Federal Deficit/government shutdown

[Mike80]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

A One-Step Plan for Erasing the Federal Deficit

Interesting blog.

Yeah do nothing. Otherwise known as "bend over and kiss your own ass goodbye".

BTW that idea comes from the "Center for American Progress", which champions just about every single leftist cause known.

[PlanetFrnd]

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/201...eral-empl.html

Sep 13, 2011

POGO Study: Contractors Costing Government Twice as Much as In-House Workforce



By DANA LIEBELSON

The U.S. government's increasing reliance on contractors to do work traditionally done by federal employees is fueled by the belief that private industry can deliver services at a lower cost than in-house staff.
But a first-of-its-kind study released today by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) busts that myth by showing that using contractors to perform services actually increases costs to taxpayers.

POGO's new report is the first to compare the rate that contractors bill the federal government to the salaries and benefits of comparable federal employees. The study found that while federal government salaries are higher than private sector salaries, contractor billing rates average 83 percent more than what it would cost to do the work in-house.

The study comes at a crucial time, considering that Congress' special "Super Committee" is looking for ways to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit.
"We're wasting tens of billions of dollars on a belief that it's cheaper to have contractors doing the work, without any hard evidence. The government should operate on evidence, not belief" said Paul Chassy, a POGO Investigator.


POGO's study compared 35 federal job classifications, covering more than 550 service activities. The occupations included everything from auditing and law enforcement to food inspection. The results surprised even POGO investigators, who for years had tracked a dramatic increase in the amount the government spends on contracts - from $200 billion in 2000 to well over $500 billion in 2011.

In 33 of the 35 job classifications POGO looked at, the average contractor billing rate was significantly steeper than the average compensation for federal employees. The two jobs where it was more cost-effective to hire contractors were groundskeeper and medical records technician. So when the White House needs its lawn mowed, it shouldn't hire in-house. Still, in every other case, it was cheaper for the government do the job itself...

[Mike80]

that story qualifies for the "no [Mark May] sherlock" statement of the week/month/year/decade just from the title.

Everyone with half a brain who works with or for the government knows contractors cost more up front than govys do. You use contracts to staff projects quickly or projects that require a special skill or need.

Contractors have become quasi-govys in some areas. That should have never been the goal.

[MightbeaBuck]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

that story qualifies for the "no [Mark May] sherlock" statement of the week/month/year/decade just from the title.

Everyone with half a brain who works with or for the government knows contractors cost more up front than govys do. You use contracts to staff projects quickly or projects that require a special skill or need.

Contractors have become quasi-govys in some areas. That should have never been the goal.

BusNative was pointing out how stupid the government in general is and how clueless the current administration is. we're all on your side here.

[MaxBuck]

It's bull[Mark May].

contractor billing rates average 83 percent more than what it would cost to do the work in-house.

The issue isn't billing rate per hour. It's what it costs to get the job done. The two do not really have much correlation.

You can play all kind of silly games with billing rates, and utilization %, and all kinds of other metrics. What this "study" failed to consider is how much of the "public servant" time is spent in productive work as opposed to smoke breaks, checking Facebook pages, and running off to union meetings. You can't get away with that [Mark May] (usually) when you work for a private contractor.

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

It's bull[Mark May].

The issue isn't billing rate per hour. It's what it costs to get the job done. The two do not really have much correlation.

You can play all kind of silly games with billing rates, and utilization %, and all kinds of other metrics. What this "study" failed to consider is how much of the "public servant" time is spent in productive work as opposed to smoke breaks, checking Facebook pages, and running off to union meetings. You can't get away with that [Mark May] (usually) when you work for a private contractor.

This.

[PlanetFrnd]

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

This.

...if contractor efficiency is that much greater, why do they cost so much more?

[PlanetFrnd]

Originally Posted by MightbeaBuck

we're all on your side here.

I need to take a picture or something to commemorate this

[Mike80]

Originally Posted by BusNative

...if contractor efficiency is that much greater, why do they cost so much more?

Full disclosure - I'm now a 2210 series govy and I was a contractor for 11 years before that. I've seen both sides and yes both have their faults and their good points.

I do network security now - I deal with STIGs and compliance as one of my daily duties. When the Field Security types go to sites and essentially rip them a new asshole over security holes, I get to listen in on the briefings and all that fun stuff.

Anyway, a couple weeks ago there was an inspection at a site out west. This site uses a DMZ type set up and my agency provides the transport but another agency provides the administration/security for the actual applications on the machines, etc. Anyway, when the security types more or less compromised the applications, they went to Agency B and asked them for their security documentation to see if what they found fell under "acceptable risk". The govys who work for Agency B referred them to their agency labor lawyers. Literally.

