On KSM and Stimulus Pork

I just watched yesterday's Meet the Press, and have comments on two issues that were raised.

First, David Gregory's pet topic: is the civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a sham? I won't mince words: I believe that it is, because there is no way an acquittal leads to KSM's release. That said, this is ultimately a thought experiment, because they will play by the book and likely get a conviction (Joe Biden is sure, at least). So I wonder why no one has tried the following talking point to answer David Gregory's question:

DG: Is this trial a sham or will you release KSM if he is acquitted?

Response: He will not be acquitted because our evidence is too strong; this case is a slam dunk. Engaging your thought experiment, though, an acquittal would surely implicate systemic failure in the intelligence-gathering mechanism of the prior administration. The rule of law is the source of America's greatness, and should he be acquitted, we would be forced to comply with any resulting legal obligations. That said, to win the war on terror America must truly be as a City upon a Hill, and if we act within our Constitution, your hypothetical scenario will forever remain a thought experiment and never a real debate.

Second, the issue of stimulus funds. In the State of the Union, President Obama criticized Republicans for campaigning by claiming that they voted against stimulus money while at the same time garnering good will by going to ribbon cutting parties for stimulus projects. Rachel Maddow, who is almost always incredibly impressive, stated this remark again on Meet the Press. It sounds good, but only at first. The problem, of course, is that it ignores the fact that passage of the stimulus was a sunk cost. Once the bill passed, it made no sense for any congressman to actually turn down his/her district's share of the funds, because those funds were getting spent anyway. So, to criticize accepting funds that would otherwise just be spent on another district is to criticize good representation of your constituents, once you've already lost on principle. Obama and Maddow are phrasing the issue as if the Republicans are hypocritical here, but the case doesn't really hold up. Why not just go after the more accurate ways in which Republicans are hypocritical?? There are tons!

Government Waste

The President recently proposed a "budget freeze" on many aspects of government agency expenditure. Living in DC and working for the federal government provides me a unique and inside perspective on how government agencies actually work. From my perspective, there is one major problem with government agencies that creates unusually large problems: the hiring structure within agencies is designed to reward tenure with the government, without recognition of achievement. I believe that solving this problem can eliminate billions of dollars of waste with little to no negative impact to society.

First, it is important to realize that firing government workers is VERY difficult. Whether this is the relic of a bygone era of workforce management where employees are essentially hired for life, the result of the high amount of unionized labor in government, or some other explanation I haven't discovered, ultimately the fact of the matter is that federal government jobs are considered perhaps the safest jobs of all. This, in and of itself, has benefits. It is a great selling point for the federal government, which cannot match private industry salaries but still wants to compete for top talent. Additionally, it prevents new administrations from completely gutting and restaffing agencies upon election, which could result in very partisan federal agencies designed not to serve core agency goals, but to achieve personal presidential or party goals (some would argue that this occurs anyway, though).

Second, it is important to realize that government workers are judged not on achievement, but on longevity. Read any USAJobs job posting and you can see that for the vast majority of openings, the only hard job prerequisite is 1+ years of experience at a lower GS level than that of the job vacancy. There are other factors that will be evaluated subjectively (on infamous "KSAs" where you describe your relevant Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities), but as anyone who has ever read a resume will know, such subjective measures are very hard to take at face value due to exaggeration. Further, performance reviews are essentially meaningless. As I have seen from personal experience and from conversations with other friends in government agencies, managers often do not take such reviews seriously. In addition, I know firsthand that often managers are not allowed (by upper management) to give particularly good reviews either. Finally, there is a significant amount of red tape involved in hiring a new employee from outside the federal government. So much so, in fact, that often bringing someone from the outside results in having to wait a number of months before they can begin working, whereas promotion from within the federal government can be processed in a matter of days. So, these factors in conjunction essentially set up a situation in which the only concrete qualification of a potential candidate for hire within government is longevity with the federal government, since actual merit is not meaningfully ever measured and outside hiring is unusually difficult.

So, if government employment is essentially guaranteed for life and hiring is essentially made on the basis of longevity, the inescapable result is that agency leaders are simply those who have been there the longest, not those who are actually the best leaders. This problem has three cascading effects resulting in huge amounts of government waste:

1: When hiring decisions are made along lines of longevity (or "loyalty" as some generously call it), it eliminates actual incentives to produce quality work. The pareto principle states essentially that 80% of effects come from 20% of the causes. In the federal government, this is often re-stated as 20% of the people do 80% of the work. However, when every worker is rewarded identically based upon longevity, then there is actually a significant incentive not to do particularly much. So breeds the idea of the lazy government employee. Everyone in DC can give anecdotal accounts of probably 4 or 5 people they know who make six figure salaries in the federal government as literally do NOTHING. If we simply fired these employees or could find way to hold them accountable, we could essentially eliminate $500,000/year of waste for nothing.

2: High-achieving employees are driven into the private sector. While a lack of recognition of achievement causes some to simply stop achieving, it causes others to find jobs where their contribution is recognized. Perversely, this has the effect of outsourcing the best employees out of government jobs, and to retain primarily those employees who do not mind underachieving.

3: The agency leaders we are left with are often those who did not have a particular problem with this incentive structure. They are usually not particularly capable or ambitious with regard to achieving agency goals. As a result, we often have leaders who prefer the status quo (which is predictable, stable, and much less work) to reform, regardless of whether reform is actually smart or would eliminate waste.

Not sure that any of that was particularly insightful or unknown, but it was definitely cathartic to write. =)