performance
Issues Facing HUD (September 26, 2000), p. 3.
15. Letter dated December 7, 1999, to Chairman Thompson from SSA IG James
G. Huse, p. 8.
16. Surge in Ideas, Turnover Swamps Patent Office, USA Today (September 11,
2000). The head of the Patent Office dismissed these concerns, stating: ‘‘We’re not
overwhelmed . . . We’re doing a great job.’’ However, the agency’s Performance Report
confirms that there is a problem. The agency fell short of its goal for cycle time
of inventions processed, and stated that achieving the goal in the future ‘‘remains
a challenge.’’ The agency pointed to the need for hiring to meet increased workloads.
Annual Program Performance Report of the Department of Commerce, FY 1999, pp.
99–100.
17. Space Shuttle: Human Capital and Safety Upgrade Challenges Require Continued
Attention, GAO/NSIAD/GGD–00–186 (August 2000).
18. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, note 1, p. 2.
19. Id. p. 1.
20. Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, note 4, p. 2.
21. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search
Experiences of New Hires (February 2000), pp. vii–viii. The full report can be found
at www.mspb.gov/studies/studies.html.
22. Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG–
00–14G (September 2000), pp. 29–31.
23. See Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 298.
24. OMB Circular No. A–11, Part 2, § 220.9(d) (2000).
25. Id. p. 11.
26. OPM Plan: Too Little, Too Late, Federal Times (October 30, 2000), p. 16.
27. Observations on the Office of Personnel Management’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance
Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, GAO/GGD–00–156 (June
2000), pp. 3–4.
28. Id., p. 4.
29. Letters dated June 21, 2000, from OPM Director Janice R. Lachance to Representatives
Steny Hoyer and Henry Waxman.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_senate_print&docid=f:67613.pdf
Who are We Selling Ourselves to?
This is a rather interesting article I found today from the Long Island Press. Is this who your candidate is supporting?
http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=40&show=article&a_id=11744YouFool
Candidates Gone Wild
Essay By Robbie Woliver, News Story By Michael M. Martino Jr. 04/26/2007 10:59 am
Essay By Robbie Woliver
John McCain approves of sexy Nazi girls? John Edwards supports Satanists? Mitt Romney endorses casual sex? Well, if you’re a visitor to YouTube, that’s what these presidential candidates’ ads might be unintentionally leading you to believe.
John Edwards is all about new technology. The Democratic senator from South Carolina announced his candidacy for the presidency in a YouTube video filmed in New Orleans’ storm-ravaged Ninth Ward. He has utilized the expertise of people like Jed Alpert, CEO of Rights Group/Mobile Commons, who specialize in targeting mobile phones with text messages. (Hey, it worked when Alpert did it for Britney Spears—why not for the next president of the United States?) Edwards has also joined millions of potential 20- and 30-something voters—along with millions of teenage girls across America—by setting up his own MySpace account: johnedwards, fan of Bruce Springsteen, The Shawshank Redemption, running, reading and writing. Ew. Not 2 kewl.
And now, as part of YouTube YouChoose Spotlight ’08, Romney, McCain and Edwards offer their smiling faces, beaming right above such video titles as "Uncle Adolph and the Sexi Nazi Girls," "How to Get Laid at an Anti-Abortion Rally" and "N**gers, Nappy-Headed Hos & Booty Shaking," along with other headlines and videos touting everything from Satan worshipping to smoking crack to joining the KKK.
Any sensible person will know that Edwards and the other candidates don’t actually support—at least publicly—farting in public, anal bleaching and beating up bums for the camera. So why are these Oval Office hopefuls gracing these pages at all? How did these astute presidential candidates—who are trying to convince the American people that they have the smarts to run the country—allow this to happen? Simple: stupid campaigning.
Edwards was probably thrilled when he gave the final sign-off on the Spotlight ’08 campaign. After all, he was in good company—the GOP’s Romney was the candidate the week prior to Edwards (then imagine the gasps from the conservative Republican’s fellow Mormons who saw his banner crowning the "Polygamy and Me" preview page). Fellow candidates Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Ron Paul, and Gov. Bill Richardson are all signed up to be spotlighted for one week each. McCain’s ads started appearing around 9 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25.
