[Superman]

Okay, we've taken some heat for arguing here and, as much as I enjoy arguing, we should show folks that America is not as polarized as they might assume. Sure, we have our family squabbles, but really we're just looking at different ways to achieve...small tactical differences in how we might achieve...the many important goals we heartily agree on. So, perhaps in this thread we can post those thoughts we know the "other guys" are thinking. Let me start.

You guys know I was a public servant (bureaucrat) for years, and that I am still in the game of helping to accomplish public works construction. Many here have apparently formed some negative impressions of "government" and I have disputed those conclusions for the most part. But honestly folks (I hope you guys are sitting down), there is a lot of inefficiency in government. Many agencies have a "work up" system of promotion that arguably places more emphasis on seniority, and less on performance, than might be ideal. Often there are only thin provisions for displacing a bureaucrat whose performance in an important management role is....underwhelming.

Further, there seems to be long cycles of efficiency (or lack thereof) due to political and strategic pressures, among public agencies. I hope I am not breaking my "say something nice" rule here when I say that regulatory agencies tend, over time (decades) to become "captured" by the regulated community. Over time the regulated community, particularly when that community is 'businesses,' chips away at the agency's effectiveness. Watering down one regulation in exchange for support in some other area...and once a regulation is softened it is nearly impossible to ratchet it back up. For this reason, governments shift certain offices and functions between agencies, and restructure whole agencies, or groups of agencies. Wholesale restructuring allows an office to "recall" its regulatory mandate and jump back up to a level of effectiveness lost during the preceeding decades of attack by the regulated.

Here's another one I can vigorously validate: The insanity of the government budgeting process. Trust me when I tell you that my bosses and colleagues at the "bureau" regularly insulated me from budget processes, for their own safety. When my nose was pushed into budget discussions, the outcome was usually not pretty. Yes, the more you spend this year the more you protect your budget from cuts next year. Yes, limitations on the number of workers you may hire are circumvented by "casual" labor and other emergency hiring provisions. Rich offices help fund poor offices by pretending that the transfer of money and positions is necessary to accomplish the mandate of the "rich" office.

Okay, I'll stop here. For now. You guys know I support much of what government does, and that I feel many agencies do a Herculean job of serving its customers within the available resources. But here, in this thread, I am going to offer my thoughts that support the misguided notions apparently held by the Klingons (conservatives). And I challenge them to do the same. So, let's lock arms and sing "Kumbaya" together. If you can. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. The olive branch.