Government Bureaucracy and its Effects

[mugaliens]

There's a good eye-opener going around the Internet. Normally I refrain from reposting them, but this one rang bells with the recent cutbacks at NASA while janitors and groundskeepers were left untouched because of the "needed" jobs:

Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"

So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, an Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year, and we are $918,000 over budget. We must cut back." So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let that sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY... during the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line: We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready?? It was very simple . . . and, at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

AND, NOW, IT'S 2011 -- 34 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

A little over 34 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, yes -- the good old Federal bureaucracy!

NOW, WE HAVE TURNED THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Hello! Anybody Home?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

DOE does a lot of fundamental science funding and nuclear weapons/nonproliferation work. There's no doubt that there's waste in it, but your post doesn't give a lot of constructive suggestions... what would you propose be cut?

Department of Energy budget breakdown:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/Content/FY2012Highlights.pdf

National Nuclear Security Administration: $11.7 B
Weapons Activities: $7.6 B
Defense Nuclear Noproliferation: $2.5 B
Naval Reactors: $1.1 B
Office of the Administrator: $0.4 B

Energy: $4.2 B
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: $3.2 B
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: $0.2 B
Fossil Energy: $0.5 B
Nuclear Energy: $0.8 B

Science: $5.4 B

Energy Transformation Acceleration Fund: $0.5 B

Corporate Mgmt: $0.3 B

Credit Programs: $0.2 B

 

[FlexGunship]

I believe the point is not a criticism of the actual department, but rather the way in which government seems to grow "naturally." The original seed idea was targeted and had a relatively small scope but grew (out of control??) over time.

The closing idea was that we seem not to have learned from this. We have "TURNED THE BANKING SYSTEM [...] OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT" (from the original quote) and the criticism is that the department in charge of it will grow over time slowly exceeding its originally intended purpose and further burdening the economy.

Fundamentally, the point is valid. The question is whether or not you think a "naturally-growing" government is a good thing or a bad thing.

EDIT: Perhaps the appropriate answer to your question, Mech_Engineer, is not which part to cut, but rather to close down the DOE and start with a new department which has the original task of monitoring "weapons activities."

DOUBLE EDIT: It's not an absurd idea, really. It should be possible to look at something like this and admit: "Woah, okay, so that didn't work. Scratch it and start over." It doesn't mean the actual tasks need to go away, but the DOE (as per the example given) is obviously an example of government growth out of control (for better or worse).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Let's also not forget the elephant in the room:

Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security paid $1.5 Trillion last year, the Department of Energy's budget is approximately 2% of that. Do you think there's more than 2% of fraud/waste in those two behemoths? We paid $200B in just interest on our loans in 2010... maybe we should do something about that?

It seems to me the DOE or NASA isn't the problem, but merely reprentative of the problem. I believe government should be drastically shrunk, but across the board not just DOE or NASA or DOD while ignoring the welfare state problem.

 

[mugaliens]

Let's also not forget the elephant in the room:

Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security paid $1.5 Trillion last year, the Department of Energy's budget is approximately 2% of that. Do you think there's more than 2% of fraud/waste in those two behemoths? We paid $200B in just interest on our loans in 2010... maybe we should do something about that?

It seems to me the DOE or NASA isn't the problem, but merely reprentative of the problem. I believe government should be drastically shrunk, but across the board not just DOE or NASA or DOD while ignoring the welfare state problem.

Good points.

On one front, it's sort of difficult to cut folks off after they've settled into a modest retirement promised them throughout the 20 to 50 years they worked for it. There's no need to add to the burden, though, and government retirement programs are not paid from any invested funds. They're paid from the current tax base. I'm all for converting government retirement programs to "pay as you go" investment programs such as 401k and IRAs, and perhaps matching funds would be a way to encourage it. It might even be possible to mandate payment, while allowing the individuals to choose the financial instruments of their choice.

DOE does a lot of fundamental science funding and nuclear weapons/nonproliferation work. There's no doubt that there's waste in it, but your post doesn't give a lot of constructive suggestions... what would you propose be cut?

Department of Energy budget breakdown:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/Content/FY2012Highlights.pdf

Energy: $4.2 B
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: $3.2 B
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: $0.2 B
Fossil Energy: $0.5 B
Nuclear Energy: $0.8 B

(note this is the middle portion only)

So, on another front, it's difficult to argue any necessity for the DOE when it's mandate was to reduce reliance on foreign oil, when that reliance was 30% at it's inception, while today that reliance is at 70%. I'd call that a FAIL. Is the $3.2 B they spend actually building windfarms and solar power plants? Or is it being spent on "research?"

I agree with you they either move nuclear security into another department (Homeland Security, anyone?) or at least break it out into it's own, separate department.

 

[Ronnin]

This all sounds like a really good case for zero based budgeting. There is no reason why a department (at least every few years) must rejustify every dollar being allocated to it. With regards to entitlements, I believe the very same concept could be applied there as well.

