The Week in Comments: 'Inherently governmental,' pay and the jobs bill
The best in reader reaction to recent articles.
A roundup of some of the comments received this week in the GovExec.com Mailbag. All comments are presented in their original, unedited form.
On OMB announces final guidance on inherently governmental functions
Save money by pooling supplies? How about save money by not telling us who we MUST buy from? We must first go to Ability One and if they have the item, we must buy it from them generally at a cost of up to 25% more than if we had been able to go staight to Office Depot or like company.
The expansion of service contracting in order to win two wars and the war on terror is now being used to justify an expansion of what work can only be provided by Feds. When did OFPP become an advocate for insourcing and abandon competition.
it has taken more than 3 years and multiple policy memos to explain "inherently government" and this version has less teeth than any of them. Now it is merely a suggestion that certain roles might be sensitive for the government to maintain control of. I guess this policy writing has been "inherently governmental."
On Obama gets specific in his jobs bill
If we're broke, then why are we spending what we don't have before we have it? And if this is a jobs creation bill, then why is the largest employee base in the country in fear of furloughs, cuts in pay, downsizing, etc.? Didn't we just try this kind of "stimulus" two years ago and it didn't work? Get a clue!!!
this should have been done 2 years ago. by the time we see any benefits from this we will be starving, homeless and on public assistance. go figure !
As long as the legislative branch is holding the purse strings, they should have to take ownership of the government spending.
On White House clarification of 'inherently governmental functions' draws criticism
Every dollar that goes to a contractor includes a level of profit for that contractor. The contractor has to meet certain Federal requirements regarding pay and benefits and still make that profit. So HOW, I ask you, HOW can that be cheaper than paying for CS? It's something I've always wondered about.
The joys of using logical fallacies to make arguments. The argument that "essential" must therefore be "inherently governmental is a generalization. There will be specifics where that is true, but it isn't always true.
When referencing, making statements, and writing about types of positions, individuals need to understand the difference between "Essential and Excepted" and "Inherently Governmental". Not the same thing.
On Bill would ensure military, law enforcement officer pay
This bill should also cover DoD firefighters. If it does not, where is the fairness in this bill?
Don't forget the administrative staff when it comes to pay! Sometimes it takes them to get things running smoothly in both organizations.
So the uniformed military would get paid, but those of us in the civilian workforce who are essential to military wouldn't get paid? This is about the GOP sucking up to a voting block that traditionally votes GOP. How about the Congress actually does their job?
On Contracting services fails to save agencies money, report says
Surprise. Surprise. Surprise. Of course the usual players are going to poo-poo the results because the truth is contractors cost far more and this study simply shows the gravy train for what it is. I expect the "civil service is overpaid" crowd to start screaming in every mouthpiece they can find now.
This is a fact - everyone knows that contracting out is exteremly wasteful the contractor only goal is profit which = ripoff
This debate will continue endlessly, perpetually, heatedly - who's methodology and therefore results are more accurate. However the outcome, the most obvious target of any debt reduction will ALWAYS be the Federal worker. Too bad the Congress doesn't point at themselves first!
On FAA back pay bill is still alive
I'd like to know which "lawmaker" has proposed legislation to provide back-pay to the private sector construction workers and small business owners who were laid off or lost revenue during the political dogfight over FAA funding. However, since neither construction workers or small business owners can be counted on to vote as a block or to make campaign contributions through union political action committees, I doubt that they will find a champion among the "lawmakers" whose squabbling led to the FAA furloughs.
Congressman LoBiondo and Speaker Boehner are trying to spend taxpayer money they don't have. I'm willing to bet that neither of them has been furloughed or laid off. You see, citizens are furloughed and laid off every day of every year. That's tough luck. Nobody worries about paying them the money they lost. It wasn't their fault either that they were furloughed or laid off. Why do we baby Federal workers? They must also learn to cope with the unfortunate things in their life. Since the reason given was that Congress failed to act, then take the money out of the Congressman's budgets and salaries and leave the taxpayers alone. It is about time that we the taxpayer start holding the members of Congress accountable for their gross negligence. After all, appropriations is their primary duty. Maybe if they stop holding all those rediculous committee meetings they could get some important legislation dealt with.
If these employees were furloughed as a "grown-up's" planned cost savings measure thats one thing. They were not. They should not be punished because Congressional "children" decided to have a p!ssing contest at their expense.
On Advisory committee looks for ways to improve charity drive
I stopped giving to CFC when their admin costs rose to 10%, which meant my charity only got 90% of my donation. (When I began my Federal career, CFC admin costs were only 1%.) My money is better spent by giving directly to the charity of my choice.
I stopped participating in the CFC after I was told that I was only allowed to contribute via the local CFC organization (my duty station) and not the local CFC for the state I reside in. Instead, I donate directly to those groups in my area that have significant needs. My dollars are providing assistance in the area I live in and choose to contribute to.
If I donate to a charity why should the government get credit for that donation? I can either write a check or do a direct monthly payment in a charity's bank account. Why do I need CFC for this? If ogvernment wants to help out charities then let employees have 2 hours a month to volunteer at a charity.
On Why the super committee is designed to succeed
Differences? Yes. Substantive differences? No.
Even level headed democrats are realizing that the latest and greatest jobs plan from Obama is NOT the way to go. See Jim Webb as just one example.
Although the Congress likes to tout how hard this job will be, there is a simple answer right in front of them. Agree to adopt the Bowles-Simpson commission recommendations as the first part of any plan. This will allow the committee to work on fine tuning the results rather than fighting a battle based in first principles.
NEXT STORY: Why the super committee is designed to succeed