Letters

Eye of the Beholder

Your February issue contains useful discussions about performance information and program evaluations in the context of budget cycle decisions. However, in "Editor's Notebook," the description of performance budgeting as a "rational" approach illuminates an omission from Amelia Gruber's article, "The Big Squeeze."

Just because a president produces an assessment of a program-an assessment he judges to be rational-does not necessarily mean that a different president, or even a member of Congress, academic, citizen or interest group, would agree with it. There are potentially many rationalities in political discourse, and presidents often have considerable discretion when interpreting a program's authorizing statute. So when it comes to determining the appropriate way to gauge a program's effectiveness, rationality is often in the eye of the beholder.

Regarding program evaluations in the budget process, Harry Hatry of the Urban Institute said, "Political purpose is all over the place." Ms. Gruber's article lacks the important point that Hatry's observation can potentially apply equally to a president, who is no less a political actor with various policy goals, and to officials in the executive branch.

Hitting Home

The "The Big Squeeze" and "The Red Zone" (February) hit home. I work in an agency that administers grant funding to states and community-based organizations. I've been hearing from senior management that "2006 is going to be bad," but it didn't really sink in until I read these two articles. One thing I've learned over the years is that for a bureaucrat in a grant-making agency or a service provider such as Veterans Affairs, it's not much fun when the money dries up.

I hope you continue developing articles such as these for us front-line bureaucrats who are not in the Senior Executive Service, where this information may be more readily available.

E-Mail the Emperor

Your article "Uh Oh!" on why smart people make dumb mistakes with e-mail is excellent (January), but I find one statement strange. A consultant says: "The Internet permits you, as a GS-3, to send something to the secretary of the Treasury. It's kind of bizarre."

That GS-3 has every right to send an e-mail to anyone, and e-mail affords that opportunity much easier than does snail mail or a telephone. And Cabinet secretaries ought to listen to that GS-3 because they are more likely to hear the truth from someone in the trenches than from a manager or a person in a "yes" position.

Colin Powell has stated that when a leader stops listening to his employees, he ceases to lead. So I say more power to the GS-3 and to e-mail. Yes, you take responsibility for what you write, but you have a responsibility to tell the truth and to lead from within. Sometimes that means telling the emperor he has no clothes.