If the rest of the candidates go through with this, here is what we can expect: Giuliani heading the "Dedication to the Catholic Church by NAMBLA" page (NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association); Hillary grinning atop the "Hillary Clinton vs. Monica Lewinsky Celebrity Deathmatch" page; and even Obama overseeing "Be a Man and Join the Ku Klux Klan" page. Imagine how viral those pages could get. It could—no, will—happen if they continue with the YouTube’08 campaign, unless these campaigns get their act together and pay attention to the details and understand the environment they have chosen to reach these voters.
So from his YouTube and MySpace profiles, we learn that Edwards loves classic rock, some sports and Morgan Freeman movies. He has 23,851 friends, including I’M 4-EVER HIS and Mr. Blonde (a reference to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs). But most importantly, we learn that Edwards, Romney and the others who signed on to this youth-driven awareness campaign know very little about the contemporary media that they seem so interested in embracing.
Besides the embarrassment of the implied endorsement of the various activities captured on the YouTube videos and their glaring and oft-salacious headlines, all displayed under a proud, dominant all-American campaign banner, the reality that these guys are treading in unfamiliar waters is exposed, demonstrating their inexperience more than their genuine skills as members of the technorati. LOL.
Are Candidates Out Of Touch With Campaigning 2.0?News Story By Michael M. Martino Jr.
There is no question that the Internet will play a bigger role in the 2008 presidential election than it has in any prior election. Some of the most popular sites on the Web have jumped into the fray. On April 12, YouTube announced the kick-off of its "YouChoose’08" campaign, designed to feature every 2008 presidential candidate on virtually every page of video on the site. Maybe the candidates and the people at YouTube were a little too hasty.
An investigation by the Long Island Press has found that the links to the week’s featured candidate’s YouTube channel are visible on page after page of YouTube videos, no matter the title or subject matter of the videos uploaded to the site, making it appear to the viewer that the page is wholly sponsored by the candidate. For example, the banner ad of this week’s featured candidate John Edwards is placed about an inch above such videos as "Black Girls Gone Wild" and "Crazy Asian Porn."
Despite the implications, some candidates have decided not to pull the plug. In a case of very bad timing, Arizona Sen. John McCain, hours after announcing his official candidacy, is scheduled to be the featured YouChoose candidate, a decision McCain’s people say they are comfortable with, despite the information provided by the Press.
"YouTube is a new phenomenon," says Matt David, spokesperson for the campaign. "As such, sometimes it will be harmful and sometimes it will be helpful."
But after the campaign was made aware of the banner placements after they were actually posted, David finally responded, "We’re looking into the situation."
While many of the videos themselves are nothing more than spoofs, the titles can pack a punch.
"Rarely do presidential candidates have the chance to communicate with such a large number of voters and directly solicit their ideas and their input," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a statement announcing the YouTube initiative on April 12. "I’m looking forward to interacting with this engaged community of people about the new generation of challenges confronting our nation."
After learning of the ill-placed ads, a source with the Romney campaign, who was not familiar with the content that would run below his candidate’s banner, told the Press, "Most people will recognize that the ad is created by YouTube, and that any placement on the site is coincidental."
While no reasonable person would be expected to think these candidates endorse or intentionally choose these inappropriate pages, the potential for embarrassment is certainly there. Campaigns are very frail by nature, and one weird step—for example, Howard Dean’s overenthusiastic speech in 2004—can completely derail a presidential bid. The way the YouChoose’08 campaign is set up, Sen. Barack Obama’s photo could very well be one inch away from a video that is pro-Ku Klux Klan, as were the photos of Romney, Edwards and McCain. Why they would want to remain associated with such content is beyond some people.
"I suspect that the obvious problem for the candidate is that the opponent can publicize what most people would consider his ad on inappropriate sites," says Stanley Feldman, professor of political science at SUNY Stony Brook. "The candidate whose banner ad appeared would need to explain why their ad is there. It would be an uncomfortable issue for the candidate."
Political flacks see the benefits of the Internet, but the dangers loom large.
"As a consultant, I would advise all of my candidates to take advantage of the opportunities the Internet affords us, including MySpace and YouTube," says Anthony Manetta, a New York campaign consultant. "That increases your visibility, your profile, and also, you tap into a certain demographic, younger generations of voters."
But he understands the need for vigilance.
"I would call on the campaign to be more diligent in terms of where they are placing their advertisement," says Manetta.
In speaking with several ’08 campaign sources, it was obvious that the news of the ad placement came as a shock to most, especially the McCain campaign, which was notified by the Press minutes after the senator’s announcement speech. But despite the information, the campaign will move forward. One highly placed campaign source from another camp said, "This is not good," when informed of the situation.