 

[BobG]

Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

At least this part of the article presents an honest picture about how serious a person should take this story. I don't go for those type of arguments. They create a fairy tale and then the reader should be astounded that the federal government in the fairy tale could be so stupid. And I guess that somehow, by the end of the story, the reader is supposed to believe/think/feel that the fairy tale is actually a true story about our federal government?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So, on another front, it's difficult to argue any necessity for the DOE when it's mandate was to reduce reliance on foreign oil, when that reliance was 30% at it's inception, while today that reliance is at 70%. I'd call that a FAIL.

Is the DOE responsible for past and current legislation which prevents drilling for domestic oil? If not, should they be held responsible for the outcome despite the cause?

 

[Gokul43201]

IT [the DOE] HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!

Well, do you actually have an idea of the job it has done?

Research and Development
DOE manages fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and computational science and is the Federal Government's largest single provider of funds for materials and chemical sciences.
...
Ensuring the supply of radio isotopes
Radio Isotopes have become key agents in the diagnosis and effective treatment of various cancers, heart disease and other medical problems. DOE programs ensure the availability of an adequate supply of medical and research isotopes, which is essential to the Nation's health care system.

The DOE has been responsible for incremental, as well as landmark developments in the sciences, from mapping the genome to developing modern electronics. Every year, Research & Development Magazine announces it top 100 science and tech innovations of the year. Last year, nearly half of those 100 came from DOE Labs. And that's not an atypical year from the DOE.

It's one thing to say that the DOE is now operating in areas far beyond its initial charter. It's is a completely different (and ignorant) thing to say that they've done nothing.

Sources:
http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/accomplishments/discovery.html
http://www.energy.gov/sciencetech/index.htm
http://www.rdmag.com/Awards/RD-100-Awards/2010/07/R-D-100-2010-Winners-Overview/

 

[mugaliens]

And I guess that somehow, by the end of the story, the reader is supposed to believe/think/feel that the fairy tale is actually a true story about our federal government?

It's pretty close, Bob.

Well, do you actually have an idea of the job it has done?

Actually, yup.

The DOE has been responsible for incremental, as well as landmark developments in the sciences...

Are they really worth, individually, or even collectively, the billions spent on their budget?

The whole point of my contention is that if you look at all a department's producibles over the years, and apportion 100% of that department's budget to each producible, I think you'll find departments like the DOE are so exhorbantly and ridiculously expensive it's not even funny.

My favorite agency to bust is the Department of Education. Although it remained an office until 1953, it remained under the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare until 1979, nearing my high school graduation, when it was elevated to it's own cabinet-level status, whereup it's budget grew logrithmically, while America's education status was rapidly eclipsed by other countries whose corresponding departments of education did NOT rise logrithmically, had never been anywhere near that of ours, and remains far below ours.

Examining this, one of my favorite links, I cannot, for the life of me, possibly fathom the fruits of the ED's budge attaining anywhere near even 10% of worth compared to what they've been given. I was raised long before they attained national recognition, attended schools, many of whom shunned their efforts, and who simply did the basics: Reading, writing, and arithmetic. In addtion, my schools did a wonderful job of fostering students' inquisitiveness, fostering exploration, creativity, etc. The great expansionism of the 80s and 90s resulted. The INTERNET resulted from efforts I first noticed in high school, back in the late '70s. While in college, I had access to databases on the Darpanet. In 1985, I began one eBBS as co-admins with a friend, and quickly joined another as an administrator. I graduated, went on to other things, and when the Darpanet graduated into the Internet, I tagged along, and quickly because an admin or mod on various groups (I voluntarialy bypassed usenet - way too much unmoderable and unsufferable content).

So, over times and trials, I'm back here as a user.

So WHAT does this have to do with the "price of tea in China," as would ask "Dr." aka Mr. Neal, my fifth grade teacher, who gave me this onerous assignment after acting out in class back around 1973?

Well, I'd acted out in class, and he'd told me on Friday that by Monday I had to come up with a 2,000 word report on the price of tea in China. On Monday I delivered a 2,000+ word report on the economic aspects of worldwide tea and China's origination thereof and the worldwide propogation of not only tea, but spice propogation, and the beginning's of worldwide commerce up through "modern" aka17th century economics, which took on glaring overtones afterwords.

Two days later I found myself in the gifted program. (rolls eyes).

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, yup.

Well, if you did, you couldn't possibly agree that they've done very little.

In the past decade, there have probably been about fifty recipients of the Nobel Prizes for Physics and Chemistry worldwide. Over twenty of them won the prize for work performed at a DOE facility, or funded by it. The DOE plays no small part in keeping the US a world leader in Science and Technology.

One reasonably straightforward way of giving up that spot would be by eliminating the DOE. Go for it!

