Supe: I respect everyone, but I respect people most who have an open mind and not a transparent agenda.

Len has cut me some sizable bits of slack over the years. I owe him. He's not the worst, by far. There are those, here on the Board, who are far less considerate. Me, for instance. and there are those who are far less open-minded. FAR.

The amount of conjecture in this thread is amazing.

I run a multi-billion dollar Program Office for the Navy. My experience is that there is a quality spread in both the government and private industry. I should qualify that my experience with the private sector is 75% DOD related: the rest is through SBIRs, ACTDs and Government labs.

It is, and will remain, about the governments ability to effectively communicate requirements through well written contracts. It is then encumbent on both to make the pact work.

The rest of y'alls palavering is simple.

I've mentioned my respect for folks in uniform. They get that from me, fer shure. But I just wish some of the other folks who serve the public could get something besides ridicule occasionally. Some of those people are poorly compensated and regularly criticized while their hearts keep them in those positions because they see the importance of their work to the public that does not appreciate them. That's a form of heroism. The quiet kind. Not the flashy, spur of the moment kind where you find out what you're made of. It's more impressive than that. It's the kind where you see the 1986 Ford Escort you drive with dents in it, you watch the local news where "investigative journalists" are skewering your program for ratings and hatred and you're still happy to make a deliberate and conscious decision to focus your day on the environmental safety regulation enforcement you do because you know it saves peoples' lives and health. Those people make a new commitment, and earn a new medal, every day. While those people are disrespected in society, I know something is still very wrong.

I like Friday afternoons. At this time of the week, my arguments must be very powerful. Almost nobody disagrees with me.

My wife is a civil servant, a GS15 engineer...she is smarter than anyone I know in industry. She stays in the government because she enjoys putting architectures together.

She gets to do cool stuff (some of it in support of my UAVs)...a reward all its own.:)

That raises the question of why she's married to you. I bet you've had that thought.

I am very familiar with NY State gov't. and I can state unequivocally that the management at the 40,000 foot level has no connection to the work being done-they are solely there for their further promotion in the political system or there as a result of patronage of the party in power(currently Dem.) The real managers are at 1 and 2 levels down, and they run the agencies. Of course, the legislative delegation(Assemblymen and Senators) have strong direction over where the money gets spent and often is contrary to the Executive(Governor) and results in inefficiency in the agency performance. Then of course, you have the employee unions making it nearly impossible to release an employee after they are permanent(except for theft, drug use, sex perversions or harassments or alcohol related problems(only after extensive rehab efforts). Civil service hampers hiring when needed because the test system is so balky and slow.
I believe strongly that the professional managers and many employees are equal to those in the private sector(there are also legions of losers there too, and you know it!), and try to deliver their programs on time and under budget. Managing the public sector is very different from what some on this board imagine. There is no profit motive, the mandate is to deliver services that the private sector can't deliver(meaning make any money on delivering) because these services involve social programs in many cases, or prisons or roads and bridges, not exactly money makers like i-pods.

?????

Look guys, I base all my statements on my experience with human nature. I try very hard to see things from the other side and without a doubt I have adjusted my opinion on many things through this approach.

That being said, I do not back away even a little from my stance on government(any massive organization actually) as an incredibly inefficient vehicle to do just about anything. I've seen it, people very close to me live it and the historical figures I respect agree with me. it's a not only a matter of principle, it's demonstrable.

GAWD! I wish they would! Give up their eternal quest for more taxpayer money...

Then again if you've worked in the public sector for so long, I imagine it would beat you down into a less-motivated 9-5'er

Exactly, people are people..the system is the difference.

Sup: You're right on the money. I have a degree in Public Administration and did a 30 year career in the field. As a manager in a public agency, you work for bosses that are only motivated by their own political gain. Their only concerns are what the mayor, governor, city council, or press thinks of them. Public agencies don't have to a make a profit or be efficient. They often consider themselves the best because they say they are the best.

I was lucky enough to be under an old-time retirement system where your benefits were maxed at 30 years of service. I paid my dues and retired at the old age of 52......My retirement pay and a modest withdrawal from a 401K allow me to take home more pay than when I worked.........Not sure I could have done that in the private sector??????

Again, your experience with the DMV or the welfare office are not typical of the behind the scenes folks

Seahawk had a good point about the well written contracts. The need to check some box with an 8A company often brings out the most inept contractors. That sucessfully lines the pockets of a sucessful man or woman, but the amatuer hour employees brought on are WORSE than anything you could imagine as an actual civil servant. The good ones the gov't hires away because the people know their companies are FOS.

Your observations mirror mine, gmeteer. The work of public administration is generally done quite well. The wacky part of government is the legislative/political portion. That's where those 40,000-ft guys are. The 1st and 2nd line supervisors and managers are often quite effective. They HAVE to be. Our state DOT is potentially subject to silly decisions for political purposes, but recent agency Secretaries have been fairly good at sidestepping those influences. Overall, a pretty good agency all the way to the top. But again, it is the first few layers of supervision I have most commonly dealt with. The ones who manage construction project, for instance. Those folks are quite responsible and responsive.

Everyone who knows her has had that thought;)

Supe,

I agree with much of your analysis of why management in the public sector is more challenging than the private sector. That, along with many other factors, supports the notion that public sector management should be severely limited to that which is prescribed in The Constitution. That notion is nearly dead after a century or more of unconstitutional legislation and executive orders.

I take your comments about the Bush administration, however, as little more than partisan political blather. I sense that you are trying to say that public sector management is good provided that the right (meaning people you agree with ) are at the helm. In fact, Bush is the ultimate Washington political insider, evidence the fact that he has done nothing to reduce the size or impact of over-reaching federal government. Look no further than his family as a whole, where he went to school, organizations to which he belonged. He has proven himself to be a silver spoon elitist like so many before him, republican and democrat alike. Furthermore, he has created a massive new entitlement program, signed bloated farm bills, and has created another new and needless government agency.

Market forces empower the consumer and are far more capable of influencing corporate behavior. But most importantly, reliance on market forces over government regulation preserves personal liberty and responsibility.

I agree with so much of what you said. However, having read so many of your other posts, we probably disagree over how government protects the individual. It is the individual that needs protection from government.

The sum total of people who believe in powerful centralized government is made up of well-meaning people who don't see the downside to collectivism and elitists who forward the agenda for their own personal and downright evil gain.

Len,

While I completely support this statement, the inefficiency of government should be a second tier argument. The first and primary argument against our current federal government should be that a majority of its activities are unconstitutional.

Case in point: the congress cannot take a pass on its responsibility to issue a declaration of war before the Commander in Chief engages the military.

Similarly, the 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. In other words, if it's not explicitly delegated to the federal government, they are excluded from such power.

Examples of over-extension of federal government would be: energy, housing, environment, education, every single entitlement program, and on and on.

Very true, I was really just jousting with Superman who(as he knows) is the only individual I've ever "met" that actually thinks government run agencies are superior in measure of performance. I've told him before that I didn't really think people like him existed, that they were just Republican folklore.. sort of like the Yeti or the snipe. :D

"Grog, fetch us another flagon of mead" :D