After the Press informed YouTube about the problem, the banner began disappearing from some pages, and was replaced for a time by an alternate banner, including a generic YouChoose link that took the visitor to a master page with all the candidates’ YouTube channels. A YouTube spokesperson said, "No comment," when asked if the situation was being addressed.
Now that YouTube and some of the campaigns have been notified, the situation maychange quickly. But for Romney, Edwards and McCain, the damage may already have been done.
This is quite interesting. I, for one, had noticed what was appearing there, but hadn't given much thought to it. Is that because we are so dumbed down that we it just appears as an afterthought after the days of Mtv's Rock the Vote alongside that of Sir Mixalot?
http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=40&show=article&a_id=11744YouFool
Candidates Gone Wild
Essay By Robbie Woliver, News Story By Michael M. Martino Jr. 04/26/2007 10:59 am
Essay By Robbie Woliver
John McCain approves of sexy Nazi girls? John Edwards supports Satanists? Mitt Romney endorses casual sex? Well, if you’re a visitor to YouTube, that’s what these presidential candidates’ ads might be unintentionally leading you to believe.
John Edwards is all about new technology. The Democratic senator from South Carolina announced his candidacy for the presidency in a YouTube video filmed in New Orleans’ storm-ravaged Ninth Ward. He has utilized the expertise of people like Jed Alpert, CEO of Rights Group/Mobile Commons, who specialize in targeting mobile phones with text messages. (Hey, it worked when Alpert did it for Britney Spears—why not for the next president of the United States?) Edwards has also joined millions of potential 20- and 30-something voters—along with millions of teenage girls across America—by setting up his own MySpace account: johnedwards, fan of Bruce Springsteen, The Shawshank Redemption, running, reading and writing. Ew. Not 2 kewl.
And now, as part of YouTube YouChoose Spotlight ’08, Romney, McCain and Edwards offer their smiling faces, beaming right above such video titles as "Uncle Adolph and the Sexi Nazi Girls," "How to Get Laid at an Anti-Abortion Rally" and "N**gers, Nappy-Headed Hos & Booty Shaking," along with other headlines and videos touting everything from Satan worshipping to smoking crack to joining the KKK.
Any sensible person will know that Edwards and the other candidates don’t actually support—at least publicly—farting in public, anal bleaching and beating up bums for the camera. So why are these Oval Office hopefuls gracing these pages at all? How did these astute presidential candidates—who are trying to convince the American people that they have the smarts to run the country—allow this to happen? Simple: stupid campaigning.
Edwards was probably thrilled when he gave the final sign-off on the Spotlight ’08 campaign. After all, he was in good company—the GOP’s Romney was the candidate the week prior to Edwards (then imagine the gasps from the conservative Republican’s fellow Mormons who saw his banner crowning the "Polygamy and Me" preview page). Fellow candidates Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Ron Paul, and Gov. Bill Richardson are all signed up to be spotlighted for one week each. McCain’s ads started appearing around 9 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25.
If the rest of the candidates go through with this, here is what we can expect: Giuliani heading the "Dedication to the Catholic Church by NAMBLA" page (NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association); Hillary grinning atop the "Hillary Clinton vs. Monica Lewinsky Celebrity Deathmatch" page; and even Obama overseeing "Be a Man and Join the Ku Klux Klan" page. Imagine how viral those pages could get. It could—no, will—happen if they continue with the YouTube’08 campaign, unless these campaigns get their act together and pay attention to the details and understand the environment they have chosen to reach these voters.
So from his YouTube and MySpace profiles, we learn that Edwards loves classic rock, some sports and Morgan Freeman movies. He has 23,851 friends, including I’M 4-EVER HIS and Mr. Blonde (a reference to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs). But most importantly, we learn that Edwards, Romney and the others who signed on to this youth-driven awareness campaign know very little about the contemporary media that they seem so interested in embracing.
Besides the embarrassment of the implied endorsement of the various activities captured on the YouTube videos and their glaring and oft-salacious headlines, all displayed under a proud, dominant all-American campaign banner, the reality that these guys are treading in unfamiliar waters is exposed, demonstrating their inexperience more than their genuine skills as members of the technorati. LOL.
Are Candidates Out Of Touch With Campaigning 2.0?News Story By Michael M. Martino Jr.