Are they really worth, individually, or even collectively, the billions spent on their budget?

I don't know. I'm sure I will find plenty of waste if I dig around. I'm surer still that I'll find the same or more, in virtually every other cabinet department.

The whole point of my contention is that if you look at all a department's producibles over the years, and apportion 100% of that department's budget to each producible, I think you'll find departments like the DOE are so exhorbantly and ridiculously expensive it's not even funny.

So you have a good idea of the extent of the output from the DOE over the years? Could you give us a summary?

In my opinion, the DOE couldn't hold a candle to the DOD in a "not even funny" competition.

 

[Al68]

At least this part of the article presents an honest picture about how serious a person should take this story. I don't go for those type of arguments. They create a fairy tale and then the reader should be astounded that the federal government in the fairy tale could be so stupid. And I guess that somehow, by the end of the story, the reader is supposed to believe/think/feel that the fairy tale is actually a true story about our federal government?

In this case, the fairy tale obviously pales in comparison to the real thing. Reminds me of the old line "truth is stranger than fiction".

 

[m k]

Govt. funding, now.

Anybody care to explain the situation?
Money seems to be running out and dudes are nitpicking?
Tea party in the house?

Should I buy or sell?

 

[Pythagorean]

Education and science are possibly the most important things to develop once a country is surviving.

Foreign military "outreach" and bad economic strategies on the other hand, seem to be where a lot of money gets absorbed.

Instead of education and science, we just put a lot of citizens in jail and try to make a market out of that instead. We can even get cameraman to follow our enforcers around and make a fun game out of it. "Look at them beat, mace, and spray the perp!"

Whereas you'll be bored to death by the British version of cops.

So in summary:

education, science, energy, defense... yes
war, crime, Wall Street... no

 

[Al68]

Education and science are possibly the most important things to develop once a country is surviving.

I'd say while those are both important, economic freedom tops the list. That's how wealth and prosperity are created.

That's how the U.S. became prosperous, passing up the rest of the world. And it's how much of the rest of the world caught back up.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The DOE wasn't created out of whole cloth- all it did was unify existing organizations. Before the DOE there was a department that regulated nuclear power (the nuclear regulatory commission) and a department that oversaw research and development of energy projects (which included watching the weapons).

While the energy crisis did lead to Carter putting those two departments together, under the now DOE, the mandates from both original department survived. In short- the DOE was never solely about getting us off foreign oil. It was about regulating nuclear power, watching over nuclear weapons, and doing scientific research at the energy frontier, some of which had to do with power generation. This is why the DOE manages Fermilab, for instance. Has it strayed from its mandate a bit? Probably- maybe the human genome project should sit under the NIH. Has it strayed very far? Not so much.

If you want to talk about government spending- its not social security, its not the DOE or other science spending, etc. None of this is break the budget. HEALTH CARE is breaking the budget. The tea partiers don't seem to understand that the biggest LONG TERM deficit reducer is the health care bill.

I'd say while those are both important, economic freedom tops the list. That's how wealth and prosperity are created...That's how the U.S. became prosperous, passing up the rest of the world.

How are you defining economic freedom? The longest, largest expansion of the US economy was the post-WW2 boom (when we passed up the rest of the world). We were post New-Deal, and for the entire boom, the top marginal tax rate was 90% while we paid off war debt.

 

[WhoWee]

If you want to talk about government spending- its not social security, its not the DOE or other science spending, etc. None of this is break the budget. HEALTH CARE is breaking the budget. The tea partiers don't seem to understand that the biggest LONG TERM deficit reducer is the health care bill.

Given the OP, trusting healthcare to the "Gubmint" will result in nurse (or Dr?) layoffs.

 

[BobG]

Given the OP, trusting healthcare to the "Gubmint" will result in nurse (or Dr?) layoffs.

And that would be a sign of improved productivity, right? Doing more with less? Or bureaucracy crowding out the productive parts?

Which is it when private companies layoff employees?

Unlike competition, U.S. values profits over jobs

Which is it when health costs rise? Decreased productivity is increasing the costs? Or new tools and better marketing increasing the number of services people will buy?

Not to take a stand either way, since I think the benefits/disadvantages of the health care bill will have little effect on health care costs, but the number of workers might be a misleading gauge.

 

[WhoWee]

And that would be a sign of improved productivity, right? Doing more with less? Or bureaucracy crowding out the productive parts?

Which is it when private companies layoff employees?

Unlike competition, U.S. values profits over jobs

Which is it when health costs rise? Decreased productivity is increasing the costs? Or new tools and better marketing increasing the number of services people will buy?

Not to take a stand either way, since I think the benefits/disadvantages of the health care bill will have little effect on health care costs, but the number of workers might be a misleading gauge.

I do know of one area where the healthcare bill is affecting cuts - some carriers have reduced the commission structure of it's sales agents.:uhh: