TRUMPING THE ISSUES

[Published at http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/d-c-washington/2016/11/07/id/757502/ ]

The fundamental question of this election is do we really want Obama’s third term?  Do we really want a President who will push Obama’s agenda even further to the left?

In 2008, America was facing a terrible economic downturn.  Does anyone really believe that Obama’s trillion dollar “shovel ready” public works, gave America anything close to a real recovery?  Does anyone really think the unemployment numbers are more relevant than the record number of Americans no longer in the workforce?  Does anyone really believe that America’s anemic recovery is the new normal?  Hillary supporters are people who think they and their fellow citizens are economically better off today than 2008. Trump’s message is that America must end the regulations and taxes that have crushed its economy.

In 2008, Americans enjoyed one of the best healthcare systems in the world.  Does anyone really like their current health plan?  Do Americans like paying ever higher premiums and higher deductibles?  Are Americans ready for a completely national healthcare system like Canada or England? 

In 2008, America was the world leader.  Do Americans like the fact that Russia is challenging the U.S., and poses more of a threat, now than at any time since the USSR fell in 1991?  Are Americans willing to watch China consolidate its hegemony in Asia?  Are Americans willing to remain silent as China peels away U.S. allies, like the Philippines, while extending its reach throughout Africa and Central America?

In 2008, the Middle East was dangerous, but at least the major extremist forces were contained.  Are Americans willing to overlook Obama’s refusal to help liberal democratic forces in Iran (the Green Revolution) in 2009 in order to promote Iranian ascendancy ever since?  Are Americans passively accepting that the “Arab Spring” brought peace and freedom to the region?  Are Americans willing to applaud Hillary for her tearing apart Libya, Syria, and Iraq during her time as Secretary of State? Are Jewish Americans really willing to let Hillary continue undermining Israel, the only true democracy in the region? 

In 2016, America is facing a world that is slipping back into 17^th and 18^th Century trade wars.  The promise of a “flat earth” without policy, technology, or logistical barriers to moving goods, services, and resources has been exploited by China and other state run economies.  America is adrift in how to compete in this “back to the future” trade environment.  Americans are grappling with how to earn a living when robots at home and sweat shop labor abroad obliterate opportunities. 

In 2016, Americans are facing dual invasions that will ultimately destroy our culture and country.  One is illegal immigrants who increase crime and burden social services. The media has been highly successful in deleting “illegal” from any discussion of immigration in order to cast Trump and his supporters as racists or 19^th Century “know nothings”. The other invasion is Islamic militants who want to supplant America’s Constitutional freedoms with Sharia law. 

Finally, in 2016, Americans are fed-up with the arrogant unaccountable political elite whose only agenda is to line its own pockets and those of its cronies.  Americans want a real revolution that ends the reign of those who thumb their noses at the law. 

Trump asserts that immigration is a privilege not a right.  Those who America welcomes should be people who will enthusiastically embrace our hard won civic values and bring skills that will revitalize America’s economy.

Trump will drain Washington, DC’s swamp and usher in ethical and accountable government.

TRUMPING THE ESTABLISHMENT

[Also published in http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/lobbyist-politicians/2016/08/31/id/746090/]

The Washington Establishment has a visceral hatred for Trump because he promises to put them out of business.

Why does the Washington Establishment hate Donald Trump? It is not because of his positions on immigration or trade.  Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot advocated similar stands in 1992 and they did not generate the obsessive hatred being displayed in 2016.

Trump has declared war on the Establishment itself.  In his June 16, 2015 Presidential announcement Trump asserted:

“So I’ve watched the politicians. I’ve dealt with them all my life…They will never make America great again. They don’t even have a chance. They’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests…it’s destroying our country. We have to stop, and it has to stop now.”

The Washington Establishment sees Trump as serious about them being the primary impediment to making America “great again”.  Trump sees the Establishment as lining their pockets, and their friends’ pockets, as beneficiaries of the status quo.  As long as nothing changes, the Establishment will have their mansions, limousines, VIP tables, and ego trips.

There is much at stake.

Think of Washington, DC as a mass of “cookie jars” each containing delicious treats.  There are those who control the cookie jars, those who want the cookie jars, and those who can get the cookie jars.  Officially, these treats are distributed based on legislative mandates, open competition, and documented needs.  In fact, the treats are almost always handed out to friends, and friends of friends.  Friends can be purchased.  It is Washington, D.C.’s “golden rule” – those with the gold rule.

Welcome to “crony capitalism”.  Someone knowing someone who can hand out favors has been around since the first tribes shared the first harvest.  The term “lobbyist” came from favor seekers hanging out in the lobby of Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel during the Grant Administration in the 1870s.  In 1905, George Washington Plunkett, a ward boss in the Tammany Hall political machine, coined what could be the motto of Washington, D.C. – “What is the Constitution among friends?”

Today, things have gotten way out of hand.  Spending for Washington lobbyists has tripled since 1998 to over $3.22 billion a year.  $24 million is spent for lobbyists each day Congress is in session. 

Campaign fundraising is another dimension of how the Establishment stays in power.  Over $750 million has been raised for House races and $520 million for Senate races this election cycle. Leaders of Political Action Committees (PACs), and individual bundlers who raise funds, dominate this ultimate game of “pay for play”.

Those brokering power become gatekeepers for funding and favors throughout the Federal Government. This power comes from a truism overlooked by everyone in the media – all discretionary federal money is earmarked.  The popular myth is that earmarks vanished once the Republicans banned them when they returned to power in 2011.  They only banned legislative earmarks, and there are still ways to work around that system.  The President, and his appointees, earmark funds as standard operating procedure.  Even career bureaucrats play favorites. 

Favorites can be based on institutional, Administration, and ideological biases.  Favoritism can also go to the highest bidder.  This is federal money flowing out the door as grants, programs, contracts, buildings, leases, and employment.  Other “treats” to be dispensed include regulatory relief, tax waivers, and subsidies. Favoritism is rarely purchased with money directly changing hands, that kind of corruption occurs more in state and local government.  Washington level corruption is true “quid pro quo”.

The Washington Establishment swaps favors more insidiously.  How many times does a military officer get a major position with a defense contractor years after he favored them with a multi-million dollar contract?  A Reagan aide granted a building height waiver near the White House and quadrupled his salary when hired by the developer.  Grant and contract officers obtain slots at prestigious colleges and prep schools for their children for making the “right” choices or being a little lax on oversight.  Bush era National Park officials refused to prosecute the destruction of park land in exchange for Redskins tickets.  Everyone has their price, save for those true public servants.

Trump promises to smash the cookie jars and end the reign of the Establishment. 

Normal Americans are rallying around Trump.  They are enraged at the lies and duplicity of those in power.  Many see a reason to vote for the first time since Reagan. They want November 8, 2016 to be America’s “Bastille Day” marking the end of Washington, DC’s arrogant and unaccountable ruling class.

Billions of dollars are at stake.  Perks, prestige, and power are at stake.  The future of representative government is at stake. Is it any wonder that the Establishment is doing everything and anything to stop Trump?

[Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S, House of Representatives and on Reagan’s White House Staff.  He advises global corporations and governments on strategic change and leadership.]

A Revolutionary Transition Plan for Trump

[Published in http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/convention-republican/2016/07/25/id/740303/]

Donald Trump is calling for a revolution in the way Washington operates. His Republican Convention speech declared ferreting out waste and cutting costs a major priority for his first hundred days. This will require thorough preparation, like a successful military campaign, before the first “shots” are fired.

A new American President faces the challenge of assuring both continuity and change.  The institution of the Executive Branch must remain intact. The direction and focus of the Executive Branch must quickly and thoroughly reflect the will of the electorate.

Trump can set the stage for “Making America Great Again” by making sure his Presidential Transition uses “CPR”.

This CPR is a form of management resuscitation.  It stands for CURATE, PREPARE, RECRUIT. These are co-equal activities that are critical for launching a dramatic new direction for the federal government and America.

CURATE means turning a mountain of information into action.  By collecting, sorting, analyzing, and prioritizing critical information Trump’s Presidential Transition can make sure they can govern from day one.

The federal government is vast. During every second policies, programs, personnel, contracts, grants, expenditures, treaties, and law are in motion.  These activities can range from first drafts of proposals yet to be considered, all the way through final implementation and codification.  They mostly happen in Washington, DC, but also occur in government field offices throughout America, and U.S. Missions around the globe. Much of this activity is not public. 

An incoming President must conduct a scavenger hunt of epic proportions to find everything that matters.  The outgoing Administration, and much of the remaining career structure, will do everything possible to make sure the scavenger hunt fails. This will include lying and misdirection. 

The only way a Transition can succeed is to gather outsiders who are relentless in their search for information.  They must also be able to determine what is real and when to probe deeper.  These outsiders must depend on insiders among career personnel who support the incoming Administration, as well as government professionals who will do the right thing out of loyalty to America and its institutions.

PREPARE is all about making sure the right people are in the right place to do the right thing the moment the new President is sworn-in.  This means halting everything found through the scavenger hunt.  Trump’s Administration will want to change course quickly and completely.  It is imperative to halt and roll back the legacy of the outgoing Administration in every way and everywhere possible - policies, programs, personnel, contracts, grants, expenditures, treaties, and law.

One key preparation is security clearances.  In 1980, Reagan’s team was fast tracked for clearances by FBI and Secret Service officials who loathed the Carter Administration. Many clearances were processed starting in September 1980.  Reagan’s transition planning team also combed the Legislative Branch and government contractors for people who already held appropriate clearances.  The result was legions of Reaganites able to access secure information starting within weeks of the election and legions more ready to take office the day after the Inaugural.

RECRUIT is the importance of finding the right people to do the right things.  People equal policy.  The first waves of political appointees invade the Executive Branch.  In some cases they will be greeted as liberators.  In other cases they will face bureaucratic combat on a room to room, program by program scale.  In all cases the new appointees must be competent and committed.  Only true believers committed, heart and soul, to implementing the new agenda need apply.

Curated information, prepared teams, top notch committed recruits form a seamless interdisciplinary capability for the new President to act quickly and decisively. 

 

2013 IN PERSPECTIVE

2013 was like any other year. We found new ways to be humane and inhumane. The frontiers of knowledge advanced both in discovery and dissemination. Creative genius existed next to odd people and events that were undeserving our attention.

Throughout these past twelve months, there were also patterns and trends that appeared or expanded into our lives. These will shape our existence in 2014 and merit further discussion.

SOURCE VERSUS SUBSTANCE
The quality of civil discourse declined along with its quantity. Rational thought, critical thinking, and reasoned engagement all declined sharply among politicians and pundits. Save for rare instances of good governance at state and local levels, hyper-partisanship reined supreme. The continued collapse of functional democracy was on vivid display in Washington, DC. To the credit of Americans, trust in Congress sank to historic lows and support for President Obama fell to his lowest ebb.

Incompetence, corruption, and deceit played their roles in the deterioration of our civic culture. However, the biggest factor was the expanding inability of people from across the political spectrum to keep an open mind when encountering opposing views. Who was saying something trumped what was being said. Even the old adage that “a stopped clock is still right twice a day” was discarded.

Shutting out differing viewpoints closes the mind to new ideas and prevents everyone from obtaining important “reality checks” for their actions. On a good day, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow provides cogent and insightful analysis. On any day, Fox’s Charles Krauthammer is the most knowledgeable and articulate pundit on an amazing range of topics. We need to return to a time when no one should have to pass a litmus test prior to pulling a fire alarm in a burning building.

CORE VERSUS FRINGE BELIEFS
Pope Francis was named Time’s “Man of the Year” for many good reasons. His most universal contribution was returning to the core message of his church – anyone seeking salvation will be granted it. Communicating and embodying the Catholic Church’s core message immediately welcomed back those wishing to return to its faith and opened a dialogue with all others desiring a caring and tolerant world. In one masterful leap, Pope Francis made his church relevant in the 21st Century.

Pope Francis’ accomplishment should be embraced by the Republican Party. A movement of faith or policy is not the sum of its parts. Its core values and beliefs inform and guide its parts. Specific issues will come and go, but its core should remain timeless. Transient passengers should not be allowed to steer the ship.

WASHINGTON VERSUS AMERICA
Our traditional concerns over government over-reach, and our dismay over its incompetence, were joined by a new and disturbing issue – fairness. “Crony capitalism” moved to the forefront of America’s psyche. The record disparity in wealth has made increasing numbers of Americans wonder if the “America Dream” has been hijacked by a well-connected oligarchy.

These fairness concerns are not about depriving productive people their well earned rewards. It is about those in power rigging the game for everyone else. Special interest tax breaks, regulatory waivers, and program funding have created an undemocratic oligarchy constructing a public trough from which they devour the spoils. This has worsened as large companies and banks continue to get away with wanton abuses, as long as they pay a small percentage of their “ill gotten” gains to complicit overseers.

One of the great missed opportunities for real change occurred when political powers did everything possible to keep the Tea Party from allying with Occupy Wall Street. Both groups arose out of a deep mistrust of established power and concern over unaccountable and incestuous elites perverting America. Such an alliance was the one true chance of a third party challenging the status quo.

In the wake of Washington dysfunction, corporate statism, and consumer exploitation, Americans are growing more restive. The latest Gallup Poll reported that seventy-two percent of Americans say big government the greatest threat to the U.S., a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. Unfortunately, Americans are disengaging from activism, even voting, feeling that little can be done. Opting out is a recipe for civic decline.