As a contractor, that [Mark May] would NEVER fly and you would likely lose your contract for even suggesting it.

That application lost it's ATO and has to re-apply for access to the network. At least that worked.

[Bucky Katt]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

I deal with STIGs

SOME say.....STIGs know nothing about ducks....and that their left nipples are in the shape of the Nurburgring.

[AKAK]

Originally Posted by Bucky Katt

SOME say.....STIGs know nothing about ducks....and that their left nipples are in the shape of the Nurburgring.

Why do you hate Niki Lauda's hair?

[NewYorkBuck]

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/...ing/?iid=HP_LN


When a socialist from France tells you to stop spending......

[Jake]

If you are a child, then the government might seem to you like a parent. It needs to be big and strong in order to take care of you and pay for all your needs and emergencies. If you are an adult, you might view the government more like one of your offspring: someone who has a limited number of chores to do and should be given a small allowance by way of payment for those chores.

So, which one are you?

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011...inglepage=true

[Mike80]

I love overly sweeping generalizations....

[muffler dragon]

I find this to be a balanced article that brings up some interesting foundational considerations.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...ain.aspx#page1

...
The biggest problems, though, are the candidates and the political parties themselves. The issues that voters want to discuss are broad, complicated, and far-reaching. So far, though, the response from both sides only nibbles at well-chewed edges of the core issues, with no one seemingly capable of framing a larger debate over the vision for America?s economy for the next several decades. One side talks about tax burdens, the other about fairness, and so far neither has given voters a comprehensive plan for solving this interlocking puzzle.

This is especially true in two critical areas. The most acute is the defense sequestration that will take place at the end of the year. Defense contractors have already begun planning layoffs in anticipation of massive funding cuts. Republicans have demanded action to redo the cuts to which they agreed in 2011?s budget agreement to avoid job losses in an already declining economy. Democrats insist that the cuts need to take place for deficit control.

However, both sides miss the point. The Department of Defense does not exist to be a jobs program, nor a deficit control point in and of itself. The mission of the DoD and other security agencies is to fulfill the national security mission it receives from Congress and the President. Its budget should reflect what is necessary to carry out that mission. If we don?t have the money for the mission, then we need to change the mission and budget accordingly. Both sides, though, avoid discussion of the American military/security mission, except for Defense SecretaryLeon Panetta, who has now repeatedly warned that the sequestration cuts on top of earlier reductions will leave the DoD much less likely to carry out its mission.

The same problem exists in the rapidly-approaching entitlement crisis. With only a couple of exceptions (Rep. Paul Ryan being one), no one wants to talk about matching the resources to the mission of our entitlement programs, or even what the mission should be. Do we want a retirement system ? Medicare and Social Security combined ? that exists to support people who truly can no longer work to support themselves, or do we want to support Americans for the 20+ years they?ll likely live after age 65 regardless of their potential productivity?

...

Most absurdly, we have both sides claiming to have a plan to pay down the national debt ? what we owe already, before the entitlement crisis hits. Republicans want tax reform that will be revenue neutral while promising unspecified spending reductions. Democrats want to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year as a ?balanced? approach to deficit reduction. Those taxes will raise no more than $80 billion in a year. That only eliminates 8% of the debt we add each year, which makes it painfully clear that gimmicky tax increases won't solve the problem.

Taxes at the federal level are designed to produce the income necessary for the mission of the US government. Spending directly relates to the mission. We need to know the scope and size of the mission before we can determine spending and the appropriate level of taxation. Do we want the federal government to have plenary jurisdiction in all areas of our lives, where it dictates personal choices and overrides religious objections in the name of the greater good? We have been traveling along those lines for decades, but still provide funding for only about 60 percent of the annual costs for such a mission. Do we want a federal government that only absorbs 20 percent of GDP? Then we need to rest the mission to keep the costs within those boundaries.

What has been missing from the political campaign this year, and truly every cycle since Ronald Reagan’s midterm election, is an honest debate over the mission and resources of the federal government and its component parts. That is almost certainly by design, since most politicians would be afraid to stand on a comprehensive platform that would immediately alienate a large section of the electorate. Instead, politicians will tell voters that we don’t need to make tough choices, and end up kicking the can down the road. Unfortunately, we’re running out of road, and we’re almost at the dead end. Voters want to know how the candidates proposing turning around, and instead, both sides are arguing about the size of the curbs.

cont.

*emphasis mine.