There is no question that the Internet will play a bigger role in the 2008 presidential election than it has in any prior election. Some of the most popular sites on the Web have jumped into the fray. On April 12, YouTube announced the kick-off of its "YouChoose’08" campaign, designed to feature every 2008 presidential candidate on virtually every page of video on the site. Maybe the candidates and the people at YouTube were a little too hasty.
An investigation by the Long Island Press has found that the links to the week’s featured candidate’s YouTube channel are visible on page after page of YouTube videos, no matter the title or subject matter of the videos uploaded to the site, making it appear to the viewer that the page is wholly sponsored by the candidate. For example, the banner ad of this week’s featured candidate John Edwards is placed about an inch above such videos as "Black Girls Gone Wild" and "Crazy Asian Porn."
Despite the implications, some candidates have decided not to pull the plug. In a case of very bad timing, Arizona Sen. John McCain, hours after announcing his official candidacy, is scheduled to be the featured YouChoose candidate, a decision McCain’s people say they are comfortable with, despite the information provided by the Press.
"YouTube is a new phenomenon," says Matt David, spokesperson for the campaign. "As such, sometimes it will be harmful and sometimes it will be helpful."
But after the campaign was made aware of the banner placements after they were actually posted, David finally responded, "We’re looking into the situation."
While many of the videos themselves are nothing more than spoofs, the titles can pack a punch.
"Rarely do presidential candidates have the chance to communicate with such a large number of voters and directly solicit their ideas and their input," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a statement announcing the YouTube initiative on April 12. "I’m looking forward to interacting with this engaged community of people about the new generation of challenges confronting our nation."
After learning of the ill-placed ads, a source with the Romney campaign, who was not familiar with the content that would run below his candidate’s banner, told the Press, "Most people will recognize that the ad is created by YouTube, and that any placement on the site is coincidental."
While no reasonable person would be expected to think these candidates endorse or intentionally choose these inappropriate pages, the potential for embarrassment is certainly there. Campaigns are very frail by nature, and one weird step—for example, Howard Dean’s overenthusiastic speech in 2004—can completely derail a presidential bid. The way the YouChoose’08 campaign is set up, Sen. Barack Obama’s photo could very well be one inch away from a video that is pro-Ku Klux Klan, as were the photos of Romney, Edwards and McCain. Why they would want to remain associated with such content is beyond some people.
"I suspect that the obvious problem for the candidate is that the opponent can publicize what most people would consider his ad on inappropriate sites," says Stanley Feldman, professor of political science at SUNY Stony Brook. "The candidate whose banner ad appeared would need to explain why their ad is there. It would be an uncomfortable issue for the candidate."
Political flacks see the benefits of the Internet, but the dangers loom large.
"As a consultant, I would advise all of my candidates to take advantage of the opportunities the Internet affords us, including MySpace and YouTube," says Anthony Manetta, a New York campaign consultant. "That increases your visibility, your profile, and also, you tap into a certain demographic, younger generations of voters."
But he understands the need for vigilance.
"I would call on the campaign to be more diligent in terms of where they are placing their advertisement," says Manetta.
In speaking with several ’08 campaign sources, it was obvious that the news of the ad placement came as a shock to most, especially the McCain campaign, which was notified by the Press minutes after the senator’s announcement speech. But despite the information, the campaign will move forward. One highly placed campaign source from another camp said, "This is not good," when informed of the situation.
After the Press informed YouTube about the problem, the banner began disappearing from some pages, and was replaced for a time by an alternate banner, including a generic YouChoose link that took the visitor to a master page with all the candidates’ YouTube channels. A YouTube spokesperson said, "No comment," when asked if the situation was being addressed.
Now that YouTube and some of the campaigns have been notified, the situation maychange quickly. But for Romney, Edwards and McCain, the damage may already have been done.
This is quite interesting. I, for one, had noticed what was appearing there, but hadn't given much thought to it. Is that because we are so dumbed down that we it just appears as an afterthought after the days of Mtv's Rock the Vote alongside that of Sir Mixalot?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
War-Funding Puzzlement
War-Funding Puzzlement
By Fred Thompson
The House’s emergency war-funding bill contains several conditions on how the
war should be run. They’ll never become law but they “send signals” they say.
They’re big on sending signals in Washington. But what I was really surprised to
find in the bill was what looked like $25 billion in pure pork. Since a lot
of the people who voted for the bill campaigned against pork, I was
puzzled.
