How many budget analysts does it take to screw in a light bulb?

DAILY BRIEFING

How many budget analysts does it take to screw in a light bulb?

The simple question asked in last week's Budget Battles column-"How many budget analysts does it take to screw in a light bulb?"-drew a tremendous range of reader responses. Here's a sampling of some of the best:

Melody Walker
Environmental Protection Agency

The number of budget analysts would depend on the number of budget analysts who were gathered together in the same room at the exact time the light bulb needed to be screwed in.

I believe each budget analyst present would need to feel empowered and would indeed troubleshoot, analyze and evaluate their own personal opinion of the most efficient and most cost effective way to screw in the light bulb. After each analyst directed their opinion it would most likely take months of meetings to debate and finally conduct a vote and then and only then would the light bulb finally be screwed in.

Joe Luchok
American Accreditation HealthCare Commission/URAC

Five: one to screw it in; one to comment on the impact of various wattages; one to question whether additional light is necessary; one to argue they shouldn't screw it until they run a study to determine how increased lighting might affect productivity; one to argue that candles would provide a cheaper alternative.

Or... None. They are all in the dark.

James Carter
Joint Economic Committee

It's hard to say with any certainty how many budget analysts it takes to screw in a light bulb. Last year, we estimate it took just one budget analyst, but our performance measures are sketchy at best. Given our current assumptions, the number is expected to rise steadily over the decade. But then we all know how inaccurate extended forecasts can be.

Tevi Troy
Office Of Sen. John Ashcroft

Twenty, but over ten months.

One to issue the annual Bulb Report, followed by the Bulb of the Union Address. (January). One to provide a counter proposal, a bulb resolution. One to reconcile the bulb resolution. Thirteen to provide the appropriations for all the parts of the bulb. One to threaten to veto the changing of the bulb. Three to come to a deal on how to change the bulb. (October)

Diana Meredith
Office of Management and Budget

Irrelevant. There is no money in the budget for new lightbulbs. The so-called "lightbulb offset" will pay for the hiring of more budget analysts.

Michael Curro
General Accounting Office

One, of course. It's the same light bulb that got screwed last year.

Dan Fessler
General Services Administration

The total answer, of course, is 20, although only five are true budget analysts. It takes 1 Senior Analyst to "Champion " the Committee and select 4 "volunteer" analysts to explore the cheapest & fastest ways to provide the service. Although not a true part of the count, it is interesting to note that this will lead to a small {5 or 6 member} subcommittee to try and figure out how they get that little stringy metal thing inside the glass ball.)

Anyway, after spreadsheets are prepared along with the usual long-term impact statements, they are presented via a "Roll-out" to the 10 Organization Directors for a final decision to be made. A decision is then made and funds need to be appropriated from the Chief Financial Officer.

Five employees are involved with the actual service. One is the purchasing agent who buys the lightbulb; and since they come in a 4 pack, one storeroom clerk is needed to store the three extra bulbs; one is the finance person who cuts the check to pay for the light bulb pack (or maybe we can pay for it by credit card); one person is actually involved with the physical changing of the bulb.

The 5th person is the Building Manager who has to explain to the Customer why they needed to sit in the dark for 4 weeks.

Ned Lynch
House Civil Service Subcommittee

Ten. One to requisition the ladder. One to procure the light bulb. One to monitor property management regulations. One to develop and write the budget request. One to conduct liaison with authorizing and appropriations subcommittees. Three to seek OMB clearance on what was said to the congressional staff. One OSHA inspector to monitor the change. One EPA examiner to monitor the disposal of the old material.

David Ferreira
U.S. Department of Energy

The answer is four. One to determine the need for such a light bulb to be screwed in, and whether to screw it in at all. One to determine the statistical amount of light bulbs that will yield a life less than those specified by the purchase officers in the product specifications contract orders. One that based on the previously mentioned statistical analysis, can determine the final disbursement of funds required for light bulbs, taking into account replacements for defective light bulbs. One to testify before the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on light bulb purchasing and screwing activities and their ultimate impact on the rest of the federal budget.

Nikola Mikulicich, Jr.
Attorney

It takes 732.406 budget analysts to screw in a light bulb. Five years in the future, it will take 1037.944 budget analysts to screw in an equivalent bulb. Ten years in the future, it will take 1513.587 budget analysts to screw in an equivalent bulb. Fifteen years in the future, it will take 2309.316 budget analysts to screw in an equivalent bulb.