AMERICA VERSUS THE WORLD
America continues to suffer from not having a global strategy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our “war of terror” fixated on misdiagnosing symptoms in one region of the world. America’s role in the world, it competing with 200 other countries for economic well-being, and preventing slippage back to 18th Century amoral adventurism have been absent from meaningful dialogues.

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are willingly filling the void. These nations view 18th Century style power politics as their salvation from their respective internal failings. America’s missteps and miscues are being exploited to the detriment of global stability and morality. A world dominated by any country other than America will be nasty and brutish.

America remains the most parochial world power in history. Only a third of Americans currently hold passports (that’s fifteen times more than in 1970) . Only 19% of Americans travel outside the U.S. and most of them go to North American destinations. Americans consistently score near the bottom among developed nations on geographic knowledge. Much of this is based on the fact that America’s imperialism occurred within what is now its own borders. While European armies, traders, and missionaries spanned the global, Americans conquered our own continent. Except for the Spanish-American War, America’s overseas military activism was not acquisitive. Certainly, American brands and culture remain the top influencers of world consumption, but only a microscopic portion of our corporate and political leaders have actual overseas experience.

SECURITY VERSUS PRIVACY
You do not improve your chances of finding a needle in the haystack by creating more haystacks. That is the fundamental flaw in America’s counter-terrorism strategy. In the 1970’s, Americans worried about who was on President Nixon’s enemies’ list and who his minions bugged. Now we are all on our government’s enemies list and we are all bugged. This is not progress.

No amount of Orwellian intrusions will find and stop every terrorist. The odds will always remain in favor of the lone zealot or psychopath. Security forces have to get it right 100% of the time – they will never achieve this certainty. Innocent people will be killed or maimed when bad people slip through these defenses.

They key to success is to remove the roots of terrorism. Unless and until moderate Islamic leaders end the official teaching of hatred, and the perverse interpretations of the Koran, there will always be a threat. Until we establish policies and processes to recognize and treat mental illness there will always be a person using violent means to destroy lives and communities.

TECHNOLOGY VERSUS HUMANS
The irony of our age is that all the amazing advances in communications are creating as many problems as opportunities. We are all part of a technological Tower of Babel. Our common frame of reference ended years ago, to the detriment of our civic culture.

Diversity is a good thing, unless no one can effectively reach out to others. We have to keep track of friends, family, and colleagues who use different communication platforms and environments, and when they change without telling anyone. It is Apple versus Windows; iPhone versus Android; LinkedIn versus Facebook, versus countless other social networks. It is having to remember which of our friends and colleagues prefer emails to telephone calls; texting to Skype, and texts on Skype. It is about not only which people follow which television show, but whether to spend money to subscribe to cable, premium cable, Netflix, and Amazon in order to follow the latest award winning series.

Reaching key people for business or pleasure is bewildering. Platform convergence (who uses a separate camera any more?) is complicated by user divergence. The challenge for 2014 and beyond is having technology enable more than hinder our cultural advance.

Jefferson's Valedictory

Published as part of Constituting America's "constitution reader" series

"90 in 90: History Holds The Key to the Future" in cooperation with Hillsdale College.

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/2013/03/11/tuesday-march-12-2013-essay-17-letter-to-roger-weightman-thomas-jefferson-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner-co-founder-george-washington-institute-of-living-e/

My podcast for Constituting America http://soundcloud.com/constituting-america/essay-17

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 – Essay #17 – Letter to Roger Weightman – Thomas Jefferson – Guest Essayist – Scot Faulkner, Co-Founder, George Washington Institute of Living Ethics, Shepherd University

In the last public communication of his life, Thomas Jefferson made it crystal clear why documents and actions have lasting consequences. In his letter to Washington, DC Mayor, Roger C. Weightman, Jefferson eloquently asserts the legacy of the Declaration of Independence by declaring it: “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.”

Jefferson was a student of history. He understood its central role in our present and future. Earlier he wrote: “History, by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.”[1]

On June 24, 1826, Jefferson knew he was dying. His ailments had been slowing him down since the beginning of the year. He hoped to communicate a timeless legacy of liberty to others. He also hoped to survive until July 4, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. On that June morning he had summoned Dr. Robley Dunglison to help him live just a few more days and then to ease his journey to, “the shore which crowns all my hopes or which buries my cares.” [2] He then completed his letter to Weightman.

Mayor Weightman had invited all surviving signers of the Declaration of Independence to a major celebration in Washington, DC. Jefferson knew his infirmities would prevent his attending, but he viewed responding to Weightman’s invitation as a valedictory – a final farewell to inspire people to seek freedom for ages to come.

Jefferson opens by making his apology for not being able to attend. He then frames the fiftieth commemoration of the Declaration of Independence as vindicating the actions of the signers in 1776: “the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us, on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made.”

He shifts his focus to the broader themes of July 4th. He affirms the eternal value and inspirational message of the Declaration of Independence as, “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains.” Jefferson then writes about the how the Declaration not only launched the first successful revolution based solely on freedom, but also established timeless values for creating a noble new civic culture, “That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.”

He goes on to describe the universal impact of the Declaration, “All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.” Jefferson deeply desired that an expanding universe of freedom and knowledge would lift everyone on earth out of tyranny, “The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others.”

Jefferson closes with a recommendation for the ages, “For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

As Jefferson envisioned, July 4 should always be about more than parades, fireworks, and barbeques. It is about refreshing our recollections of our freedom being “self evident” and our “unalienable Rights” arising from our “Creator” never to be abridged by any earthly power. The sole role of government is to “secure these rights,” deriving its just power, “from the consent of the governed”.

Jefferson lived to see the sunrise on America’s fiftieth birthday, passing just before one o’clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 4, 1826. Later that day, Jefferson’s colleague and co-author of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, also passed. Adams’ last words were, “Thomas Jefferson lives”. And so he does.

[1] Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson; The Art of Power. New York, NY Random House 2012. Page 537.
[2] Ibid. p. 492.

FISCAL FOLLIES

Washington policy officials and pundits take note – you have all flunked Governing 101, Management 101, Civil Discourse 101, Budgeting 101, Accountability 101, and Reality 101. Republicans also failed Communications 101 & Politics 101. Democrats passed these courses with honors in creative fiction writing.

No one is telling the truth about anything relating to the Fiscal Cliff. Americans will begin suffering from Washington’s mass delusion and hysteria by mid January 2012. Wage earners will see a reduction in take home pay with their first pay checks. Some government contractors will get termination notices around the same time because of the consciously severe cuts under the Sequester.

The damage from going over the Fiscal Cliff will remain limited because of the possibility of retroactive fixes being dated back to January 1, 2013. However, this expectation unravels at the end of February if there is no budget deal. Even a superficial, “kick the can down the road again” deal would avoid this expectation cliff. This gives everyone two months to do something before the bottom really falls out.