I’m puzzled there’s $283 million for dairy farmers in an emergency
war-funding bill. But there’s also $74 million for peanut farmers so, I figured
our soldiers are eating a lot of peanut-butter sandwiches; they need more milk
to wash them down with.Hey, I’m trying to keep an open mind, here, okay?But I
also wondered why the bill gives $25 million to spinach producers. Our troops
should certainly eat their vegetables, but unless it turns out that there’s a
scientific basis for that Popeye spinach thing, I don’t get it.I’m also trying
to figure out what $400 million for rural schools has to do with the war —
unless that money produces students smart enough to explain why this bill
includes over $300,000 for the widows of two ex-House members, and $80
million for low-income rent subsidies.There’s a lot in the bill I don’t
understand, but this sort of makes sense. There’s $50 million for repairs to the
plant that supplies electrical power to the Capitol — where Congress works. To
fund and win the war, Congress does need electricity at least to do its job.Ah,
I get it. This bill isn’t just about funding the war for democracy and freedom
in Iraq. It’s a political statement. And it’s about buying enough votes with
pork in order to make that statement. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing, if
Congress did have its power cut off every once in a while.
Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdjZTZjY2MxZTA3ZGU1OGE5Njg3NTlhM2EwNzYxMWQ
By Fred Thompson
The House’s emergency war-funding bill contains several conditions on how the
war should be run. They’ll never become law but they “send signals” they say.
They’re big on sending signals in Washington. But what I was really surprised to
find in the bill was what looked like $25 billion in pure pork. Since a lot
of the people who voted for the bill campaigned against pork, I was
puzzled.
I’m puzzled there’s $283 million for dairy farmers in an emergency
war-funding bill. But there’s also $74 million for peanut farmers so, I figured
our soldiers are eating a lot of peanut-butter sandwiches; they need more milk
to wash them down with.Hey, I’m trying to keep an open mind, here, okay?But I
also wondered why the bill gives $25 million to spinach producers. Our troops
should certainly eat their vegetables, but unless it turns out that there’s a
scientific basis for that Popeye spinach thing, I don’t get it.I’m also trying
to figure out what $400 million for rural schools has to do with the war —
unless that money produces students smart enough to explain why this bill
includes over $300,000 for the widows of two ex-House members, and $80
million for low-income rent subsidies.There’s a lot in the bill I don’t
understand, but this sort of makes sense. There’s $50 million for repairs to the
plant that supplies electrical power to the Capitol — where Congress works. To
fund and win the war, Congress does need electricity at least to do its job.Ah,
I get it. This bill isn’t just about funding the war for democracy and freedom
in Iraq. It’s a political statement. And it’s about buying enough votes with
pork in order to make that statement. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing, if
Congress did have its power cut off every once in a while.
Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdjZTZjY2MxZTA3ZGU1OGE5Njg3NTlhM2EwNzYxMWQ
Fred Talks Federalism
This man has had a lot on his mind the last few days. He posted this one two days ago. This article outlines his ideas on how the federal government can overstep it's boundaries:
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=395162&SPID=15663
April 23, 2007
Talking About Federalism
"My friend, Ramesh Ponnuru, over at National Review and I had a little disagreement over the issue of Federalism (you can read the original article here). It might seem a little like "Inside Baseball" but, actually, it deals with something that is of importance to everyone who is concerned about the expanding power of government. Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process.
Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.
Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the "Washington solution" crowd. I fought this for eight years in the Senate. I remember one vote (I believe it was 99 to one) when mine was the only vote cast for Federalism. The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.
Now I can assure you that I have nothing against good Samaritans. If a person stops to help someone in distress on the highway and something bad happens, generally, the good Samaritan should not be sued by some overly ambitious trial lawyer. But states are, and have been for years, perfectly capable of handling this burning issue -- as well as all of the sub-issues that are raised, such as who should be protected as a good Samaritan. What if he was intoxicated and made a slight misstep while applying medical relief? What if he was not impaired, but made a gross error and turns a minor problem into a significant one? You get the idea. This is traditionally state law stuff. Is this really something the federal government should involve itself in?
I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important. That's why I suggested to Mr. Ponnuru that if conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country -- as well as to the cause of conservatism."
For the record, Mr. Ponnuru supports a Thompson candidacy.
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=395162&SPID=15663
April 23, 2007
Talking About Federalism
"My friend, Ramesh Ponnuru, over at National Review and I had a little disagreement over the issue of Federalism (you can read the original article here). It might seem a little like "Inside Baseball" but, actually, it deals with something that is of importance to everyone who is concerned about the expanding power of government. Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process.
Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.
Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the "Washington solution" crowd. I fought this for eight years in the Senate. I remember one vote (I believe it was 99 to one) when mine was the only vote cast for Federalism. The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.
Now I can assure you that I have nothing against good Samaritans. If a person stops to help someone in distress on the highway and something bad happens, generally, the good Samaritan should not be sued by some overly ambitious trial lawyer. But states are, and have been for years, perfectly capable of handling this burning issue -- as well as all of the sub-issues that are raised, such as who should be protected as a good Samaritan. What if he was intoxicated and made a slight misstep while applying medical relief? What if he was not impaired, but made a gross error and turns a minor problem into a significant one? You get the idea. This is traditionally state law stuff. Is this really something the federal government should involve itself in?
I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important. That's why I suggested to Mr. Ponnuru that if conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country -- as well as to the cause of conservatism."
For the record, Mr. Ponnuru supports a Thompson candidacy.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Press Statement: Thompson Releases Report About Government Problems
June 5, 2001
Thompson Releases Report on Urgent Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration
Tells OMB Director Daniels Government is "at the Brink" of Major Program Failure
Washington - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, today released a comprehensive report documenting the daunting management problems facing the federal government. Thompson presented the recently compiled report, which includes his recommendations for addressing those problems, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. at a press conference in Washington.
"For some time now, our government has been mismanaged to an extent that the average American would find shocking," Senator Thompson said. "The federal government’s core management problems have persisted for years, and, in fact, have grown worse."
Thompson’s report includes an analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government:
Workforce Management
Financial Management
Information Technology Management
Overlap and Duplication
"We commend Sen. Thompson and his Committee for pushing the Federal government to be more efficient and effective. Improving government performance is a top priority of President Bush, so the problems and suggestions outlined in this report will be a great resource and road map as we implement our management reform agenda. It will take the unremitting attention of both executive and legislative leadership to make headway against old habits and low expectations," said OMB Director Daniels.
In addition to a description of these problems and examples of how they affect the government’s ability to serve the American people, the report includes an agency-by-agency appendix that catalogues the most recent examples of waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government.
The report also highlights the "Top Ten" worst examples of mismanagement in the federal government (page four). Some of the items on the list include: Boston’s Big Dig, a federal infrastructure project so mismanaged that its cost has ballooned from over $2 billion to over $13 billion; the Department of Interior’s total inability to account for monies it held in trust for Native Americans; and NASA’s numerous mission failures.
"These management problems exact a terrible toll on public trust and confidence in the federal government," Thompson said. "A degree of public skepticism toward our government is a healthy thing. Rampant cynicism is not."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/060501_press.htm
Thompson Releases Report on Urgent Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration
Tells OMB Director Daniels Government is "at the Brink" of Major Program Failure
Washington - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, today released a comprehensive report documenting the daunting management problems facing the federal government. Thompson presented the recently compiled report, which includes his recommendations for addressing those problems, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. at a press conference in Washington.
"For some time now, our government has been mismanaged to an extent that the average American would find shocking," Senator Thompson said. "The federal government’s core management problems have persisted for years, and, in fact, have grown worse."
Thompson’s report includes an analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government:
Workforce Management
Financial Management
Information Technology Management
Overlap and Duplication
"We commend Sen. Thompson and his Committee for pushing the Federal government to be more efficient and effective. Improving government performance is a top priority of President Bush, so the problems and suggestions outlined in this report will be a great resource and road map as we implement our management reform agenda. It will take the unremitting attention of both executive and legislative leadership to make headway against old habits and low expectations," said OMB Director Daniels.
In addition to a description of these problems and examples of how they affect the government’s ability to serve the American people, the report includes an agency-by-agency appendix that catalogues the most recent examples of waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government.
The report also highlights the "Top Ten" worst examples of mismanagement in the federal government (page four). Some of the items on the list include: Boston’s Big Dig, a federal infrastructure project so mismanaged that its cost has ballooned from over $2 billion to over $13 billion; the Department of Interior’s total inability to account for monies it held in trust for Native Americans; and NASA’s numerous mission failures.
"These management problems exact a terrible toll on public trust and confidence in the federal government," Thompson said. "A degree of public skepticism toward our government is a healthy thing. Rampant cynicism is not."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/060501_press.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Fred Thompson
Former U.S. Senator (R-TN)
