Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
WHAT? Barry Soetoro, is that you????
You couldn't be farther from the truth ....
If you can, find the March/April 2011 issue of The Washington Monthly. There's a story by John Gravois that addresses this very issue. It
concentrates on the lack of qualified contracting officers in the DOD, but also touches on insufficient and underpaid personnel in the Minerals
Management Service leading to Deepwater Horizon, and insufficient staffing in the SEC. Granted, this is more about hiring than compensation, but
anyone can see the two issues are intertwined. The Federal workforce is not sufficient to meet the missions given to it by the public, and that has
had consequences. Freezing pay while the cost of living and employment cost index go up will not attract good people to the civil service.
has also done some research on bureaucracy, and while I disagree with his
thesis and naked political bias, he makes a few good points. We don't want to pay the government what we pay businesses, because government has a
monopoly on many important services (defense, justice, etc.). We want to maximize the value of those services, not minimize how much we pay for them.
Paying less and getting less is a suboptimal outcome.
The meat of my post, which you seem to be objecting to, is that bureaucracy is cheap and programs are expensive. Even if you believe that bureaucracy
is expensive, you must admit that bureaucracy only exists to carry out programs. Bureaucracies don't authorize or appropriate for programs, Congress
does that. Some of the larger agencies like the military departments push for more spending, but for the most part Federal bureaucracy has little say
in how much money it gets. They simply spend what Congress gives them, in accordance with goals set by Congress.
But let's look at an example and compare the cost of bureaucracy vs. the program. Intuitively, I think most programs exist to give things away and do
things. Measuring the doing of things is difficult (even if you can measure output, how do you quantify outcome?), so we'll stick with giving away
Social Security exists to give away money, SSI, SSDI, and some others. The bureaucracy that handles this program is the Social Security Administration
(SSA). The SSA has 66,000 employees, with annual salaries from ranging $199,700 (the Commissioner) to $31,315 (entry-level with a four year degree)
and less. Let's make the outrageous assumption that everyone in the SSA is paid what the Commissioner gets. The cost of the bureaucracy would be
$13,180,200,000. The SSA disburses
SSI and SSDI. Even if we make the outrageous
assumption that everyone in the SSA is paid at the executive schedule, the bureaucracy is
a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the program itself. And keep in mind, $199,700 is peanuts for an executive in charge of this
kind of money. Can you imagine any CEO
in private industry
accepting $199,700 to oversee an $820 billion operation? (All numbers are from 2012 or 2012 estimates.)
You'll find similar facts in other agencies. What the government gives away, what it buys, and what it does costs a great deal of money. The people
who handle the giving away, buying, and doing don't cost very much. At some levels, they cost much less than what they could command in the private
sector. At other levels, they may cost slightly more, but this can be justified by the principle that you don't want the lowest bidder doing your
government's work. And many agencies are understaffed, so more attractive compensation packages may draw people better able to handle multiple
I really don't know what to say other than you are totally clueless as to the corruption called the government of the U.S.!
Bureaucracy is cheap???? I am just speechless................Had a few too many beers,
I agree, you have had a few too many beers. Best to call it a night.