How did America get in this mess?

Blame the Republicans – starting in 1995, the Republicans in Congress could have held wall-to-wall hearings exposing trillions of dollars in ongoing waste, fraud, and abuse. Mountains of Inspector General Reports, Government Accountability Office Reports, and watch dog organization reports would have been easy pickings for years. By exposing the mind-boggling array of how Americans’ money is squandered would have built a mandate for real change. Republicans never pursued this course. In fact, they remained tongue-tied on how to cut spending through the 2012 elections. When they did offer ideas, they went for ideological cuts, like Public Broadcasting.

Republicans also made every effort to box themselves into a stereotype of defending the rich and abandoning the poor. They never explained that every penny wasted hurts everyone. These pennies include nearly $1 trillion a year in outrageous tax loopholes for corporations, the wealthy, and even foreign gamblers.

Blame the Democrats – the Democrats have refused to focus on spending because the moment they acknowledge that spending can be cut they lose their argument that the federal government needs more of our money. They made budget cutting a partisan issue. This is truly sad for America. Way back in the 1970s, Senator Proxmire (D-WI) issued “Gold Fleece Awards” exposing government waste. Liberal journalists like Jack Anderson railed against waste where ever it was found. Even the National Enquirer had fun with “goofy grants”. Waste was waste and the public embraced aggressive oversight across the political spectrum. This all ended during the Administration of George HW Bush when Democrats realized extorting more taxes required silence on how the money was really being spent.

Blame the media – reporters and commentators love a crisis. They embrace false deadlines and refuse to discuss that these deadlines are based upon fiction, because their countdown clocks and their breathlessly chasing after every rumor attracts viewers and readers. There is no incentive for telling the truth - that everything could be avoided within seconds if everyone sobered up and grew-up.

America is confronted with a parade of “naked emperors” who trumpet that what they are doing is real, and that we are fools if we do not comprehend how hard it is to get off the treadmill of more debt, more taxes, and more spending. Who will be the first voice in the crowd to begin laughing at them and demanding honesty?

FUBAR

[Overly complex ways to do simple things - by Rube Goldberg]

In the summer of 2011, Republicans and Democrats finally realized that the structural flaws in America’s fiscal management had to be addressed sooner rather than later. They created a fictional “fiscal cliff” that would deliver horrendously real consequences if all sides of the issue did not rise to the challenge. Instead of ushering in serious bi-partisan analysis and action, it accelerated and amplified the partisanship, exposing the fundamental dysfunctions of both political parties and of the Legislative and Executive Branches.

Just hours before the debacle of “Plan B” in the House, ABC-Australia reported on the realities and fantasies of the fiscal cliff. What follows is the transcript of their report.  The audio file can be heard at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-21/republicans-try-to-pass-plan-b-on-fiscal-cliff/4440368

EMILY BOURKE: To the United States now, where there's been furious last minute political wrangling over the so-called fiscal cliff and the mix of tax hikes and spending cuts.

As the clock ticks down towards the year-end deadline, Republicans have crafted a back-up plan in case a broader agreement can't be reached with the White House.

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives has passed a bill to cut domestic spending but after an abrupt recess, the Republicans decided to postpone a vote on tax breaks, having failed to get the numbers.

But it appears the Republican effort will be futile with Democrats in the Senate and the president vowing to block a Republican plan either way.

From Washington, Kim Landers reports.

KIM LANDERS: A few days ago a deal seemed possible.

President Barack Obama and House Republican speaker John Boehner continued to talk about how to avoid steep tax increases and spending cuts - the so-called fiscal cliff which is designed to reduce the federal deficit.

But now the two sides are further apart than ever before, openly trading political blows in the media all day.

JOHN BOEHNER: President Obama and Senate Democrats haven't done much of anything. Their plan B is just slow-walk us over the fiscal cliff and for weeks the White House said that if I moved on rates, that they would make substantial concessions on spending cuts and entitlement reforms. I did my part, they've done nothing.

KIM LANDERS: Jay Carney is the White House spokesman.

JAY CARNEY: But what we know about this exercise and we have seen this movie before is that when there was the opportunity for a compromise on something big and significant, the Republican leadership walked away and pursued something that was irrelevant to the rest of America.

KIM LANDERS: Late today, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to cut domestic spending.

But even before the votes were taken, the Democrat-dominated Senate was signalling that the measures would fail in the Upper House.

Dick Durbin is a Democratic senator from Illinois.

DICK DURBIN: Remember the closing scene in Thelma and Louise? Rather than face the reality of what lies ahead, they hit the gas. That's what we're hearing from speaker Boehner now, hit the gas and go over the cliff.

KIM LANDERS: Scot Faulkner is the former chief administrator of the US House of Representatives. He's highly doubtful that a deal can be struck before the end of the year.

SCOT FAULKNER: Both sides have dug themselves so deep into their trenches that you are not going to see a deal until after the first of the year and a new Congress comes in and the problem is that both sides really don't think the fiscal cliff is going to happen no matter how much they posture to the public and they both think the other side is going to give more ground and nobody is going to give more ground.

KIM LANDERS: Many government agencies are already preparing their employees for the impact of the looming budget cuts.

The US defence secretary Leon Panetta says uniformed military personnel will be exempt. But he's told civilian Pentagon employees that while no workers will face immediate unpaid leave after January the 1st, furloughs might ultimately be necessary.

Scot Faulkner explains why neither Republicans nor Democrats want to give ground.

SCOT FAULKNER: They're still thinking in terms of campaign mode, no-one is thinking in terms of governing.

KIM LANDERS: And can you suggest a reason why?

SCOT FAULKNER: They've not thought in terms of governing for over 12 years. You have, everybody is playing to their partisan audiences and in America you have very strong partisan newspapers, very strong partisan radio stations and cable television news stations and as long as their particular audience is cheering them on, no one is going to give ground and no one is going to shift from campaign mode into a governing mode.

KIM LANDERS: The impact of going over the so-called fiscal cliff has already been outlined.

According to the projections from the Congressional Budget Office, gross domestic product will drop by 0.5 per cent next year.

That contraction in the economy will cause unemployment to rise to 9.1 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2013.

But the agency estimates that after next year, economic growth will pick up and the labour market will strengthen with unemployment shrinking to 5.5 per cent by 2018.

SCOT FAULKNER: What will happen is that the first time that thing hits, one of those indicators hit recession, the recession zone, you will then have a scramble for everyone to first blame everyone else and then say okay, what can we do about this and so I think it's going to take an economic shock to finally get the political system working, even if it is only superficially.

KIM LANDERS: Scot Faulkner believes there is still time to strike a deal before the end of the year but even if that happens, he thinks it'll be a bandaid solution.