Analyst usage is divided into the following components: 3.572 analysts to argue about whether we are in a period of dark; 2.403 analysts to project the future course of the period of dark; 8.721 analysts to release an open letter that the country is heading for a "train wreck" if the period of dark is not ended; 24.656 analysts to present competing papers at a seminar on the long-term effects of a period of dark; 0.827 analysts to read the papers presented at the seminar; 2.370 analysts to present a competing view that periods of light and dark are cyclical; 2.250 analysts on the President's Council of Economic Advisers to lobby for a study on how to end the period of dark; 4.208 analysts on Congressional staffs to lobby for a study on how to end the period of dark; 36.384 analysts to be retained as staff for a Bipartisan Commission on the Long-Term Solvency of Light; 93.804 analysts to present testimony before the Bipartisan Commission; 23.745 analysts to write op-ed pieces for newspapers and magazines on what the Commission should recommend (of which, 0.341 analysts will actually have their op-ed pieces published); 26.215 analysts to speak at a conference sponsored by the Brookings Institution and bemoan the Bipartisan Commission's inability to agree on any recommendation; 19.063 analysts to speak at a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and bemoan the Bipartisan Commission's inability to agree on any recommendation; 28.290 analysts to speak at a conference sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and bemoan the Bipartisan Commission's inability to agree to implement the reforms contained in Heritage Foundation Policy Paper No. 1769; 13.486 analysts to speak at a conference sponsored by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and bemoan the reliance of the Bipartisan Commission on representatives of elite special interests; 10.796 analysts to speak at a conference sponsored by the Cato Institute and call for an immediate end to government intervention in light and dark and to assert that they knew all along that the Bipartisan Commission would be unable to accept the simple truth that the free market is far more efficient at producing light; 5.448 analysts in the GAO to prepare a long-term forecast of the solvency of light and accuse the OMB analysts of masking the problem for political gain; 9.063 analysts in the OMB to prepare a long-term forecast of the status of light and accuse the GAO analysts of being mean-spirited and ignoring the infrastructure needs of the country in areas other than light; 11.662 analysts to draft comprehensive legislation promoting the changing of a bulb as a way to ensure long-term light; 65.023 analysts to nitpick the details of the legislation without offering their own plan; 24.736 analysts to lobby Congress to pass this legislation; 18.489 analysts to lobby the President to sign this legislation; 17.491 analysts to warn that the proposed bulb is just a short-term fix for the problem that merely postpones the day when the country will be thrown into a period of dark; 1.720 analysts to write in their memoirs how the light bill was doomed to fail because it included large unspecified spending cuts in the out-years; 54.318 analysts to draft regulations to implement light-changing; 4.026 analysts to accuse the government of draging its feet on solving the problem and publish a "National Dark Clock" showing how long the country has been without this light; 9.357 analysts to testify during the unsuccessful litigation to block the regulations from taking effect; 34.877 analysts to hire themselves out on K Street as consultants to forms interested in profiting from light-changing; 29.539 analysts to evaluate the light fixture and determine what type of light bulbs should be used; 41.424 analysts to oversee procurement of light bulbs; 7.356 analysts to publish a study on how inefficient the federal process for changing light bulbs is; 4.630 analysts to hold a press conference about how the government has solved the incipient crisis from the period of dark by obtaining a new light bulb; 31.726 analysts to stand around holding a bulb looking up at the light fixture because a ladder was never procured; 39.237 analysts to send memos, cc'ed to everyone in their department, confirming that they were never requested to perform procurement of a ladder; 6.175 analysts to oversee procurement of a ladder; 4.017 analysts to write a paper asserting that the federal government had still overlooked the important step of determining whether screwing in a light bulb had a disparate impact on light-sensitive populations, especially those of color; 7.413 analysts to publicly pronounce that the federal government has solved the problem of the period of dark and that final implementation of the project will enable creation of new entitlement programs using surpluses made possible by the new abundance of light; 2.389 analysts to create an accounting gimmick of taking a ladder in another agency off-budget and transferring it to underneath the light; and 1.500 analysts to notice that in the intervening time, a new light source has been brought in by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the period of dark has ended.

Joel Rutstein
Legislation Counsel Office of Chief Counsel, IRS

It doesn't matter. Under both OMB and CBO projections, 30 years from now there'll be more than enough money for every conceivable need. In other words, there'll be no budget to be analyzed. How many spending facilitators will it take to screw in a light bulb?

Jon Deuser
Office Of Sen. Jim Bunning

Three. One to actually screw it in, and two other analysts to argue about how much the new Federal Light Bulb Installation Act will cost over the next five and ten-year periods.

Jennifer Winkler
Congressional Budget Office

It only takes one budget analyst to screw in a light bulb and they can do it rather quickly and quite efficiently. Once the light bulb is screwed in, though, it takes Congress at least six months to figure out how to turn on the light switch!

To return to this week's Budget Battles, click here.