[Superman]

Can't disagree with any of you guys. You've got it. My experience might be a little skewed. I worked for a state agency that has a reputation of being a place NOT to transfer to if you want to nap. Within that agency, the division and program I worked in was, again, 'green beret.' I've met some bad government workers, but most of the folks I dealt with would, quite frankly, clobber the average private-sector worker in a head-to-head competition. And I have worked for some private sector companies that are regularly hailed by magazines as being way out in front of their competitors. As a quick example, I worked for Nordstroms, and my people at the state agency could give those folks lessons on "customer service." That's going to be hard for some to believe, but that's my position and I can prove it.

And here's another thing that has always been striking to me, since my career has at times focused on compensation analysis. The difference in pay between public and private sector service is striking. Entrepeneurs are not special. They are reaching for the brass ring, and I'm very supporting and yes, appreciative, but they are going after a chance to earn essentially unlimited money So, they are not like missionaries or something. Get it? Anyway, I made decisions (I'm not trying to blow my own horn here) that affected thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of workers. I had that as a sole responsibility. No boards or commissions, etc. Singe decision-maker. And my bosses had their hands full, and my office was understaffed. So, I was on my own. The pay I got was pathetic. Now, if you're going to set a system up where a single individual will decide pay policy for nearly every Washington State business, wouldn't it make sense to offer an attractive salary and perhaps get someone with some talent and understanding? All they had was a dimwit like me. When I left that agency and became a consultant to another local, municipal agency, my salary rose by more than 20%, and my duties/responsibilities/influence went to near zero. I do almost NOTHING compared to that government job, and get substantially more money.

Again, it is hard for me to imagine one person having more impact over more private businesses than I had with that G-job. And if the conservatives were really serious about the importance and impact of economics and government regulation upon the "market," they wouold support the notion of getting someone into that position who was REALLY sharp. But as I've said before, the conservatives hate government and don't know how to run it. So, that position remains underfunded. It is not a "work up" job. It is an exempt position for which the agency can do a nationwide search, if they want to. There is some real talent out there in the private sector. But to attract them, the governmetn would have to offer a more attractive compensation package. But right now, the preferred strategy is to STARVE government. Okay. But you're going to get what you pay for. And then you're going to whine.