SCOT FAULKNER: At this point if they try to do anything, it's going to be either kick the can down the road hoping something else will happen or it will be very superficial. I mean they'll announce it as the coming of the new age but it'll be very superficial and not solve any of the fundamental issues facing America.

KIM LANDERS: The president is due to head to Hawaii for his Christmas holiday soon. It's unclear if the stalemate over the fiscal cliff is going to play havoc with those plans.

This is Kim Landers in Washington for The World Today.

Fiscal Flim Flam

The following appeared in the Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/congress-white-house-budget-trickery-now-backfiring/article/2514965

The only way the real fiscal cliff can be addressed is for everyone in Washington, D.C., to stop talking about the fake one. Here's the reality: The bomb is about to explode in the hands of its own maker. There is no disaster looming, only one created by the same Congress and the same president who are now voicing dire warnings about sequestration. The coming demise of federal programs is a manufactured problem, designed to meet the partisan needs of each side of the current debate.

Congress and the White House assert that $1.2 trillion must be cut from the federal budget over the next 10 years. This multiyear effort commences on Jan. 1, 2013, with $50 billion in cuts from the Defense Department and $70 billion from discretionary domestic programs. Everyone in Washington, D.C., including the pundits, has been creating increasingly apocalyptic visions of what will happen should these cuts occur.

It never had to be this way. There is currently $2 trillion in unexpended balances arrayed throughout the federal government for the current fiscal year. According to both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, $687 billion of these balances are completely unobligated.

Again, in 2012, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, and the 73 department and agency inspector general offices identified more than $650 billion in annual, ongoing waste. The vast majority of these findings, and the actions recommended to address them, have never been acted upon by either the executive or legislative branches.

Finally, there's the federal government's legendary and perpetually unaddressed inefficiency. Large private corporations, like Walmart, have at most five layers of management between their front line service personnel and top executives. The federal government has upwards of 23 layers.

Given these three facts, why are our political leaders saying that federal spending cannot be cut, and that they must have more of our earnings and wealth to make ends meet?

The sequestration cuts are a bogeyman, specifically designed to inflict as much damage as possible on American citizens. For example, 53 percent of the sequestration cuts within the Department of Education are within the Elementary & Secondary Education Act programs -- funds sent to states to supplement the salaries and hiring of teachers. The sequestration cuts 60.9 percent of these funds. That is why so many politicians and pundits are predicting massive teacher layoffs. Meanwhile, the sequestration targets only 4 percent of the Department of Education's headquarters budget. The bureaucrats wouldn't be missed, but they are safe. The teachers will be missed, and they are ground zero for cuts.

What should have been a serious management exercise has become a race to see who can paint the worst scenario should budget talks fail. Democrats cite the collapse of social services and education, while Republicans predict massive layoffs of defense contractors and the hollowing out of our military. Both sides predict chaos in the economy leading to a second recession.

Democrats won the election, so they are now in the best position to use this crisis that both parties manufactured. They are setting off a stampede for more tax revenue that Congress will probably just spend away anyway. Had Republicans won, they would probably be calling for ideologically focused spending cuts (like public broadcasting) to prevent the ruin of the military.

Congress and the White House designed the sequestration to wreak destruction on government services and the economy as a way to create a false sense of urgency for a substantive budget solution. Their plan, if it was a plan, has backfired.

Creating the Will for the Way

It is clearly time for Americans to stage an intervention to save our nation. The signs of addictive destructive behavior are everywhere. Denial and avoidance are wide spread. The evidence of dysfunction and its consequences are overwhelming.

Both Romney and Obama have asserted that Washington, DC cannot be changed from the inside. They are both right. Washington, DC is filled with a maze of revolving doors that link all branches of government to special interests, contractors, think tanks, lobbyists, academia, and the media. The inhabitants of this crony culture display hyper-partisanship to those outside the Capital Beltway, but work together, like lymph nodes, to isolate and eradicate common sense, accountability, and rational solutions.

The way forward has been known for decades. The will to move forward is simply not there.

Americans have a chance to stage an intervention in the remaining weeks of the 2012. They can demand real answers to real questions during the candidate debates that will occur at the Presidential, Congressional, state, and local levels over the coming weeks. Americans should make it clear that they will not vote for candidates, from either party, who dodge these questions or offer only pandering pablum.

Question One – Will you admit that there is a huge amount of waste in government? Will you admit that this waste is far more than the amounts required for balancing the budget?

Countless Inspector General and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have documented, in detail, that over $650 billion a year is wasted at the federal level. That is $6.5 trillion in savings over ten years – almost six times more than the feared sequestration and sixteen times more than was to be cut in the original 2011 budget/debt deal. Voters should scream the next time a government official or media pundit wrings their hands over how hard it is to cut spending or how the world will come to an end if one penny is removed.

Intervention is about forcing the subject to move past denial to confronting their problem. Everyone, across the political spectrum, needs to admit that there are numerous opportunities to substantially cut even their most favored government programs. Waste is waste. The political elite need to stop “blame-storming” about who is at fault and work together to immediately implement Inspector General and GAO recommendations. These $650+ billion in annual savings would make major strides in paying down our national debt.

Question Two – Will you develop tangible ways for normal citizens to have direct input into the running of their government?

Representative democracy ceased being representative years ago. That is the one common thread that spawned the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements. Pundits and politicians did everything they could to demonize both movements, making sure they did not join forces. A convergence of these protest movements could have changed America.

Direct input into our government, at all levels, can start with “crowd sourcing”. Corporate America embraced this early on in the social media revolution. New flavors, products, and Super Bowl ads are now being developed from structured “crowd sourcing”. Wikipedia and other websites realize that open input distills and organizes information far better and faster than waiting on individual scholars.

Why not have Congress and federal agencies establish crowd source websites where concerned citizens can identify and shape issues? This could move policy dialogue along far more efficiently than having tens of millions of disparate emails flood Congressional offices.

“Crowd sourcing” could also be used for budget cutting. In 1989, and four times since, Congress realized that it could not rise above the parochial interests of individual Members and turned to an outside process to close and consolidate obsolete military bases. The Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) has closed over 350 installations, saving tens of billions of dollars.

Why not create a “Budget BRAC”? The parochial interests of Members, and their collective hyper-partisan posturing, have rendered them incapable of stewarding public resources. Citizens could either identify what to cut or what to fund. A limited version of this was initiated by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Why not expand this good first step to the entire federal budget? It could either be an ongoing “crowd sourcing” exercise or an annual referendum tied to tax returns, like the Presidential Campaign fund check-off.

These basic questions, if asked, may result in enough elected officials “seeing the light”. Unless something changes, Americans will lose no matter who wins in November.

Deficit Disorder

The following was written for the History News Network.

http://hnn.us/articles/deficit-disorder

“We are heading for the fiscal cliff!” is the current warning in political circles. Unfortunately, Washington policy makers are like Wile-E-Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons – we are already over this fiscal cliff – but few people have looked down.


How did the Federal Government end up in this situation? How can we scramble back on to solid ground?

Both answers are complex and long term.
How did we end up over the fiscal cliff?

Our reality check starts with the progressive era [1877-1920]. The definitive book on this era is Robert H. Wiebe’s brilliant The Search of Order. His masterful work reviewed how and why the Progressive Movement began and then explains how this complex movement proceeded to shape the politics of the 20th century.

Wiebe discusses how President Woodrow Wilson formulated the “New Freedom” to bring together all the diverse interests and agendas of the emerging factions within the Progressive movement:

“Scarcely a significant question of the era did not fall somewhere within its scope, and no well-organized group was denied...the Democrats could take pride in a most dexterous management. The new majority had proved surprisingly sensitive to organized pressures from all sources, and the President had shown exceptional talent for administrative compromise, the essence of bureaucratic leadership.” [1]

Wiebe then writes:

“In Washington and in the major cities, executive direction was an accomplished fact by the war years [1914-1918]. Although many of the bureaus and departments of the progressive era had yet to define their functions precisely, they were at least entrenched. Nineteen sixteen marked “the completion of the federal scientific establishment” covering industry, agriculture, and an assortment of public services, and much the same was true of the basic regulatory mechanisms in both Federal and state governments” [2]

Wiebe summarizes the legacy of the era: “Progressivism contained an inherent expansive thrust, partly from its need for ever-broader legislation, partly from its all-conquering optimism, but even more from its faith in method. If the right technique guaranteed the right results, no problem, whatever the size and scope, could withstand its magic.” [3]

For those in the TEA Party who assert we must “reverse the last four years”, they need to realize that lasting governmental change requires addressing core dogma from the last 98 years.

The New Deal of the 1930s took the Progressives’ governmental expansionist concept even further. President Franklin Roosevelt instilled into the maturing Progressive movement his belief that “it was the permanent duty of modern government to exert its managerial hand in widespread places to regulate, compensate, and control, protecting the public interest and ensuring stability along with progress.” [4]. Amity Shlaes’ comprehensive history of the New Deal goes into even more detail on how the political culture of America fundamentally shifted toward institutionalized statism. [5]

This meant that Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the 1960s and Jimmy Carter’s domestic activism of the 1970s were simply logical outgrowths of an already solidly institutionalized core. Over the decades this righteous view for government activism was left in the hands of an ever larger and less accountable career bureaucracy. The idealism of the Progressives morphed into expanding governmental efforts regardless of results.

Johnson’s Great Society had one more legacy – entitlements. Except for Social Security, which is arguably a pension program based on designated contributions, Congress had to annually appropriate funds for all government activities. The Social Security Act of 1965 created Medicare and Medicaid as entitlements. This meant that federal funds are automatically allocated without Congressional action, based upon projected eligibility. This added a booster rocket to America’s journey over the fiscal cliff.

These stunning facts mean that the elements of the modern governmental culture had decades to grow, refine, and entrench themselves. To confront the reality of America’s modern bureaucratic state, now in its fourth generation, requires a long-term struggle.

No one election, or series of elections, will fully reverse this entrenched public sector culture. Conservatives and Republicans focus on tactical not strategic ends. These political players can achieve victories for or against various policies, but everything they do can be swept away with the next vote. Through it all the entrenched bureaucracy lives on. It was like a great ocean. The top may be turbulent and storms may churn the top few feet, but in the miles of water below these upper reaches, life goes on, unaffected. Few know what lies below these top few feet. Even less understand how institutionalized and embedded this core culture has become. Fewer still have the knowledge, or the stamina, to confront and vanquish it.

As a member of the Reagan Transition Team of 1980-81, I had a front row seat for viewing this phenomenon. Hundreds of conservative activists poured into the transition and then fanned-out into the agencies. Volumes of reports and recommendations lined the reference center at the Transition Headquarters. Major think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, published comprehensive manifestos and circulated them to the new elected and appointed officials. Conservative-focused revolutionary fervor permeated the air at every Washington cocktail party and political strategy meeting.

The sad reality is that an overwhelming number of those great ideas died in someone’s in box. Either a gatekeeper for a powerful agency head or a career head of a program simply ignored the input and decided to not pass it on. Not a one of these nameless public servants was ever held accountable for their acts of unilateral veto. Great political and policy minds spent the eight years of the Reagan Administration trying to figure out why their domestic revolution did not happen. To this day no one has fully analyzed how the failure to effectively plan and control administrative implementation contributed to its demise.

It will take a diverse group of committed revolutionaries to finally perfect methods of changing entrenched bureaucracies. Some of these successes were compiled by David Osborne in his groundbreaking book, Reinventing Government [6], and his follow-up book, Banishing Bureaucracy [7]. Yet, while citizens and public officials outside the Washington beltway have finally begun to rethink the role of government in their lives, and actually make substantive changes, the federal government remains unchanged. In Washington, only the names of the top officials and their rhetoric change. In the miles of bureaucratic ocean beneath them, the cycle of life continues as unaffected as ever.
How do we get back on solid ground?

Hyper-partisanship has created a level of government gridlock not seen since the days before the American Civil War. Even facts are created and filtered through a partisan prism.

All sides in this hyper-partisan environment refuse to cede credibility or rational thought to those with whom they disagree. Even those who seek a middle ground remain oblivious to the structural challenges that need to be overcome if America is to pull back from the fiscal precipice.

Budgeting is only part of governing. This was clear from the debt battles of 2011 and those that lie ahead. Those in the budget policy arena think that macro-level spending targets and pronouncements will turn things around. They forget that the operation of the Federal government is made-up of minute to minute micro-decisions made by over four million functionaries. [8] Winning their sincere commitment to reining in government spending and rationally managing public resources will only occur if they embrace a completely new approach to leading the Executive Branch.

The first step is to understand that most government workers want to be left alone. They will oppose any disruption of their daily routine in countless ways. The most insidious is “malicious compliance”. This is when a functionary takes policy or management guidance to a logical extreme with the intention of creating failure. This happens all the time. Front line service personnel are laid-off or deprived resources with the intention of causing the most pain for those directly impacted by government. This causes a public and/or media backlash against the cuts or reforms. The functionaries remain untouched and wait for their policy leaders in the Executive and Legislative Branches to “come to their senses” and retreat from the initiative in question.

Recently, “malicious compliance” combined with “street theater” as the National Park Service staged a small crisis to convince the public that budget cuts were already harming operations. During a tour at a National Park, the grass was not mowed in the tour area. The ranger conducting the tour repeatedly explained that this unsightly unmowed grass was because of recent budget cuts. Three days later the grass was perfectly mowed. There was no real budget issue, but a vivid visual was intentionally embedded in those on that tour.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently unearthed a government-wide effort at “malicious compliance”: “In total, the federal government is projected to end 2012 with more than $2 trillion in unexpended funds that will be carried over to next year, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. While more than two-thirds of this amount is obligated for specific purposes, $687 billion remains unobligated, meaning it is essentially money for nothing.” [9]

Remember that the next time Congressional leaders anguish over how to cut just $60 billion a year from the Federal Budget.

In addition to unexpended balances there are nearly $500 billion a year in waste documented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the 73 Inspector General offices [10]. Few, if any, of these thousands of detailed findings and recommendations are ever acted upon.

Remember that the next time a pundit talks about how any sized cut from a given program, department, or agency will cripple America.

Another aspect of government managerial dysfunction borders on malfeasance. This is the amount of inefficiency built into every endeavor.

Back in 1978, my Master’s thesis analyzed social expenditures for Native Americans on three reservations in northern Minnesota for FY77. In that fiscal year, the federal government poured $70,384,937 into these reservations on behalf of their 8,153 inhabitants. When all those funds rattled through the labyrinth of administrative layers and duplicative offices the Native Americans benefited at only $991 per capita, 11.5 percent of the original value. The rest had disappeared in administrative overhead, duplication of effort, and basic mismanagement. In essence, $62.3 million taxpayer dollars, 88.5 percent of the total, went to benefit government workers and contractors, not the Native Americans. The tribal leaders I interviewed described this phenomenon as “White Tape.” [11]

While some Federal programs may provide more than 11.5 percent of value for effort, it gives one pause about the stewardship of our public resources.

One would think that anyone truly supportive of a given program would be appalled that even one penny was squandered. The ugly truth is that politicians, across the ideological spectrum, would rather rally around sending good money after bad, than manage what they have.

Those who govern us need to be honest with us. Solving America’s fiscal problems is a matter of will, not way. Politicians and pundits need to admit that they really would rather have America wastefully spend itself into oblivion than to take on the unglamorous and very hard task of reforming government operations.

There is another way. A President could lead a top to bottom recreation of how government operates. This would not be another lengthy study that is ignored, but rather sending in fully empowered teams of skilled managers to immediately change things, real time, on an office by office, program by program, day by day, action-oriented basis. Their mandate would be the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) [12], which has been around since 1993 and has been routinely ignored. If properly enforced, and by preventing “malicious compliance”, GPRA can be the battering ram used by a President and his teams to fundamentally and permanently make over the Federal Government.

[Mr. Faulkner was Chief Administrative Officer for the U.S. House of Representatives and served as a federal executive during all eight years of the Reagan Administration.]

NOTES

[1] Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order 1877-1920. (Hill and Wang, New York, 1967), page 221. http://www.amazon.com/Search-Order-1877-1920-Robert-Wiebe/dp/0809001047/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345923643&sr=1-1&keywords=Robert+H.+Wiebe

[2] Ibid., pages 294-295.

[3] Ibid., page 198.

[4] Otis Graham, Jr., Toward A Planned Society; From Roosevelt to Nixon, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1977), page 21. http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Planned-Society-Roosevelt-Nixon/dp/0195019857/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345923613&sr=1-5&keywords=Otis+Graham%2C+Jr

[5] Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (Harper, New York, 2007) http://www.amazon.com/The-Forgotten-Man-History-Depression/dp/0066211700

[6] David Osborne, (Plume / Penguin Books, 1993) Reinventing Government: How The Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming The Public Sector http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Government-Enrepreneurial-Spirit-Transforming/dp/B000IWAV2C/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345923791&sr=1-4&keywords=David+Osborne+Reinventing+Government

[7] David Osborne, Banishing Bureaucracy (Plume / Penguin Books, 2005). http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=David+Osborne+Banishing+Bureaucracy

[8] http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

[9] http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=612f09e3-e950-480e-84f8-1e54d2e6bc30

[10] http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-budget-inferno.html

[11] Scot Faulkner, unpublished manuscript: “The Government Labyrinth: The Delivery of Indian Social Programs in the Seventh District of Minnesota”; American University, March 1978.

[12] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/index-gpra

Life after the Super Committee

My column regarding the Super Committee and what Congress can do now was published in the

New York Daily News on November 28, 2011.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fight-cut-debt-target-rampant-federal-waste-article-1.982076

The Congressional supercommittee’s failure to eliminate $1.2 trillion in federal debt has launched a new round of “blamestorming” as both Republicans and Democrats brace for the automatic cuts that are set to begin in 2013.

Some perspective and focus are desperately needed. For while indiscriminate cutting may be unwise, it is simply mythical to insist, as some do, that there isn’t room to massively reduce the size of government.

To the contrary, Washington’s fiscal garden is overgrown from decades of negligence. In recent decades political gamesmanship from across the political spectrum has led our federal government to decline into a weed-infested jungle. The way back to proper public horticulture is not new taxes, which would only fertilize the culture of waste and dysfunction. It is also not through heavy handed cuts, as a general herbicide would kill even the fruit bearing plants.

The first step is to identify the weeds. The Government Accountability Office and 73 inspector general offices are filled with investigators and accountants who identify waste, fraud and abuse. Their exhaustive reports track to specific programs, offices and contracts and treasury account numbers — and identify billions of dollars in cost-cutting opportunities.

Yet they are routinely ignored. As a result of this neglect, the amount of documented waste has remained at a consistent 20% of the federal appropriated budget since first complied by the Grace Commission in the 1980s.

President Obama’s proposed appropriated outlays for FY 2012 are $1.34 trillion. That means $268 billion a year is potential waste. Ten years of eradicating waste and sustaining cost avoidance would result in $2.68 trillion in savings, more than double the savings mandated in this summer’s debt deal.

Instead of partisan bickering, our elected officials should review these GAO/IG reports and listen to the staff who wrote them. They should conduct “sweat the details” management reviews. Waste is waste no matter which party’s flag flies over the executive branch.

Simultaneously, Congress should do something it has not done in years, whether under Republican or Democratic control: conduct aggressive oversight and link funding to functionality. Zero-based budgeting has existed since 1969. Sunset provisions have been built into legislation since the 1970s. The Government Performance and Results Act, which holds programs and agencies accountable for actually doing something of value, was enacted in 1993. Eliminating programs and offices based upon audit findings can happen if the will is there.

America’s overgrown fiscal garden is also filled with a bloated bureaucracy. Walmart, the world’s largest corporation, has just five layers of management between its checkout clerks and the CEO. There are 12 layers of managers between a park ranger and the Secretary of Interior. There are 21 layers of management between the person handling TRICARE medical benefits and the Secretary of Defense.

The entrenched interests of Washington, including turf-conscious Members of Congress, play a cynical game of eliminating frontline service personnel and services instead of wiping out the many layers of people whose sole purposes are attending useless meetings and writing unread reports.

The front line is where voters feel pain. When the cry goes up, federal officials say, “see — that is why we can’t touch this program.” It’s a fallacy.

During my time in Washington, we proved budget cutting is possible. At the General Services Administration, a reform team cross-walked Inspector General reports to dysfunctional programs and offices, applied private sector logic to eradicating management layers and linked attrition, retirements and a hiring freeze to reduce the GSA’s workforce from 34,000 to 20,000 in three years. This was a 41% reduction — yet system integrity, processing time, and operational efficiency skyrocketed.

As Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, we reduced 12 layers of managers down to two and reduced my operations staff by 47.5% in 15 months. Again, services improved along with efficiency.

In each case, real sustainable management reform required hard work, not just issuing news releases. Like a gardener who gets his or her hands dirty by handling individual plants and pulling weeds, legislative and executive branch officials need to do the mundane, but vital, tasks of actually understanding operations and management.
The reason they do not do this is that it is laborious, not glamorous. Our current political culture does not reward results. Maybe enough voters will finally change this culture in November 2012.

[Faulkner served in executive appointments during the Reagan administration and as chief administrative officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.]

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fight-cut-debt-target-rampant-federal-waste-article-1.982076#ixzz283pmTzKg

Grassroots

Today was the filing deadline for local candidates in West Virginia. As with every election cycle local activists were busy calling and meeting with potential candidates to make sure there were contested races for all positions on the ballot.

This is the essence of our democracy. Finding normal citizens who desire to make a contribution to their community by running for and then serving in local offices. These are the unglamourous jobs of tax assessor, county commissioner, sheriff, and other such positions that serve our communities.

The presidential and congressional races may dominate the evening news and the blogs, but local government impacts our daily lives more completely and fundamentally than all the egos in Washington, DC. Step back and remember who picks up our trash, runs our sewer plants, plows our streets, and answers our calls for help.

The recent $44.3 million scandal in the District of Columbia’s tax assessor’s office is a reminder of the importance of electing professional and ethical local officials. When people ask me what can be done to clean-up our politics I always say, “start at the local level”. It is at this level that an individual can truly make a difference and lead tangible and sustainable change.

We tend to forget that America is a federal system for a reason. The basis for our independence from Great Britain was the fact that the thirteen colonies had developed viable local governments and legislatures. This bulwark of local democracy was written into our Constitution. Numerous passages in that document and throughout the Federalist Papers echo this theme of preserving local government. Government should be close to the people. It governs best when it is closest to the need. Only when an issue or threat rises to a national or international level should a national government enter into the equation.

This is quite opposite from the current administration and most Washington politicians. For them the tenth amendment’s limitation on national government is dated and should be ignored. Every minor issue, even personal tragedies, are fodder for national debate and legislation. The drive is for elvating issues to the naitonal level in order to get their faces infront of the cameras. They forget that such selfish actions undermine the basics of our democracy and the protections we have against tyranny.

Another factor in local government is that so much of it is just about good management and integrity. There is no “Republican” or “Democratic” way to collect trash. It is all about being responsive to the needs of the citizenry, capably steward public funds, and assuring that public discourse and decisions follow proper processes.

In this environment voters easily cross party lines and vote for the best candidate without fear of upsetting some national balance of power. Realizing that the best candidate for a local office may be from the other party is liberating. It reaffirms that we are all Americans first and a party member second. Those local officials who rise to congressional seats should remember this basic truism when they enter the Washington arena.

Political Hams & Hotdogs

The following was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/8/political-hams-and-hot-dogs/

The latest polls show Americans' confidence in Congress at an all-time low. Gallup's 14 percent rating is 4 points below the 18 percent that ended the Democratic Party's 40-year hold on Congress in 1994, and 5 points below the 19 percent that drove the GOP from power in 2006.

These indicate starkly that both parties disappoint Americans. This new low transcends specific issues, like the Iraq war. Gallup began tracking confidence in Congress in May 1973. That means Congress weathered the Vietnam War, Watergate, recessions and gas lines while maintaining higher voter confidence. The new low underscores major institutional weaknesses in how Congress conducts itself in the 21st century.

It has long been said that, "No man should see how laws or sausages are made." In my years of performance consulting I have, in fact, seen sausages made. At the world's leading hot dog factories, you see prime cuts of meat being processed in a clean and efficient environment operated by dedicated professionals devoted to quality assurance. I devour hot dogs knowing the integrity of these producers' brands is at stake with every bite.

It is, therefore, dismaying that Congress does not share the same concern about brand integrity as hot dog producers. Instead of a sausage factory, the House projects the image of a huge freshman dorm on a college campus. Everyone is adjusting to living away from home for the first time. Just like college freshmen, they mess around all term and then pull all-nighters to get the minimal work done. Occasionally, they even seek extensions. Look at the end of any congressional session. After many recesses House members will stay in round the clock to complete their work, and then pass a continuing resolution to avoid approving a real budget.

Just like a freshman dorm, the House is a mix: party animals, druggies, slackers, social climbers, jocks, idealists, activists and scholars. During my years as a House staffer and as its chief administrative officer, I encountered nearly half of members and staff displaying some form of addictive behavior including ego, power, greed, sex, drugs and alcohol.

In particular, freshman members and almost all staff can get away with anything, and do. The national media have no interest in the addictions of these small fry. They, therefore, develop an air of invincibility and unaccountability that carries them through their careers. Their lifestyle choices may only catch up with them if they aspire to a major policy position.

This dysfunction was borne out by the dozens of members attending the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs I managed, and the documents I signed each week relating to legal actions against them. These documents, as many as 50 a week, included bankruptcies, garnishment of wages and court orders relating to not paying alimony and child support.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed its legislative branch appropriations. House members spent an hour discussing the naming of the overblown Capitol Visitor's Center, debating whether culinary school students should practice in the Members' Dining Room and bickering over turf with the House Administration Committee. There was also much posturing over how "green" to make the House's operations.

There was no mention of finding ways to open Congress to the public. Official House Web sites reveal virtually no movement toward new technologies to expand citizen engagement. Where are the podcasts of hearings? Where are the blogs for oversight? It is impossible to e-mail some committee staffs. Many members block e-mails from outside their districts. How is a concerned citizen to gain the attention of a national advocate on their particular issue?

The answer to these questions is the same since the Continental Congress. You can write a letter to a member or work through a lobbyist. I once wrote a member about preserving a Civil War battlefield and got inundated with letters on veterans' benefits.

Members are not listening or paying attention to what is happening. Congress has not learned a thing from the voter rebellions of 1994 and 2006. It is not just time for new blood and third parties but to rethink how we make representative government work in the 21st century.